CNUT

THE GREAT
Also in the Yale English Monarchs Series
ÆTHELSTAN by Sarah Foot
EDWARD THE CONFESSOR by Frank Barlow WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR by David Bates
WILLIAM RUFUS by Frank Barlow HENRY I by Warren Hollister KING STEPHEN by Edmund King
HENRY II by W. L. Warren*
RICHARD I by John Gillingham KING JOHN by W. L. Warren*
EDWARD I by Michael Prestwich EDWARD II by Seymour Phillips EDWARD III by W. M. Ormrod
RICHARD II by Nigel Saul HENRY IV by Chris Given-Wilson HENRY V by Christopher Allmand
HENRY VI by Bertram Wolffe EDWARD IV by Charles Ross RICHARD III by Charles Ross HENRY
VII by S. B. Chrimes HENRY VIII by J. J. Scarisbrick EDWARD VI by Jennifer Loach MARY I by John
Edwards
JAMES II by John Miller
QUEEN ANNE by Edward Gregg GEORGE I by Ragnhild Hatton GEORGE II by Andrew C. Thompson
GEORGE III by Jeremy Black GEORGE IV by E. A. Smith
* Available in the U.S. from University of California Press
Copyright © 2017 Timothy Bolton
All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying
permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press)
without written permission from the publishers.

For information about this and other Yale University Press publications, please contact: U.S. Office:
[email protected] yalebooks.com
Europe Office: [email protected] yalebooks.co.uk

Set in Baskerville by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd
Printed in Great Britain by Gomer Press Ltd, Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Bolton, Timothy.
Title: Cnut the Great / Timothy Bolton.
Description: New Haven : Yale University Press, 2017.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016046797 | ISBN 9780300208337 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Canute I, King
of England, 995?–1035. | Great Britain—History—Canute, 1017–1035. | Great Britain—Kings and rulers—
Biography. | Denmark—Kings and rulers—Biography. | Norway—Kings and rulers—Biography. | Danes—
England—History.
Classification: LCC DA160 .B649 2017 | DDC 942.01/81092 [B] —dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016046797

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 This book is dedicated to the memory of my dear friend Raymond
Ian Page (1924–2012), who taught me that with warmth and charm
our shared traits of pedantry and curmudgeonliness can be powerful
tools rather than social drawbacks.
 CONTENTS

LIST OF PLATES
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
MAPS

Introduction

1 Cnut’s Childhood and Youth: The Beginnings of a Conqueror

2 The Invasions of England in 1013 and 1016
3 The Early Years of Rule in England
4 The Rise to Dominance over Scandinavia
5 Cnut and the Field of European Politics
6 The Period of Mature Rule in England and Scandinavia
7 The Aftermath of Cnut’s Death

Conclusion

APPENDIX I: THE STORY OF CNUT AND THE WAVES

APPENDIX II: CONCORDANCE OF CHARTERS CITED IN THIS VOLUME
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
 PLATES

1. Cnut and Emma present the cross to the New Minster, Winchester, in the
New Minster Liber Vitae: London, British Library, Stowe MS. 944, fol. 6r ©
The British Library Board.
2. Detail of the confraternity additions to the Christ Church, Canterbury,
Gospel Book, now London, British Library, Royal MS. 1 D. IX, fol. 43r ©
The British Library Board.
3. Emma receiving the Encomium Emmae Reginae from the author, while her
two sons look on, the frontispiece of London, British Library, Additional
MS. 33,241, fols. 1v–2r © The British Library Board.
4. The obverse and reverse of the carved wooden pencase lid from Lund
inscribed with the English name ‘Leofwine’, Kulturen, Lund, no.
53436:1125. Reproduced with the permission of Kulturen, Lund.
5. Cnut’s appearance in the Miracula Heriberti in London, British Library,
Additional MS. 26,788, fol. 64v © The British Library Board.
6. The London Ringerike Tombstone, found in 1852 during the digging of
foundations for a warehouse on the south side of St Paul’s Churchyard, now
Guildhall Museum 4075. Reproduced with the permission of the Museum of
London.
7. Drawing of the gilt bronze mount with Ringerike-style decoration, excavated
in Winchester Cathedral. From Fuglesang, Some Aspects, no. 54, and drawn
by that author. Reproduced here with her permission.
8. London, British Library, Additional MS. 40,000, fol. 10r, the eleventh-
century entries of the Thorney Liber Vitae © The British Library Board.
9. London, British Library, Cotton Augustus ii 90, a vernacular charter
recording Harold Harefoot on his deathbed © The British Library Board.
 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The student of medieval manuscripts has often the words of John Cotgrave in
mind: ‘That the reading of many Books is wearinesse to the flesh, when there
were none but Manuscripts in the world: How much is that wearinesse increased
since the Art of printing has so infinitely multiplyed large and vast volums in
every place that the longest life of a man is not sufficient to explore so much as
the substance of them.’1 Having produced in 2009 a monograph that studied the
mechanisms by which Cnut the Great came to power in England and
Scandinavia in the first few decades of the eleventh century, I accepted the offer
of Yale University Press to write this book, and find myself now offering the
reader a similarly lengthy biography of him. I think that one must have good
reason to foist two books or more on the world, and especially so if their subjects
are so close to each other. Thus, I beg the indulgence of my readers one more
time, and give them my solemn promise that there will not be a third book on
Cnut from me.
In 2009 I faced a crucial challenge when writing in English about historical
figures from both England and Scandinavia in that, as I said then, ‘it is difficult
to select a consistent principle by which these names should be spelt. Anglicised
spellings, whether modern or medieval, often distort Scandinavian names so that
they become almost unintelligible to a modern reader of Scandinavian history
(and certainly to those in linguistic fields such as Old Norse or skaldic verse),
and likewise the use of normalized Old Norse or modern Scandinavian forms
garbles Anglo-Saxon names.’2 This problem has not gone away in the
subsequent years, and indeed to me seems to have become worse, as I have come
to realize that to follow Campbell in his edition of the Encomium Emmae
Reginae and use normalized Old Norse spellings for Danes and Swedes is to
force East Norse names into badly fitting West Norse forms, which again garble
such names nearly to the point of unintelligibility.3 Thus, again I propose to
‘follow the convention that seems to me to make the most sense for the readers:
in that, the names of the majority of the historical figures are given here
according to the geographical spheres in which they were most active, with
Scandinavian skalds’ names appearing in their normalized Old Norse form and
Anglo-Saxon statesmen in the accepted English form’. To this I will now add
that most figures with lives spent predominantly in Denmark or Sweden will
appear here in their Old Danish or Old Swedish forms as laid out by Peterson,
Nordiskt Runnamnslexikon.4 As before, certain cases such as Scandinavians who
arrived with Cnut and spent most, if not all, of their careers in England, and
those who spent their time between the two regions, demand individual
treatment. Thus, the former will appear as in English records with various
Anglicized spellings, and in addition Cnut, Harthacnut, Harold Harefoot and
Thorkell the Tall will appear as here. Furthermore, in order to differentiate
between Cnut’s first wife, Ælfgifu of Northampton, and his second wife, Emma
(who took the name Ælfgifu during her marriage to Æthelred in the opening
years of the eleventh century, and is referred to by both names in the sources), I
will exclusively use the names Ælfgifu and Emma respectively to differentiate
them here.
There are a number of letters or characters that may be unfamiliar to my
reader, but were common in Old English and Old Norse. Chief amongst these
are Thorn ‘Þ’ and its lowercase form ‘þ’, and Eth ‘Ð’ and its lowercase form ‘ð’,
which are both pronounced as Modern English ‘th’. Thus the common Old
Norse name Þórkell is pronounced ‘Thorkell’. For the pronunciation of other
unfamiliar symbols the reader is directed to the various academic textbooks
intended to help the student learn Old Norse or Old English.
In addition, as some sources have been edited and translated more than once,
and readers in various countries may have easier access to any one of these, I
have used here a system of reference to primary sources in which I cite the place
within the source text in its original language first, followed by the editor of the
edition used by me in brackets, as well as the page reference there. Translations
mostly follow the relevant editions cited by me, with occasional adaptations for
sense. These are recorded in the notes.
All tasks this large incur substantial personal debts. I would like to thank
Yale University Press, and from my perspective its charming and patient
representatives in Heather McCallum and Rachael Lonsdale, for placing their
trust in me and asking me to undertake this study. They asked for a study that
could add something to scholarship as well as be read by the ‘man on the
Clapham omnibus’, and I hope I have lived up to their expectations. As part of
this I have consciously returned to the style of Barlow, in his seminal biography
of Edward the Confessor. In doing so, I have kept citation in the original to a
minimum. It is a happy coincidence that most sources cited in translation for the
present task are in unambiguous language, but where the original reading might
be easily called into question, I have given that as well in the main text. I also
wish to offer my thanks to Richard Mason, whose eagle eye saved me from
potentially disastrous errors.
Many others are owed especial thanks, including Michael Benskin, Ian
Davis, David Dumville, Roxana Kashani, Kari Maund (many times), Camilla
Previté, Peter Stokes and Mary Wellesley, for either listening to and salving my
panics on so many occasions or for blocking the slings and arrows of this world
to give me the necessary space to work on this book. My wife Ingela and my
young son Harald tower over all of these in their patience and fortitude in the
face of a book project that grew and grew, demanding far too much of my time
and ending some weeks after the recent birth of our daughter (and his sister)
Estrid, not a few weeks before as I had promised – and to them I must offer the
greatest thanks, and also apologies.

Timothy Bolton
Stockholm, 2016

1Cotgrave, The English Treasury of Wit and Language, published 1605; the text here is from the second
page of the unpaginated and unfoliated introduction entitled ‘To the Courteous Reader’.
2Bolton, Empire, p. xi.
3This topic was a perennial debate between me and Ray Page, who usually expounded on the terrible
effects of adopting normalized West Norse (and usually Icelandic-influenced) forms of names in source
editions. I am not sure that I agree that this is one of the world’s chief ills, but I have never been able to
shake off the thought that he may have been, in part at least, correct to point this out. See, for example, the
form of Swen Estrithsson’s name in West Norse sources: Sveinn Ástríðarson. This is a form I have used in
some publications for the sake of the rule, but cannot get comfortable with.
4The principal differences are an eschewing of the symbols þ and ð for ‘th’, a number of consistent
vowel variants, and the dropping of some of the West Norse nominative case endings. Note that I have
dropped the formation of the genitive necessary for patronymics and matronymics in an ‘-ar’ ending (which
often provides the most confusion for a reader without a solid understanding of Old Norse), as it was
certainly not used in Denmark or Sweden in the thirteenth century when substantial written records begin to
survive in sufficient numbers to examine this feature, and it may have already been weakened or absent
from Denmark in the eleventh century.
Map 1: Important sites in Denmark in the eleventh century
Map 2: Recorded overland travel routes from northern Europe to Rome c. 1026 (following Birch,
Pilgrimage to Rome, pp. 43–9)
1. Cnut and Emma present a large gold cross to the New Minster, Winchester, and receive a crown and a
veil from angels in return. In the New Minster Liber Vitae.
2. Detail of the confraternity additions to a Gospel Book from Christ Church, Canterbury, naming Cnut as
the ‘beloved worldly lord’ of the community, as well as their ‘spiritual brother before God’, written above
the name of Cnut’s actual brother, Harald, and three Scandinavian magnates who are each dubbed ‘our
brother’.

3. Emma crowned and seated on a throne and receiving the Encomium Emmae Reginae from the author,
while her two sons, Harthacnut and Edward the Confessor, look on. The frontispiece and opening of the
prologue to the text.
4. The obverse and reverse of an elaborately carved wooden pencase lid in English style and with the
Anglo-Saxon name ‘Leofwine’ inscribed on the underside of its head. Discovered in Lund in layers
dateable to Cnut and Harthacnut’s reigns.
5. Cnut’s appearance as a witness to a miraculous healing of a cripple from Trier, in the eleventh-century
Miracula Heriberti.
6. The London Ringerike Tombstone, featuring a stocky four-legged beast, its head turned around over its
back, surrounded by interlace and lappets from its extremities, which are characteristic of this Scandinavian
eleventh-century art-style (oolithic limestone with traces of original bluish-black and red paint).
7. Reproduction and drawing of a gilt bronze mount with Ringerike-style decoration. Excavated in
Winchester Cathedral.
8. The Thorney Liber Vitae, the page here containing the eleventh-century entries for Cnut, Emma, his sons
(head of column 1), English earls and Jarl Ulf of Denmark (head of column 3). The Scandinavian names
beneath may have been members of his retinue or of another Scandinavian lord present.
9. A vernacular charter from the archive of Christ Church, Canterbury, in an Anglo-Norman copy,
recording a visit of a member of the community named Ælfgar to the royal court of Harold Harefoot at
Oxford as the king lay on his deathbed ‘very ill, so that he lay despairing of his life’ (line 5 here opening
‘oxana forde’ and describing Harold as ‘swyÞe geseocled swa Þ[æt] he læg orwene his lifes’).
 INTRODUCTION

ON THE STUDY OF CNUT

It is unfortunate that, even in the shadow of the millennial anniversary of Cnut’s
successful invasion of England, most members of the public in Britain and
Scandinavia will know this king mainly for the story of his attempts to turn back
the tide – and that in a truncated form which removes the essential message of
the story and makes him appear foolish or prideful.1
He is one of the most fascinating of the pre-Conquest kings of England, and
his life presents us with several new ways of examining late Anglo-Saxon
England in addition to areas of neighbouring Scandinavia, as well as of
questioning the established norms of how an English monarch could and should
behave in the eleventh century. Unlike all other pre-Conquest monarchs in this
series, his regime spread beyond the British Isles and spanned multiple
geographical boundaries in northern Europe. He came to power in England first,
following his conquest of the country in 1016, and to full kingship on the death
of Edmund Ironside on 30 November that year. In c. 1019, after the death of his
own brother Harald, he added Denmark to this, and Norway as well by conquest
in 1028. In ruling these nations, he had to cross substantial cultural and linguistic
boundaries, and appeal to local elites in each region in entirely different ways.
The resulting regimes would profoundly change the societies of England and
Denmark, and ultimately contribute significantly to the end of the Viking Age in
Scandinavia.
That said, the relatively undeveloped nature of the Danish Church, and in
particular monasticism there as well as in Scandinavia in general, ensures that
the lion’s share of the surviving evidence for his life comes from England.2
What little evidence there is from Scandinavia in a written form is later, or at
least is preserved as literary fossils of early oral poetry copied piecemeal within
later narratives. This has caused the almost overwhelming focus of modern
historical debate on English sources alongside occasional mainland European
ones, and on Cnut’s activities in England, contributing to some general
impressions of him that have done much to hamper comprehensive discussion.
The first of these notions presupposes Cnut’s barbarity before his takeover in
England, and thus his need to be educated by one or more of the English elites. It
should be noted that an impression of barbarity and ‘otherness’ lingers around
Scandinavians from Cnut’s time and before, most probably perpetuated by the
horrors of viking raiding, or accounts of it, as well as by the fact that the
Scandinavians up to the eleventh century existed without substantially literate or
bureaucratic societies and had so recently Christianized. This is what lies behind
the comment of the Anglo-Norman monk and hagiographer Goscelin around
1080, when he wrote to encourage Eve, an English nun who had left to join a
hermitage in Angers, saying that ‘the daughters of kings and princes, raised from
infancy in all delights, knowing nothing beyond the splendours and the
happiness of their homeland, marry into foreign nations and far-away kingdoms.
They are destined to learn barbarous customs and strange languages, and to
serve fierce lords and repugnant laws that go against nature, as for instance
recently the daughter of the Margrave of Flanders married King Knut of
Denmark.’3 The Knut here is almost certainly Knut ‘the Holy’, the son of Cnut
the Great’s nephew Swen Estrithsson, who married Adela, daughter of Robert,
count of Flanders, on the accession to the Danish throne in 1080.4 Much the
same sentiment stands behind the tone of surprise in Fulbert of Chartres’ letter to
Cnut, which praises Cnut’s ‘wisdom’ and ‘piety’ but explains that Fulbert had
previously thought Cnut to be ‘a ruler of pagans’.5 This was written nearly
seventy years after Cnut’s grandfather had been converted to Christianity, about
a decade after Cnut’s father had been buried in a church in Roskilde, and at a
point at which even though some Danes were of questionable Christian
allegiance or still pagan, Cnut himself had Danish bishops and most probably
also chaplains in attendance at his court.6
Echoes of the same misconceptions are detectable in modern scholarship. Sir
Frank Stenton stated in his seminal Anglo-Saxon England that ‘[Cnut’s] relations
with his bishop and abbots were those of a pupil towards the teachers who had
introduced him to the mysteries of a civilization higher than his own. For all
their skill in warfare, the intricacy of their decorative art, and the elaboration of
their encomiastic verse, the northern peoples of Cnut’s age belonged in spirit to a
remote, barbaric, world.’7 The same sentiments stand behind Dorothy
Bethurum’s explanation of Cnut’s ecclesiastical patronage, in which she states
that he was a ‘brilliant young barbarian . . . [who] put himself under Wulfstan’s
tutelage’, as well as Frank Barlow’s similar statements and observation (in error)
that Cnut’s patronage appears to wane after the archbishop’s death in 1023.8
Further, and more modern, examples can be found in Simon Keynes’ claim that
‘[u]nder the tutelage of Archbishop Wulfstan in particular, Cnut learnt how he
was expected to behave as a good Christian king’, as well as M. K. Lawson, who
opens a sub-chapter on ‘Cnut’s Religious Background’ having previously
discussed how Emma may have been of aid in how to deal with the English
Church, with the emphatic ‘Cnut must have needed it’.9 I hope to show in what
follows that such views have no basis in fact, and mask the very real probability
that he was a devout Christian, without much need of a crash course in Christian
worship or ‘civilization’.
Similarly, doubt is often cast on the amount of time Cnut spent in
Scandinavia, as well as his commitment to it, with Peter Sawyer stating the
consensus view that ‘Cnut spent relatively little of his time in Scandinavia. He
went there when necessary, in 1019 to claim Denmark and nine years later to
claim Norway, in 1022 and 1026 to deal with enemies who threatened Denmark.
England was the source of his wealth and power and therefore he did not need to
dominate Scandinavia as his father and grandfather had done.’10 Here there are
two issues rolled up together. Certainly England was the source of the greatest
part of Cnut’s wealth and power, and needed his physical presence more.
However, his actions in Scandinavia do not indicate that he went there only out
of necessity, and when we consider sources of evidence such as skaldic verse
and archaeological materials it is clear that he remained, in part at least,
culturally Scandinavian throughout his life.
The Scandinavian sources need extremely sensitive handling, but they often
operate as a check and balance on the preconceptions of those of England and
mainland Europe. We do Cnut an injustice if we reject them without any attempt
to use them, albeit with the necessary caveats concomitant on their method of
survival or distance in time from the events they record.11 Much of
contemporary Scandinavian history is a void, and any facts we can show that
bear some weight will contribute greatly to our knowledge there.
Two previous biographies have been written at opposite ends of the
twentieth century. The first was that by Laurence M. Larson, his Canute the
Great 995–1035, and the Rise of Danish Imperialism During the Viking Age,
published as part of Putnam’s ‘Heroes of the Nations’ series in 1912. To this
should be added two influential academic articles by the same author, his ‘The
Efforts of the Danish Kings to Recover the English Crown after the Death of
Harthacnut’, published in the same year, and ‘The Political Policies of Cnut as
King of England’, published in 1910. His work is now quite dated, notably in its
uncritical use of late Scandinavian narratives in the monograph of 1912, and
suffered badly from the initial attacks on such uses of these sources published by
Lauritz Weibull in 1911. However, Larson’s work framed much that was to
follow, and several lines of enquiry, which were successfully followed up by
later historians, have their roots there.12
In 1993, M. K. Lawson produced his Cnut: The Danes in England in the
Early Eleventh Century in Longman’s ‘Medieval World’ series. That book, as
well as the conference proceedings published in the following year as A. R.
Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway,
enabled more than a decade of scholarly activity on Cnut from a diverse range of
approaches including numismatics and literary studies of skaldic verse.13
Lawson’s study, however, made little of the Scandinavian evidence or
subsequent debate, despite alluding to its importance, and the nature of the
collection of individual papers in the book edited by Alexander Rumble caused
much of the discussion of the Scandinavian elements of his life to be dealt with
separately.14 I tried to fill some of this gap myself in 2009 with a monograph on
the methods of Cnut’s rise to power and control over his ‘empire’, and since then
the awakened scholarly interest in Cnut has continued apace. Thus the moment
would appear to be ripe for this biography, with the aim of viewing Cnut ‘in the
round’, wearing both his English and Scandinavian mantles.15

ON BIOGRAPHY: ‘A BASTARD, AN IMPURE ART’16

The problems of this medium are all too easily perceived by the modern student
of history. The writer of it must attempt to stand at some distance from his or her
subject, and prioritize and organize the surviving sources into a coherent
narrative; and, that done, attempt an educated leap of faith to draw out and
interpret some of the motives and psychological impulses behind their subject’s
actions. In doing so, the writer doubtless projects some of their own experiences
and psyche into the void; this is not a genre to work in lightly.17 Readers then
follow these arguments and statements, entering into their own discourse with
the writer and the subject, sifting and weighing the evidence for themselves (and
as a student of medieval manuscripts with a fascination for scribal practices and
marginalia myself, I hope they will then fill the margins of the following pages
with their own scribbled observations, thereby entering into a form of discourse
with my text). To perform this task for a living person is problematic, when the
advanced state of the study of psychology ensures that even if we could
interview our subject we might still suspect that they could obfuscate some of
their acts and decisions, and, even worse, would not fully understand all the
myriad experiences and impulses that informed each decision they made. To
perform it for a subject dead for nearly a millennium, and who lived in two
cultures long since disappeared, is difficult to say the least.
This is not to say that such a task should not be undertaken. Such works have
a fundamental place in the writing of history, and the parts of biography that
make us feel uncomfortable as scholars have a crucial, if often unrecognized,
place within most historical writings about individuals or their actions. The
discomfort that many modern historians may experience when turning to write
or read biographies is fuelled by the fact that up until the nineteenth century,
when the modern form of our discipline was born, the writing of history was
principally the stories of so-called ‘great’ men and women. The subsequent
revolution in historical writing ended up as a three-pronged attack on biography,
with increasingly fierce source criticism, the rise of ‘grass-roots history’ and the
popularity of the longue durée approach widening our horizons beyond that of a
single life. While quite necessary, this has left us with anxieties about biography,
and for a few scholars a complete denial that medieval biography is even
possible.18 For many, it is what we set aside when our discipline began to shape
and analyze itself.
However, when ignored by academics, biography did not die in scholarly
writing but went underground. It appears in the pages of modern scholarship in
snippets of biographical assumptions that modern authors have silently
formulated in their own minds, often offered to their readers as uncontested
facts. For example, it is clear to us after the abandonment of scientific racial
stereotyping in the second half of the twentieth century, that when Larson in
1910 ascribed aspects of Cnut’s character to his mix of Slavic and Scandinavian
blood, this is his and his society’s presumption, and a false one at that.19
However, it is less obvious to the reader that when Bethurum and Barlow make
their statements about Cnut seeking out an English mentor in Wulfstan, as
discussed above, these are based on a hasty biographical presumption that Cnut
came from a barbarian Scandinavian culture, and thus needed guidance. Before
the reader has even had the chance to consider it, the notion that Cnut might
have actively patronized the English Church for his own reasons, and what those
reasons may have been, is swept away from him or her by an unstated
conclusion in modern scholars’ minds.
Such conclusions infuse our historical writing, and bring much to it: the
narrative would be a very dry and patchy thing without them. Moreover, I am
not going to argue that we should write biography with all possible choices laid
out before us, like one of those Dungeons and Dragons Endless Quest multi-
choice books that were popular when I was a child, in which each potential
decision is explored fully; so that if one believes Cnut needed a tutor in how to
deal with the English Church one turns to page 53, and if not then to page 58, or
similar. The resulting narrative would be breathtakingly cumbersome, and it is
part of the biographer’s role to make those decisions. However, they must be
made carefully, and with a knowledge of the biographer’s relevant ‘mental
baggage’. For my part, I should state here that my past researches have always
revealed to me an active and commanding figure in Cnut, and because of this I
am inclined to see his agency in matters rather than his passivity. It is no secret
that my previous work has foregrounded the less well-known Scandinavian side
of Cnut in an attempt to try and set what we learn from the sources from
Scandinavia alongside those of England and mainland Europe, and this study
continues in that vein.
In recent years biography has found champions. Jacques Le Goff made
important contributions, and others have been made by a handful of more
modern figures, such as Nicholas Vincent, Robin Fleming, George T. Beech,
Pauline Stafford, and perhaps most obviously Frank Barlow and Janet Nelson.20
The volume entitled Writing Medieval Biography, dedicated to Frank Barlow in
2006, was a defiant rallying cry to potential historical biographers, and from the
1970s onwards the series in which I write now, that of Yale University Press’
‘English Monarchs’, has been a flagship for the medium. It was with the weight
of this important publishing series behind me, and with this responsibility to my
reader before me, that I accepted Yale’s invitation and turned once again to
Cnut.

ON THE SOURCES FOR CNUT’S LIFE

A handful of sources make up the lion’s share of the narrative for the present
work. While comment on specific aspects of them will be made within the
relevant parts of this book, a more general comment on their contents and
relative weaknesses is needed before we properly begin.
 The principal text for the narrative of almost all English history before the
Norman Conquest is the series of annals now known collectively as the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle. The twelfth-century Anglo-Norman Gaimar thought that its
origins lay in King Alfred’s desire to have ‘a book written in English about
events and laws and about battles in the land and about kings who made war’,
and it does seem likely that the text we have today has its origins in the late ninth
century, probably in the south-west of England, perhaps near the Mercian
border.21 Multiple copies of important records seem to have been deposited in a
number of ecclesiastical archives for security in Anglo-Saxon England, and this
seems to have been the case with the Chronicle, perhaps within Alfred’s lifetime.
By the tenth century some of these copies were being kept up to date in blocks,
often with local material added where relevant, either year by year or more
probably in sporadic bursts of composition and copying. Thus the text is not a
single uniform set of annals, but after its earliest entries it diverges into a series
of branches, each of which draws from and adds to a common stock.22 The ‘A’
text is the earliest, and was written at Old Minster, Winchester, in the final
decade of the ninth century.23 The ‘B’ and ‘C’ texts both appear to be from
Abingdon, where in the second half of the tenth century ‘B’ was evidently
copied, and was used in the mid-eleventh century during the compilation of
‘C’.24 The ‘D’ text was written in the mid-eleventh century, probably at
Worcester.25 The ‘E’ text was written in the early twelfth century at
Peterborough.26 The final text here, the ‘F’ text, is a bilingual composition from
about 1100 made at Christ Church, Canterbury, probably by a scribe who made
notes in ‘A’.27
The annals relevant for our purposes here, as contained in C, D, E and F (A
is of little use for our period, and B stops in 977), mainly descend from a
common stock of Æthelredian material, written up in a single effort of
composition most probably in c. 1022.28 However, the entries before and after
1017 are of a markedly different character (with those before being much fuller
and composed as a passionate narrative of the defeat of the English, and those
after often reduced to a few brief factual observations with almost no
elaborations or authorial opinions), and these most probably descend from a
separate source, which overlapped in chronology with the entries composed c.
1022, and continued the text to the early 1040s. The relationship between C, D,
E and F is not straightforward. E and F seem to share a common exemplar that
was at St Augustine’s, Canterbury, in the mid-eleventh century, while C and D
are also connected to this exemplar as well as to each other.29 None of these
agrees exactly with each other, and all appear to have received small additions
from local knowledge or other sources. Finally, other material common to D and
E may have been added to the Cnut entries in the Canterbury exemplar as late as
the 1040s and 1050s.30 The nearly complete doctoral research by Zhangfeng Xu
at Aberdeen University into the common stock of this section of the Chronicle is
eagerly awaited.
There is a good translation of these sources in parallel columns by Dorothy
Whitelock from 1961, and another in blocks of prose by Michael Swanton from
1996, but the latter can on occasion eliminate what is individual to each text
while seeking a common core.31 I shall reference the various redactions of the
Chronicle here as ‘ASC’ followed by a capital letter that denotes the variant of
the Chronicle text, followed by a year (corrected in some editions) and finally
the relevant editor and page number in brackets.
The Encomium Emmae Reginae was written by a cleric, evidently of St
Omer, Flanders, initially in the reign of Harthacnut (d. 1042), at the request of
and for the adulation of his mother, Emma, who had been Cnut’s wife.32 It
surveys the conquest of England by Swen ‘Forkbeard’ and Cnut, and ends with
an account of the struggle for power after Cnut’s death. The early version of the
text exists in a single eleventh-century manuscript (London, British Library,
Additional MS. 33241), which has a line-drawn frontispiece showing the author
presenting the work to Emma while two of her sons look on.33 That is probably
not the original, but a close copy of it. Another version, updated in Edward the
Confessor’s favour, after Harthacnut’s death, was suggested by a series of
extracts from the text in a sixteenth-century manuscript (now Paris, Bibliothèque
nationale, Fonds Lat. 6235). A fourteenth-century copy of this revised text came
to light in an historical compendium, which was lot 31 in the Sotheby’s sale of
Western Manuscripts on 3 December 2008. It is now in the National Library of
Denmark (their Acc. 2011/5).34 Modern scholarship has detected more than a
little propaganda and conscious distortion in its retelling of events, intended to
justify Emma’s position, further her agendas and glorify her, but it remains an
extremely valuable near-contemporary narrative if handled carefully.35
Contemporary writs and charters provide invaluable snapshots of gifts from
the royal court and other elites to a range of benefactors, or the involvement of
these elites as judges in other transactions or disputes. Writs are commonly in
the vernacular and carry direct orders in the form of an administrative letter,
while charters of this period are principally in Latin and acknowledge or ratify
grants or agreements.36 Apart from the record of the transfer of land or
privileges concerned in the main text, these are of greatest use for our purposes
for their witness-lists. The documents may well be in some cases a composition
in whole or part of the receiving party, written once he had returned home as a
memory of the oral gift by the king; however, they are often provided with lists
of witnesses, who are cited according to their social grouping, and could be
summoned later to verify the facts. Keynes has shown that regular patterns can
be perceived within this body of names from charters deriving from meetings
and archives held at different sites and dates, and that the names at the heads of
these columns of attestations must have been men who surrounded the king, with
the order in which they appear marking their status within that group.37 The rise
and fall of these men within this relative scale can on occasion also be charted
alongside their changing fortunes in the narrative sources, and thus their
occurrence and relative position over time can indicate their waxing and waning
influence at court. The number of surviving charters for Cnut’s reign is not large:
some thirty-six charters and eight writs, of which seven are most probably later
forgeries and nearly half are suspect. The charters were catalogued and
organized by Sawyer in 1968, and that work has been substantially revised and
published online as the Electronic Sawyer.38 Since 1973 the charters of
individual archives have been edited and published as monographs by the British
Academy. A concordance of the documents and the relevant editions in this
series can be found at the end of this volume, in Appendix II, listing older
alternative publications where the archive concerned has not yet been edited and
published. References here to such documents are made to the individual
documents by an ‘S.’ and their relevant Sawyer number.
The royal lawcodes promulgated by Cnut in 1018 at Oxford and again c.
1020 in a religious code (I Cnut) and a secular code (II Cnut) are of great
importance for our purpose, but the nature of their survival makes them complex
sources.39 Their contents appear to come straight from the monarch himself,
giving us a true voice of his wishes within the English administration. However,
as both Patrick Wormald and Lawson have reminded us, this initial impression is
quite far from the mark.40 The survival of numerous versions of one of
Æthelred’s codes, that for Enham promulgated in 1008, and the differences
between them, is a stark reminder that the law in late Anglo-Saxon England
probably still lay fundamentally in the oral pronouncements of the king. What
we have today are to some unknown degree ‘clerical fantasies . . . influenced by
the special preoccupation of his [the king’s] servants, as well as the carelessness
of their scribes’.41 They must be generally true to what was promulgated by the
king, but many of the written records that survive may have been committed to
writing as notes for only one individual or an interested group at the assembly.
The fact that Archbishop Wulfstan of York, who was responsible for most of the
material in question here, freely made alterations to these texts later, perhaps for
use in preaching, is a sobering thought.42 Cnut’s letters to the English were
evidently promulgated publicly and thus also fall into this category as a form of
interim legislation from afar.
The letter of 1019–20, which was sent while Cnut was in Denmark, is a text I
should dearly like to place my trust in, but have problems doing so.43 Its
principal potential inconsistency is Cnut’s stated purpose for the visit.44 It seems
a little much of Cnut to claim in this letter that he had gone to Denmark to
protect the English from some threat there, and spent his money freely in pursuit
of this, when in fact it is more likely that he had gone there to accept the
kingship of that country for himself. What is also worrying is the context in
which the letter survives. It exists in a single copy, added to the endleaves of a
Gospel Book amongst three homilies concerned with the state of the perfect
Christian nation, which were copied for Wulfstan onto the last leaves of that
codex and annotated in a hand identified as probably his. The letter itself forms
part of the homiletic set, providing an example of model Christian kingship, and
was prepared for public preaching, ending in an ‘AMEN’. Keynes notes that
chapters 14–20 of the text (with general injunctions) are close to the material of
the homilies and bear strong traces of Wulfstan’s style.45 This document is
subject to the same doubts as the formal lawcodes, and the evidence of small
tweaks probably made to those by Wulfstan continues to worry me (at least)
about this source. Doubtless it is generally correct, and certain features such as
its address firstly to Thorkell the Tall make no sense as being the additions of
Wulfstan or another, but it has been used for preaching and has probably been
subject to additions and contractions in order to make it fit that task.
With Cnut’s letter of 1027, sent while he was on the return journey from
Rome to Denmark in that year, we are perhaps on safer ground.46 While it is
subject to the same doubts we must apply to any written record of what could
have been an oral proclamation, Wulfstan had died in 1023 and had no part in its
survival. It survives copied in full into two Anglo-Norman chronicles, which
most probably made independent use of a manuscript of it, perhaps once at
Worcester.47 John of Worcester claims that Abbot Lyfing of Tavistock brought it
to England, and to this Wormald adds the suggestion that he also wrote it
down.48 If the connection to Lyfing is correct, then the fact that he was later
bishop of Worcester may explain where the two later chroniclers found a copy.
There are then only sporadic and predominantly hagiographic accounts
composed in the late eleventh century, some of great merit and others dubiously
so, until the emergence of the Anglo-Norman historians in the early years of the
twelfth century. The point at which the last survivors from pre-1066 England
began to die out saw an upsurge in the collection of sources and writing of
histories by Anglo-Norman ecclesiastics, such as the monks John of Worcester
(once thought to have been named Florence), William of Malmesbury, Symeon
of Durham, as well as an hereditary archdeacon of Huntingdon named Henry.49
All were careful researchers, who could compare differing sources and comment
on reliability, but who to a greater or lesser extent saw history as an instructive
series of stories that could aid their fellow man and so must be read with a note
of caution. John of Worcester is the source we shall deal with most closely here,
and it is clear that he managed to collect a substantial amount of information and
copies of sources in preparation for the writing of his text, some of which no
longer survive. His statements, even when independent of other sources, should
be considered seriously.
In Scandinavia, the only substantial early narrative source is the late
eleventh-century German chronicler Adam of Bremen, who in his history of the
archbishops of his own see of Hamburg-Bremen made great mention of
Scandinavia and eastern Europe as ecclesiastical subsidiaries to that see. Adam’s
own words show that he had come to Hamburg in the twenty-fourth year of
Archbishop Adalbert (May 1066–April 1067), and he appears to have witnessed
a charter of 1069 as master of the school there.50 Parts of Book Two were
written while Swen Estrithsson was alive (d. 1076), but others referred to the
king as ‘ever to be remembered’, and the epilogue makes note of Liemar’s
mediation in the Saxon war of 1075.51 Adam’s primary aim was to establish the
greatness of his see and its ecclesiastical rule over northern and eastern
neighbours, as opposed to claims of other missionary sees, such as Cologne, and
much material here was adapted to fit with this agenda. His sources were drawn
from a wide variety of texts and libraries, with his extensive use of Tacitus’
Germania arguing for his travelling to Fulda to consult the single manuscript of
this text that appears to have survived into the Middle Ages.52 As such, Adam’s
work is often a dense literary tissue of oral reports and patched-together written
accounts, and it demands extremely sensitive handling. One particularly
contentious point is the large number of brief marginal additions that are
associated with the text, named scholia (sg. scholion) by modern scholars, and
which contain much additional historical information. However, while many of
these can be shown to be connected with the text at an early stage in which
Adam or his associates may have written them, other scholia cannot, and do not
appear in any manuscript until the thirteenth century or later. These were the
subject of a study by me some years ago, and alongside a re-examination of the
manuscript stemma they will be the subject of a future publication of mine for an
international research group currently working on this text.53 Here I shall give
reference to such scholia with a statement of the likelihood that they were part of
the early tradition, and the earliest dated occurrence of the addition.
An important primary source for both Scandinavia and England during
Cnut’s reign is skaldic verse. These are praise poems composed for a
Scandinavian ruler, which primarily extol his manly virtues and laud his acts of
violence, successes over his enemies, and ability to distribute treasure to his
followers. They are set in a series of strict metres and linguistically encoded in
an intricate and complex fashion that replaces crucial nouns with kennings (sets
of words intended to poetically allude to the original subject, such as ‘long-
planked reindeer of the bench of Solsi [= a sea-king]’, i.e. ‘ship’), while breaking
up normal word order and even subdividing certain words and placing their
composite parts in separate places in the stanza in order to obscure the word’s
true meaning.54 When explained, I have found that this seemingly obtuse art
form most often reminds the casual modern reader of cryptic crossword puzzles.
Internal references to recital before patrons make it clear that such verses were
composed orally in order to be recited before a Scandinavian patron in the hope
of reward, but they now almost exclusively survive as single verses cited as
sources within the later saga-narratives from the late twelfth century onwards.55
The complex form of such verse, in that one cannot easily replace single words
or phrases without upsetting the metre or rendering the rest of the verse
unreadable, ensures that what survives from the eleventh century copied into
later narrative sources did so in a more fossilized form than that expected of free
prose or verse. As scholarship of the last few decades has noted, whereas some
individual verses or clusters of them must be fabrications by the authors of the
sagas in order to support their narratives, those that are preserved in King’s
Sagas or treatises on poetry or grammar, and stated there to be by known authors
and perhaps also from named poems, appeal to a collective knowledge of the
poem in that text’s readership and are thus unlikely to be inventions.56
Further linguistic analysis has shored up this position, showing that amongst
other aspects, some of the verses composed for Cnut show the influence of
Anglo-Saxon and use loanwords from that language, most probably reflecting
the patois-like language of an Anglo-Scandinavian elite who had been resident
partly in England for some time.57 Russell Poole has even made a tentative
argument for Liðsmannaflokkr’s use of a word that has no surviving example or
trace in West Norse (Icelandic and Norwegian), as perhaps indicating the poem
was composed by East Norse (Danish and Swedish) speakers.58 No such poem
for the eleventh century survives complete in any saga source, and these poems
mostly survive as isolated snippets of verse, often in various later ‘host’ texts.
These have then subsequently been arranged into skeletal remains of the lost
poems by modern scholarship.59 Their complexity, the potential for literary
hyperbole by their composers, the range of subsequent modern reinterpretations
of their meanings, and their survival within the late and suspect saga sources,
kept historians from doing much more than occasionally citing them until the
last few decades, but they have been experiencing a renaissance of interest since
then.60
A recent international project culminating in the re-editing and re-publication
of the verses with modern English translations and extensive textual appendices
does break up the flow of the verse for the modern reader, but this drawback is
far outweighed by their new availability in a definitive and scholarly format for
the English-reading public, and it is to be expected that future studies and uses of
these verses will experience a boom in interest through these recent
publications.61 Here I have cited these publications by their general editors
(those relevant here: Whaley, Gade and Marold), but in fact the majority of
relevant verse has been edited by Poole (the anonymous Liðsmannaflokkr),
Matthew Townend (almost the entire corpus of poems for Cnut or his son Swen:
Óttarr Svarti’s Knútsdrápa; Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Knútsdrápa; Þórarinn
Loftunga’s Höfuðlausn and Tøgdrápa; Hallvarðr Hárekblesi’s Knútsdrápa; and
perhaps a fragment of a verse by Arnórr Jarlaskáld), Jayne Carroll (Þórðr
Kolbeinsson’s Eiríksdrápa) and Judith Jesch (Sigvatr Þórðarson’s
Vestrfararvísur). Where such verse has been used by historians this has
principally been as a record when they note an event or person in passing, but
some scholars are now beginning to employ tools developed by literary studies
to use poems as indicators of how a ruler wished to be seen by his peers and the
ideologies underpinning his rule.62
Runic inscriptions on monumental stones provide some information about
Scandinavia in the tenth and eleventh centuries, either through their content (as
in the Jelling runestones), or through the mapping of their distribution or features
on them. However, such inscriptions are necessarily brief, and frequently their
content and the meaning of their distribution can be so vague as to be open to
being used to draw quite opposing conclusions.63 I shall refer to the Danmarks
Runeindskrifter catalogue of Jacobsen and Moltke where these occur in the text,
in the abbreviated form ‘DR.’ followed by a reference number.
The twelfth century saw the emergence of the earliest surviving narrative
histories from Scandinavia, with Theodoricus Monachus’ Historia de Antiquitate
Regum Norwagiensium in the decade 1177–87, and the anonymous Ágrip af
Nóregskonungasǫgum, most probably based in part on Theodoricus’ work and
thus dated c. 1190.64 Both are Norwegian narratives, and quite terse in
comparison to later saga materials. The majority of these sources, like the longer
saga narratives in the Legendary Saga of St. Óláfr and Snorri Sturluson’s vast
compendium Heimskringla that followed in the next half century, are focused on
events in Norway and Iceland, with only passing reference to Danish affairs.
However, there seems to have been significant interest in Danish history in the
entourages of six Icelandic bishops in the twelfth century (three from Hólar and
three from Skálaholt), who received consecration in Lund, where a substantial
historical school had sprung up in that century.65 The first, Jón Ǫgmundarsson,
brought two teachers back with him to teach grammar and chant at his new
school at Hólar.66 Another, Páll Jónsson of Oddi, bishop of Skálaholt between
1195 and 1211, and it was on his family estate at Oddi that Snorri spent his
formative years. The fact that Snorri’s family set out their genealogical origins in
the Skjöldungar, Cnut’s line, in the Uppsala manuscript of the Snorra Edda, may
point towards the motivation for their interest.67 This interest produced not only
the more consciously historical Knytlinga saga, which may or may not have
used a lost Knúts saga ríka, but also the wild semi-legendary texts of
Jómsvíkinga saga and Skjöldunga saga.68 It bears noting that the interest of the
Icelanders was not exclusively aimed at Norway.
The problems of using the saga narratives of the thirteenth century for the
history of the eleventh century were foregrounded in Sweden by the campaign of
the Weibull brothers: Lauritz Weibull in 1911 with his Kritiska Undersökningar
i Nordens Historia omkring År 1000, and Curt Weibull in 1915 with his Saxo:
Kritiska Undersökningar i Danmarks Historia från Sven Estridsens Död till
Knut VI, to bring the more precise approach to historical sources of Leopold von
Ranke to Scandinavian history. They were followed in Norway by Halvdan Koht
in 1914 with his ‘Sagaernes Opfatning av vor Gamle Historie’, and their
arguments have been rehearsed and augmented ever since.69 In essence, the late
date of these late twelfth-and thirteenth-century narratives makes significant
parts of their record of events and especially the interpretations of these events
suspect; and where records were wanting in the late twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, invention was evidently often used to fill the gap, leaving us with
sources which are demonstrably as much invention as they are historical record.
However, the last few years have seen a pushing back by modern scholars such
as Michael Gelting, Jón Viðar Sigurðsson and myself against the harsh and
uneven source criticism of the Weibulls, and we seem to be entering a period in
which the total writing-off of these sources is to be replaced with careful and
sensitive use of the aspects of them that we can show to be trustworthy.70
This is of especial relevance to Cnut as such studies have yet to make their
mark in English or amongst scholars of Cnut’s activities in England. Ann
Williams represents the case for the traditional group well, when in the last part
of her paper on Thorkell the Tall she uses quite reasonable doubt about the
reliability of the literary and late Jómsvíkinga saga to erase any link between
what the English and Scandinavian sources say about Thorkell, writing off all
such Scandinavian sources in the process – one with a flourish ‘the less said the
better’.71 I cannot bring myself to agree. Certainly we should, as she urges, ‘pay
more attention to contemporary sources and . . . mistrust anything which cannot
be corroborated’, but if we wish to be comprehensive in our view of Cnut we
have a responsibility to take in as many sources as possible and see what can be
done with them.72 To ignore our Scandinavian sources risks diverting our
attention towards only the English part of his realms. While such sources should
not be approached lightly, that does not mean we should throw out the baby with
the bathwater. The scholar who attempts to use these must strive to understand
such sources within their own context first, in order to identify their potential
weaknesses, and then employ very careful handling and weighing up to see what
they contain that might be of value.
The problem for most modern scholars with accepting these sources as
something we might engage with, and see whether they hold weight, is perhaps
based on a focus on the surviving sagas. If in trying to say something of the
events of the eleventh century, for example, we jump straight from the
contemporary record of the reconstructed skaldic verse to Heimskringla, the best
known of the Old Norse thirteenth-century Kings’ Sagas, it is clear that two
centuries of storytelling are missing and a vast break is implied, after which
authors might reasonably have filled in many holes with invention. However,
this was not the vantage point of those who wrote the narratives of the late
twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Theodoricus Monachus makes his sources explicit
in his prologue, and implies them at several stages of his narrative. First he notes
that skaldic verse (his ‘ancient poems’ of the Icelanders) was his principal
source. His comment that his narrative is based on what he learnt from others –
‘audita non visa’ (‘things not seen but heard’) – has caused much distraction, and
an overly literal translation of this phrase has led in the past to the idea that he
was working primarily from oral material.73 However, a wide survey of the use
of this phrase in medieval Latin authors finds it often employed to indicate
written sources which the author had ‘heard’ or learnt from, marking only that
the author was not alive when the events happened, and there are other
indications that lost written material was at his disposal.74 He notes a written
king list (catalogus regum norwagiensium) in the context of his history of Cnut,
and crucially abstains from telling much of the history of St Óláfr (Cnut’s rival
in Norway), ‘because all these things have been recorded by several [others]’
(presumably in hagiographical accounts).75 Scholarly consensus now accepts the
widespread use of skaldic verse by the authors of the Kings’ Sagas (and, indeed,
many sagas make this clear with numerous inclusions of such verses as evidence
to support their narrative), but little is said about other, most probably written,
sources available in the late twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Elsewhere I have
written about the repealing of legal clauses by Norwegian kings of the mid-to
late eleventh and twelfth centuries, which adds considerable support to the
potential veracity of taxes and exactions by Cnut from the Norwegians as
recorded by Ágrip and Heimskringla.76 The repeals at least must have been in a
written form within decades of Cnut’s death, and most probably in the second
half of the eleventh century. I have also postulated the existence of a now-lost
hagiographical source on the death of St Óláfr by comparing the lists of names
of those Norwegians involved in his death in the earliest Norwegian and
Icelandic narratives.77 Such a source must have predated Theodoricus’ work,
and may have been the hagiographical work to which he obliquely alludes. A
single leaf from an Old Norse hagiographical collection that included material
on St Óláfr’s miracles, dating to c. 1155×1165, survives in Copenhagen (A. M.
MS. 325 ν α 4to), and John of Worcester seems to have known of hagiographical
traditions connected with Óláfr in the 1130s, which pre-date the earliest
foundations of Norwegian monasteries by monks from northern English houses
in the 1140s and following decades. More such fragments remain to be teased
from the later narratives. It is clear that neither Theodoricus, the author of Ágrip,
or any of the saga-authors who followed in the next half century, worked from
skaldic verse and oral history alone, and they used material that can occasionally
be traced back into the eleventh century or the first half of the twelfth century.
Such material was probably never extensive, but any tiny threads that can be
argued as having a probable basis in fact add much to the near vacuum of our
knowledge of Cnut’s activities in Scandinavia. Rather than take a Weibullian
approach, and uniformly cast out all such material, I would argue instead for a
calm consideration of it to see which parts might plausibly bear weight. There is
no apparent simple and comprehensive methodology of working with such
sources, and all such material must be presumed guilty until proven (or at least
reasonably argued) innocent. However, the focus on individual aspects of the
narratives, and use of comparisons between them and across all other supporting
Scandinavian sources, can produce (after an often arduous and hard-fought
uphill struggle) probable new lights on the eleventh century. On a small number
of occasions saga material includes the only extant reference to an event that
seems plausible. These are included here with the proper caveats.
Archaeology and numismatics have an important role to play in our
assessment of England, and a crucial role to play in Denmark in the absence of
written sources. The foundation and extension of urban sites in Denmark by
Cnut and his predecessors, as well as royal mints, allow us to determine much
from the survival of individual artefacts – such as a pen-case lid of apparent
English manufacture, with the name ‘Leofwine’ carved into it, in layers of Lund
dated to the years of Cnut’s and Harthacnut’s rule – as well as wide comparative
surveys of the data.78 Traditionally archaeology has taken a longue durée
approach to medieval studies, and has problems focusing on the reigns of
individual rulers. However, the fact that Cnut and his predecessors chose to
found their own urban centres often on virgin sites, and to produce their own
coinage (as opposed to copies of English or German models), enables us to
distinguish such trends at their point of origin more easily than if they had
existed within a longer tradition. The research that led up to the Middelalderbyen
project in Denmark (monographs on each town, published from 1985 to 1992)
added greatly to this, supplementing individual publications on excavations of
urban sites, churches and coin hoards.79 Of particular interest are the micro-level
archaeological methods used in the most recent excavations at Viborg, which,
while time-consuming and expensive, allowed the dating to seasons within
individual years of floor layers within a building apparently used by royal
officials.80
Some of these sources lend themselves to working together, and some do
not. Several, such as the more literary applications of skaldic verse and
archaeological materials, must often be employed on their own, and the
conclusions reached be set within the context of other conclusions from different
sources and weighed up there for what they add to and what they change about
our perceptions of the past.

1For the earliest witnesses to this story see Appendix I. The truncated version has its origins in 1587 at
least, when it appears in Holinshed, interpreted as a prideful act, albeit followed by a brief note of the act of
supplication to God which is normally omitted in popular retellings: ‘his intollerable pride in commanding
the waters of the flouds not to rise, he humbleth himselfe and confesseth Christ Iesus to be king of kings, he
refuseth to weare the crowne during his life’. By the publication of William Slayter, The History of Great
Britaine, in 1621, the supplication has been further eroded: ‘This Cnute commands the seas to shew,/His
Sycophants flattering termes vntrew,/And knowledging Christ his only trust,/Return’d from Rome, returnes
to dust.’ I owe both of these references to Elaine Treharne’s ‘Performance of Piety’, p. 360.
2The earliest apparent foundation in Denmark was the Benedictine cathedral chapter of Odense founded
by monks from Evesham between 1095 and 1100, with other possible early foundations in Schleswig, Ribe
and Lund (for Odense, see King, ‘English Influence’ and ‘The Cathedral Priory’). For a survey of the
earliest historical writing in Scandinavia, see Sawyer and Sawyer, ‘Adam and Eve’.
3Goscelin, Liber Confortatorius (Talbot, p. 41).
4On Gunnor see Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 210–13.
5The Letters and Poems, no. 37 (Behrends, pp. 66–9).
6For these, see below at pp. 36–7, and 137–8, and references there.
7Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (3rd edn), p. 411.
8Bethurum, The Homilies of Wulfstan, pp. 63–4, Barlow, The English Church, p. 41.
9Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 87, and Lawson, Cnut, p. 129.
10P. H. Sawyer, ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, p. 22.
11This is discussed much more fully below in the section on sources, at pp. 21–6.
12See, for example, Larson’s tabulation of the earls who witness Cnut’s charters (‘The Political
Policies’, p. 725, with discussion on pp. 725–9), which prefigures Keynes’ approaches to the witness-lists
of Æthelred (in his Diplomas), Cnut (in his ‘Cnut’s Earls’) and his more comprehensive An Atlas of
Attestations.
13In addition to more traditional historical approaches to Cnut’s reigns in England and Scandinavia in
this volume (those supplied by P. H. Sawyer, ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish
Kingdom’, and Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, amongst others), papers by Jonsson, ‘The Coinage of Cnut’ and
Frank, ‘King Cnut in the Verse of his Skalds’, made important contributions rarely seen before.
14Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, is a notable exception to this, as is Frank, ‘King Cnut’, when attempting to tie
in developments in skaldic verse with events in England.
 15Bolton, Empire, and see also Pratt, ‘Kings and Books’, Treharne, ‘Performance of Piety’, Lewis,
‘Danish Landowners’, Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, and Insley, ‘The Family’, for further thought-
provoking studies.
16Lee, Virginia Woolf, p. 10, quoting Woolf’s notebooks of October 1934.
17Of course, in this lies some of the interest in the genre, as Orson Welles observed in an often quoted
retort to one of his own biographers: ‘There’s no biography so interesting as the one in which the
biographer is present.’
18For a survey of the history of biography see the introduction to Bates, Crick and Hamilton, Writing
Medieval Biography, pp. 1–13, and in particular the comments on pp. 6–11, including a citation of K. B.
MacFarlane’s assertion that medieval biography is impossible.
19Larson, ‘The Political Policies’, p. 722, where he notes the differences between Cnut and his ‘violent
and bloodthirsty’ father: ‘Unlike Sweyn, he was anything but a typical Viking; the lesser excitements of
court life appealed to him more than the wild life of the sea-king. These differences may, to some extent,
have been due to a strong strain of Slavic blood, for racially Cnut was Danish only in part.’
20See as examples: Vincent, Peter des Roches, Beech, ‘Biography and the Study of Eleventh-Century
Society’, Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, Barlow, Edward the Confessor, William Rufus, The
Godwins, and Nelson, Charles the Bald.
21Gaimar, Lestorie des Engles, lines 3,445–8 (Bell, p. 110) , Sprockel, The Language of the Parker
Chronicle, I, p. xix.
22A comprehensive codicological and paleographical survey of the different surviving manuscripts can
be found in the relevant entries in Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts, and see also Keynes, ‘Manuscripts of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’.
23Cambridge, Corpus Christi Cambridge, MS. 173; recently edited by Bately, and available in facsimile
in Flower and Smith, The Parker Chronicle and Laws.
24London, British Library, Cotton MSS. Tiberius A iii and Tiberius B i; recently edited by Taylor. The
C-text has been recently edited by O’Brien O’Keeffe.
25London, British Library, Cotton MS. Tiberius B iv; recently edited by Cubbin.
26Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud MS. 636; a facsimile exists in Whitelock, The Peterborough
Chronicle, and the text was edited recently by Clark.
27London, British Library, MS. Cotton Domitian A viii; a facsimile exists in Dumville, The Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle.
28Keynes, ‘The Declining Reputation’, pp. 229–31.
29See ibid., pp. 50–3, where Lawson draws on the work of Plummer, Two of the Saxon Chronicles
Parallel, and Dumville, ‘Some Aspects’, to set out a comprehensive discussion of the relationship between
C, D and E, and their common source.
30 Lawson, Cnut, p. 53.
31Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle.
32There is an edition by Campbell from 1949, reissued with an extensive introduction by Keynes in
1998.
33A reproduction of this opening of the volume is given in this book.
34Sotheby’s, London, sale catalogue for 3 December 2008, lot 31, the variant text subsequently
published by me as ‘A Newly Emergent’ and again with a parallel text and translation by Keynes and Love
as part of ‘Earl Godwine’s Ship’. The manuscript has been digitized by the National Library of Denmark at:
http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/materialer/haandskrifter/HA/e-mss/acc-2011_5.html
35Stenton called it ‘completely unreliable on points of fact’ (Anglo-Saxon England, p. 697), and a
wealth of studies on it and its purposes have followed. See Gransden, Historical Writing, pp. 56–60,
Körner, Battle of Hastings, pp. 47–74, Campbell, ‘The Encomium Emmae’, John, ‘The Encomium Emmae’,
Keynes, introduction to 1998 reprint of edition of text, pp. [lxvi]–[lxxi] as examples.
36The writs were collected and edited by Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, in 1952.
37The extensive debate on this matter has been summarized and discussed by Keynes, The Diplomas,
pp. 14–83, especially 39–79, as a prologue to his own case study of the charters of Æthelred. However, also
note Lawson’s remarks in his Cnut, pp. 65–71, and the study by Snook, The Anglo-Saxon Chancery.
38P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters; the online extension of this publication can be accessed at:
http://www.esawyer.org.uk/about/index.html
39Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, pp. 278–307 and 308–71). However, that edition reduces the 1018 code
to a series of textual variants of the others. Thus, see Whitelock, ‘Wulfstan and the Laws’, and Kennedy,
‘Cnut’s Law Code’ for further discussion and an edition of that text.
40Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, and Lawson, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan’.
41Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 49.
42See ibid., pp. 54–5, and Lawson, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan’, pp. 154–5 and 159.
43Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, pp. 273–5). The manuscript has been published in facsimile as Barker,
The York Gospels, fols. 158r–160v. See also Ker, ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, especially
pp. 330–1.
44I do not see the problem deduced by Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’, p. 31, and Treharne, Living
through Conquest, pp. 26–7, in Cnut’s statement that he has gone to Denmark to put down a threat to the
English from the Danes, in which they see ‘a wonderful irony’ in Treharne’s words, ‘when he himself
brought conflict from the former to the latter’. If, as I have argued below, one of Swen’s intentions in
invading England was to get it under his control and reduce the raiding there that had brought instability to
Denmark, then Cnut going to re-establish the authority of his dynasty in Denmark did have the effect of
shutting off this raiding. It is a slightly convoluted rationalization of the situation, but most probably Cnut’s
own. What worries me more is the failure to mention his going to receive the crown, something for which I
can think of no reason for him to omit.
45Keynes, ‘The Additions in Old English’, p. 95.
46Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, pp. 276–7).
47It survives in John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1031 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 512), and William
of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, II: 183 (Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom, I, pp. 324–8). See
Brett, ‘John of Worcester’, pp. 113–17, on their independence from each other and separate use of sources.
48John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1031 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 512); Wormald, The Making of
English Law, p. 348.
49John of Worcester, Chronicon, edited by Darlington and McGurk; William of Malmesbury, Gesta
Regum Anglorum, edited by Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom, Simeon’s work edited in Symeonis
Monachi Opera Omnia by Arnold, and Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, edited by Greenway. See
also Brett, ‘John of Worcester’, Thomson, William of Malmesbury, and Hunter Blair, ‘Some Observations
on the “Historia Regum”’.
50Schmeidler’s introduction to his edition of this source, pp. lii–liii.
51Ibid., pp. lxv–lxvi, but note that Schmeidler (and others following him) have the crucial year of
Swen’s death wrongly as 1074. He was still alive in April 1075, and most probably died in 1076. See my
‘Was the Family’, p. 52, n. 27, on this.
52See Reynolds, Texts and Transmissions, pp. 410–11, on the manuscript tradition of Tacitus’
Germania, and my ‘A Textual-Historical Response’ on Adam’s dependence on this source as well as
Orosius.
53The paper written some years ago, but still forthcoming, is Bolton, ‘Preliminary Investigations into
the Scholia of Adam of Bremen’s Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum’.
 54This kenning from Hallvarðr Hareksblesi, Knutsdrápa, edited in Poetry from Treatises on Poetics, in
Gade and Marold (eds.), Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages, forthcoming.
55On the evidence for their recital before patrons, see below at pp. 177–8.
56See Foote, ‘Wrecks and Rhymes’, Frank, ‘King Cnut’, Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon
History’, and Jesch, ‘History in the Political Sagas’.
57See Hofmann, Nordisch-Englische Lehnbeziehungen, pp. 59–100, and Frank, ‘King Cnut’, p. 108.
Also Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History’, pp. 284–5, and Fidjestøl, Det Norrøne Fyrstediktet.
58Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History’, p. 286.
59The surviving material was arranged and edited first by Finnur Jónsson, Den Norsk-Islandske
Skjaldedigtning, in 1912–15, and later rearranged and republished by Kock, Den Norsk-Isländska
Skjaldediktningen, in 1949. See below, n. 65, for details of the recent re-edition of the last few years.
60Lawson, Cnut, offers an example of this cautious use of skaldic verse by historians, in that he cites it
very sparingly (only on pp. 7, 26, 74–5, 79, 97–8 and 100; in which those on pp. 74–9 are part of a section
discussing the available sources), and usually only in passing for its stray historical facts. An early and
notable exception to this traditional view of skaldic verse can be found in Campbell, who had sufficient
linguistic skills to master skaldic verse, leading to his integrated use of these verses alongside other sources
in his appendices to his 1949 edition of the Encomium Emmae (see pp. 66–87), and his Skaldic Verse and
Anglo-Saxon History. The scholarship listed here in the preceding notes as well as Townend,
‘Contextualising’, attests to the recent renaissance.
61The recent project to edit the corpus of extant material has an electronic base at:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/skaldic/db.php. The publications most relevant for our purposes already in print are
Whaley, Poetry from the King’s Sagas, 1, and Gade, Poetry from the King’s Sagas, 2. I would like to thank
Tarrin Wills and other members of the project for making Hallvarðr Hárekblesi’s poem on Cnut from the
forthcoming volume in the series, Poetry from Treatises on Poetics, available to me in proof format.
62See Frank, ‘King Cnut’, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 289–95.
63See Bolton, Empire, pp. 189 and 229–30.
64Theodoricus Monachus, Historia de Antiquitate, edited by Storm, and Ágrip af Nóregskonungasǫgum,
edited by Driscoll. There is also a sound discussion of these late narrative Scandinavian sources in Sawyer
and Sawyer, ‘Adam and Eve’.
65On this see Bjarni Guðnason’s introduction to his Danakonunga Sǫgur, and his Um Skjöldungasögu.
An excellent study in English is Guðrún Nordal, Tools of Literacy, pp. 309–38. The school at Lund would
produce annalists as well as the historians Sven Aggeson and Saxo Grammaticus in this period, who both
refer to and use skaldic verse and Old Norse narrative material. See Mortensen, ‘The Nordic Archbishoprics
as Literary Centres’, on this aspect of Lund under Archbishop Absalon.
66On this specifically, see Bjarni Guðnason’s introduction to his Danakonunga Sǫgur and Guðrún
Nordal, Tools of Literacy, p. 310.
67Uppsala, De la Gardie, MS. 11 4to; see also Guðrún Nordal, Tools of Literacy, pp. 124–6.
68The fundamental work on this putative lost Knúts saga is that of Bjarni Guðnason in the introduction
to his edition of Knytlinga saga for the Íslenzk Fornrit series in 1982 (in Icelandic). The best discussion in
English remains that of Campbell, ‘Knúts saga’, with brief comment by Poole, Viking Poems, pp. 91, 94
and 97.
69See Lindkvist, ‘Early Political Organisation (a) Introductory Survey’, pp. 161–3.
70For a recent and inspiring criticism of the Weibulls’ approach see Gelting, ‘Uløste Opgaver’ (with
English summary), the same author’s ‘Saxo Grammaticus in the Archives’ and ‘Forholdet mellem Liber
Daticus og Memoriale Fratrum’. See also Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘Tendencies in the Historiography’.
71Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, pp. 151–2.
72Ibid., p. 152.
 73Theodoricus Monachus, Historia de Antiquitate, prologue 9–13 (Storm, p. 3). The misunderstanding
of ‘audita non visa’ begins in earnest with the work of Ellehøj, Studier over den ældste, and in response to
this Bjarni Guðnason, ‘Theodoricus og íslenskir Sagnaritarar’, Gudrun Lange, Die Anfänge, and Foote’s
introduction to McDougall, McDougall and Foote, Theodoricus Monachus, pp. xiii–xxiii.
74See McDougall, McDougall and Foote, Theodoricus Monachus, pp. 56–7, n. 11, for a survey.
75Theodoricus Monachus, Historia de Antiquitate, 20:53–4; 20:35–45 (Storm, pp. 44 and 43). For
discussion of the catalogus, see McDougall, McDougall and Foote, Theodoricus Monachus, pp. 92–3, n.
214.
76See Bolton, Empire, pp. 276–85.
77Ibid., pp. 252–62.
78For the pen-case lid, see pp. 142–3 below. The urban sites in Denmark are discussed below at pp. 47–
9.
79See references to this project at: http://dendigitalebyport.byhistorie.dk/medieval/
80The results of this can be consulted in Iversen et al., Viborg Søndersø 1018–1030.
 Chapter 1

CNUT’S CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH

THE BEGINNINGS OF A CONQUEROR

This area of Cnut’s life has the least solid evidence for it, and almost all modern
historians have shied away from it. Little can be known with certainty of Cnut’s
acts or whereabouts before he arrived in England as part of his father’s invasion
force in 1013, but these years were formative. What can be said points to the
fundamental forces that drove him throughout the rest of his life.
We can make some comment about the country into which Cnut was born.
Denmark in the late Viking Age was formed of three landmasses arranged in a
horizontal band across southern Scandinavia: the Jutland peninsula in the west
formed from a northwards extension of the coastline of mainland Europe, with
the islands of Funen and Sjælland to its east, the latter forming the central
landmass of the region, and Skåne (a promotory of the Swedish landmass and
now a region of southern Sweden) to the far east. It was a profoundly agrarian
society, with the vast majority of the population based on rural estates.1
Economic life revolved around agricultural production, fishing and trade, with
viking raiding in England and the Baltic bringing occasional windfalls to local
elite-groups and economies. Christianity was a recent imposition on some of the
elites by a number of German missions from various centres, and what urban
centres were functioning had only been doing so for a short time. There was
little writing, apart from runic inscriptions (both monumental on large erected
stones, and on more mundane objects such as spoons or runesticks) and
apparently no governmental bureaucracy or written lawcodes. What coins there
were that had been struck locally were limited in number and probably used
more as emblems than as currency (a small number were struck c. 995–c. 997 for
Cnut’s father, with perhaps other scattered examples of earlier coins from the
reign of his grandfather if these can be securely localized to Hedeby-Schleswig).
These mostly copied the models of Denmark’s better politically organized
neighbours.
 Political structures appear to have been near-bewilderingly complex and
profoundly decentralized, and as they loomed so large in the life of a man who
would one day be king of Denmark, they deserve special mention here.2 While
foreign sources occasionally refer to ‘the king of Denmark’ in the eighth, ninth
and tenth centuries, modern scholarship has deduced that these were usually
references to only one of many contemporary rulers.3 Attempts have been made
to see these recorded ‘kings’ as the overlords of many other petty-kings and
nobles within some form of social structure, but such attempts are based on little
evidence, and it seems more likely that this society was far from stable and
organized.4 Little can be known with certainty, but the picture that emerges in
the briefest of thumbnail sketches is of a society composed of many different
types of group (predominantly geographical), ruled over by leaders with a wide
variety of titles without any apparent arrangement of these titles and the roles
their holders held in a neat and ordered system. These were most probably
distinguished from each other primarily by their military might, political
influence and access to natural resources, and formed ad hoc alliances or
competed with each other according to individual, local or dynastic reasons.
There is no consensus even on the titles of the highest office-holders in this
system. The term konungr (the cognate for Anglo-Saxon kyning = king) was
used to describe the petty-king Sigerich/Sigtrigg, whose family held power in the
Hedeby-Schleswig region before the arrival of Cnut’s dynasty, as well as Cnut’s
own grandfather on the Jelling runestones. In skaldic verse it was also used for
Norwegian and Swedish rulers who held royal power contemporary with Cnut.
Yet this term was actively avoided by poets when addressing Cnut.5 The overall
rulers of Western Norway in the tenth and early eleventh centuries used the term
jarl (a cognate of ‘earl’, an important but subordinate figure to the king in later
Scandinavian sources) as their title, despite wielding royal authority and
claiming in skaldic verse to rule over sixteen others in Norway with the same
title.6 However, while we would wish to know more about their motives for
doing so, explanations of these are recorded only in late sources and must be
taken with a large pinch of salt.7 The choice of title by each ruler with apparent
royal power seems to have been guided by tradition, ethnic boundaries, or
perhaps even to set themselves apart from other dynasties. It is likely that this
disorganization continued down throughout the social strata. Moreover, as Peter
Sawyer has noted when addressing the same question, it is revealing that in the
late ninth century, Norwegian exiles brought to Iceland a pattern of government
based on varying numbers of lords or chieftains of significantly differing levels
of power and influence, but referred to by a single uniform title (goðar).8
However, to search for this title in Scandinavia outside of Iceland is a nearly
fruitless exercise, and intriguingly it is found only on three tenth-century
runestones from the Danish island of Funen.9 Unfortunately, rulership titles on
runestones in general are few and far between, and beyond konungr and jarl they
reveal more local variations than Scandinavian-wide agreements, while skaldic
verse alike resists attempts to use it constructively to address this question. Other
titles denoting some form of ruling authority survive sporadically in the sources,
such as that of the holdr, but what we might learn from them remains tentative
and isolated. This last title was given in northern English sources to a
Scandinavian, or at least Scandinavian-descended, leader named Thurbrand, and
is also attested in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the leaders of certain viking
armies.10 We also might suspect that some similar title or leadership role stands
behind the strange title ‘princeps regis’ given to the Halfdan who appears above
all other secular witnesses after Cnut in a document claiming to be a record of
Cnut’s confirmation of privileges for the monastery of Christ Church,
Canterbury, in 1018.11 However, those suspicions remain just that.
We can, however, comment on the general nature of this system in which
Cnut grew up, as well as on some of its strengths and weaknesses. This
disorganized form of political structure was dynamic and thus overall robust,
guaranteeing that the strongest and best connected candidates for rule held
power at any time. It enabled great social mobility, allowing successful and
resourceful individuals to surge up through its ranks. However, it also promoted
rivalry and conflict, especially in a society in which raiding and conflict played
such key roles.
In addition, some details of Cnut’s year of birth and his immediate family
can be teased from the sources. The skaldic poet Óttarr svarti notes Cnut’s youth
(‘you launched ships forward at no great age’) when describing his initial
military conflicts, presumably either the English campaigns of 1013–14 or
1015–16, and suggests that he was the youngest leader of that campaign (‘no
ruler younger than you went from home’); thus he was probably born in the
decade immediately before 1000.12 His father was Swen ‘Forkbeard’, the king of
Denmark, and his mother is described by the contemporary German chronicler
Thietmar of Merseburg as an unnamed sister of King Bolesław I Chrobry of
Poland, the head of the Piast dynasty there.13 Thietmar goes on to note that this
anonymous sister had already been married to Erik ‘the Victorious’ of Sweden
(d. before 995), before marrying Swen and giving him two sons named Cnut and
Harald. Adam of Bremen confirms this, noting in his main text that Swen did
marry Erik’s widow and that Cnut was their son, and adding in a scholion that
Erik did marry a sister or daughter of Bolesław Chrobry.14 Some later
Scandinavian sources name her as Sigrið stórráða (the haughty), but we can
probably set aside the developments there as the product of artistic licence.15
Swen may already have had a daughter named Gytha, who must have been born
about 980, as she later married Jarl Eiríkr Hákonarson of Hlaðir (perhaps c. 997)
and was the mother of his son Hákon who himself witnessed Cnut’s charters in
England from 1019 onwards.16 Cnut and Harald had a full sister named Estrith,
and both sisters later became instrumental in forging alliances with other ruling
dynasties through marriages (in Estrith’s case several times).17 In addition to
these, the Liber Vitae of New Minster, Winchester, records a noblewoman with
the garbled name Santslave as ‘sister of Cnut, our king’. It has been suggested
that this strange name was written by an English scribe trying to convey the
Polish name Świętosława, which was common amongst members of the Piast
dynasty.18 She may, or may not, have been the unnamed daughter of Swen
whom John of Worcester records as married to an equally garbled King
Wyrtgeorn of the Wends.19 A final anonymous sibling might be implied by the
reference to a further dynastic link in the thirteenth-century Chronicle of the
Bishops of Ribe, in which a contemporary Danish nobleman and bishop named
Othinkar ‘the younger’ is described as a ‘close relative of King Cnut the Old’
(i.e. Cnut the Great).20 The Latin term nepos for ‘close relative’ here is too
imprecise to see how this Othinkar was related to Cnut, but most probably he or
another member of his family had married into Cnut’s family.
It was common for Scandinavian elites throughout this period to form
liaisons between elite men and women which, while socially accepted as a full
marriage and with equal status to that, could be easily dissolved should the union
cease to be politically expedient.21 The link between Swen and Gytha’s mother
was probably of this form. Thietmar of Merseburg states that Cnut’s mother was
repudiated by Swen many years before her death and returned to Poland.22 Thus,
these last siblings may be from a third and subsequent union of Swen’s, or may
just have been overlooked by the historical sources as their part in history was
minor. The research of Jenny Jochens into the production of heirs by medieval
Norwegian kings has cast a long shadow over our understanding of the liaisons
of Scandinavian kings.23 She showed that they seem to have had sexual access to
numerous women outside of marriage, often apparently at the instigation of the
women or their family. As in England before the arrival of the Normans,
Scandinavia had no system of primogeniture (the inheritance of the eldest son
above all other claimants), and after the death of a king the crown might pass to
any of his living male relatives.24 Thus, each sexual act might produce an heir
who could bring later prosperity and success to the family as a royal candidate.
In general, Jochens is correct, but there is little sign of this in Swen’s life.25 It is
possible that the inherent weaknesses of such a system of inheritance caused him
to exert a greater degree of control than his peers in order to limit the numbers of
legitimate claimants to the throne.
Whether as children or as young adults Cnut and his brother Harald appear to
have stayed in Denmark when their mother returned to Poland. It also seems
likely that they were either raised in Swen’s court or fostered into the courts of
other Danish noblemen.26
We can be sure that Christianity played a significant part in court life. Adam
of Bremen’s history denounced Swen as a pagan, but Swen is one of the chief
villains of Adam’s retelling of the story, having opposed the supremacy that
Adam’s diocese claimed over Denmark, and is damned in his narrative for it.27
This so-called paganism probably amounted to little more than a refusal to
accept Hamburg-Bremen’s brand of Christianity, twisted by Adam to infer that
the rejection of the proselytizing of that see (and the political control that came
with it) was a rejection of Christianity in general. The Encomium paints a picture
of him as a spiritual man, who enjoyed an ‘end much happier from both the
spiritual and the worldly point of view’, and who on his deathbed exhorted Cnut
to exercise ‘the zealous practice of Christianity’ alongside matters of correct
government, after which he was buried in an ecclesiastical construction of his
own foundation in a sepulchre that he had prepared for himself.28 Much of this
must be laudatory hyperbole, but the audience of the Encomium was partly
Danish, if only by recent descent, and facts such as Swen’s construction of a
mausoleum in a church for himself would surely have been glaring if they were
total invention.
Moreover, Cnut was a Christian from birth.29 His grandfather, Harald
Gormsson, had famously converted to Christianity in 963/5, and seems to have
ordered the excavation of his own father’s pagan grave mound, reburying him in
a Christian monument at Jelling alongside runestones declaring the power and
new religious affiliations of the dynasty.30 Further echoes of Christian
appropriations of earlier cult sites have also been discerned in the defacing and
damaging of the remains and fabric of the Oseberg and Gokstad ship burials in
the region of southern Norway most probably under Harald’s command.31 In
these, dendrochronological dating of the wooden shovels and sledges left behind
by the desecrators of the graves to ‘not earlier than AD 953’ in the case of
Oseberg, and ‘after AD 939’ in the case of Gokstad, falls securely into his period
of influence over the area. In addition, Harald was an active builder of new
Christian constructions. Adam of Bremen notes that he was buried in a tomb that
he had prepared for himself in a church dedicated to the Holy Trinity.32 As noted
above, Swen seems to have kept up the new religious traditions, and may even
have been quite zealous in his Christian observations. Cnut was clearly baptized,
and took the baptismal name of Lambert, most probably from his mother’s
family, the Piast dynasty of Poland, who were passionately Christian from the
mid-tenth century onwards.33
While they are nearly invisible to us now, it also seems most probable that
Cnut’s Danish household had attendant priests. Adam of Bremen records that a
Danish ecclesiastic with the name Tymmo (who also used the variant German
name Thietmar) accompanied Cnut’s daughter Gunhild to Germany in 1036.34
He was most likely her chaplain, or a royal priest serving much the same
function. It is clear that he was educated for higher clerical office, since after
Gunhild’s untimely death he served as a royal chaplain, perhaps to the imperial
house; and after the death of Bishop Godehard of Hildesheim on 5 May 1038, he
was appointed as bishop there, and remained in that office until his death in
1044.35 It seems unlikely that this figure would have been trusted with the key
role of accompanying Gunhild had he only been in the service of Cnut for a few
years. Tymmo’s appointment as a bishop in 1038 ensures that he was born as
early as 1008 (that is, the earliest point that would allow him to have been thirty
years old and so permitted to take up the office), and perhaps much earlier (he
appears to have died of natural causes in 1044, and thus may well have been
much older). Therefore, his attachment to the Danish court would appear to pre-
date Cnut’s appointments of bishops in Denmark and the influx of Englishmen
to Denmark, and conceivably he may have served Cnut’s father and brother.
While the Danish royal family was wholeheartedly Christian, the same could
not be said of the country they ruled over. There were other ecclesiastics, most
probably German-trained, who operated in Denmark in the early eleventh
century (such as Othinkar the elder and his nephew and namesake, Othinkar the
younger), or who were members of Danish elite families but resided in Germany
(Othinkar the younger had a sister named Asa who lived as a nun in Bremen).36
These figures or their families may have been responsible for some early
wooden churches in outlying areas, such as that detected by archaeology at
Sebbersund on a lower arm of the Limfjord in north Jutland, which can be dated
by radiocarbon testing to 1000 (±10).37 However, in the main, churches of such
early date appear to have been few in number and were mostly located in royal
urban centres.38
While some of the skaldic verse from poets close to the zealous
Christianizing Norwegian kings presents paganism and Christianity as mutually
exclusive and easily identifiable from each other, the matter was probably not so
easily discernible on the ground for much of the population of Scandinavia, and
certainly not so in Denmark.39 The account of Widukind, which was written by
968, ‘that the Danes were Christian since ancient times, but nevertheless
worshipping idols with pagan rites’, has received recent support. It would appear
to attest to a mixed religious landscape in tenth-century Denmark, in which
Danes were familiar with Christianity, and syncretically adopted the Christian
God into their older pantheons as another deity or supernatural force to receive
their appeals.40 In the ninth century, Rimbert in his Vita Anskarii records that
some Scandinavians underwent a form of initial Christianization ceremony,
elsewhere known as ‘primsigning’, in order to interact with Christian society and
enter churches during masses, but they put off actual baptism until near the point
of death.41 This of course allowed them to pass between both religious
communities without actually committing to either. Without going too deeply
into the subject, the flexibility of pre-Christian religion also encouraged this
‘patchwork’ religious activity, and one suspects that several other possible grey
areas and middle grounds existed but have not been recorded in our sources.
By contrast, the pace of conversion seems markedly relaxed in parts of
Denmark, notably in northern Jutland.42 A resurgence of burials with the
apparently pagan trappings of military and equestrian equipment (some even
with entire horses) can be traced in north-east Jutland in the late tenth and early
eleventh centuries. Strangely, this seems to coexist side by side with the church
built at neighbouring Sebbersund. Similarly, using the grave goods and spatial
alignment of graves from a cemetery attached to the nearby ringfort at Fyrkat,
Else Roesdahl has painted a complementary picture of beliefs there c. 980,
which suggests a high degree of tolerance for pagan symbols and practices,
perhaps even coexisting alongside Christian practices.43 In addition, at Hørning,
near Randers in the centre of northern Jutland, traces of two wooden churches
have been discerned beneath the present twelfth-century fabric.44 A single
decorated plank from one of these structures, which was reused in the later
building, dates dendrochronologically to 1070. If it is from the later of the two
churches, then we might reasonably date the initial ecclesiastical structure on the
site to the first half of the eleventh century, leaving at least a few decades before
this church was torn down and replaced. What is most surprising here is that
these church buildings are sited on top of a pagan gravemound, which was
levelled so that the grave slab lay directly under the entrance to the nave, forcing
parishioners to walk over the grave in order to enter the church. This was
evidently the intention of the builders. The grave held a single female body and
was a high-status burial of the tenth century, and so it is likely that when the
grave mound was levelled there were members of the community who could
remember the burial, and without doubt there must have been local elites who
traced close descent from the deceased. As at Jelling, the alignment of these
pagan and Christian structures suggests much about the pace of Christianization,
indicating that it was not a rapid process leading to a clean break with the past.
Denmark in Cnut’s day would appear to have still retained this calmer pace of
religious change in some areas, and within them elements of the older beliefs
and syncretic blendings of belief systems could exist in the first few decades of
the eleventh century.
Cnut’s dynasty are usually regarded with hindsight as well-established and
secure rulers, but from the position of Cnut’s childhood quite the reverse seems
to have been true. Cnut was the product of half a century of power expansion
and consolidation by a dynasty who appear to have begun in Denmark as petty-
kings in the region of mid-Jutland, but they were relative newcomers to
Denmark and their grip on power was not without moments of crisis.
Cnut’s grandfather, Harald ‘Bluetooth’ or ‘the Good’ Gormsson, is the
earliest figure for whom we can paint a relatively comprehensive picture of his
life, as well as the figure who appears to have overseen the initial leaps forward
by the dynasty in political power. Harald was converted to Christianity by the
missionary Poppo in either 963 or 965.45 Without doubt Harald embraced the
new religion, and the traditional archaeological interpretation of the runestones
and gravemound complex at Jelling in eastern mid-Jutland shows that while
Harald’s father was buried in a pagan gravemound there in the winter of 958–9,
he was exhumed within a few years and reburied in a church at the same site in
the 960s.46 Harald was married to a Slavic woman, who was named on the runic
monument at Jelling as Thyre alongside the celebrated statement of his power as
having ‘won the whole of Denmark for himself, and Norway, and made the
Danes Christian’.47 He expanded his control over Denmark through building
projects, fought against the Germans on his southern border in 974 and lost, but
drove these out in 983 through an alliance with the Slavic Obodrites. His claim
to overlordship of Norway is attested by the Jelling inscription and Adam of
Bremen.48 This may have meant either Danish rule over the Viken (the coastal
regions of the Oslofjord that face the tip of Jutland), which some Danish rulers
may already have exerted authority over during parts of the previous half-
century; or rule of the northern and western regions of Norway, through an
advantageous alliance with the Jarls of Hlaðir, who controlled the area around
Trondheim, and according to the skaldic verse Vellekla were themselves the
overlords of all of Norway north of the Viken, receiving homage from sixteen
jarls there.49 Harald was driven out of Denmark by a rebellion headed by his son
Swen ‘Forkbeard’, apparently in 987, and fled to his Slavic allies where he died
of his wounds.50
It is when we push back one more generation that we encounter problems,
but we must persevere as the results of these have some bearing on important
events that would have been a recent memory when Cnut was born. The larger
Jelling runestone names Harald’s father as Gorm, and this finds some agreement
in Adam of Bremen’s account.51 The earliest figure from this family introduced
to us by Adam is named Hardecnudth Vurm (‘Harða-Knútr worm’, with the last
word an apparent play on Gorm, as Adam then declares him ‘crudelissimus,
inquam, vermis’ – ‘a most cruel worm, I say’).52 A few lines later in the same
account this Vurm has a son named Harald who is recognizable as Harald
Gormsson.53 However, earlier in his account, Adam sets out details of men who
had once ruled over the region of Hedeby-Schleswig, which he claims he heard
from King Swen Estrithsson (Cnut’s nephew, who ruled Denmark from 1042 to
1076 and was thus probably narrating his own genealogy).54 This section states
that during the office of Archbishop Hoger (909–16) the local rulers were
overthrown by a ‘Hardegon, son of Sveinn, who came from Nortmannia’ (either
Norway or Normandy). We are probably on safe ground if we agree with the
existing consensus view, here stated by Sawyer, that ‘the most satisfactory
interpretation . . . appears to be that Hardegon was a mistaken form of
Hardeknud’.55 However, I am less certain of the next clause in Sawyer’s
sentence, ‘and that he was the father of Gorm’. An argument about how to
interpret these statements of Adam’s has raged since the early 1900s, with the
current consensus view using an additional word in some of the manuscripts of
Adam’s text for the first of his statements here, to stitch together these two
statements to produce a genealogical line that proceeds from father to son:
Hartheknut–Gorm–Harald–Swen–Cnut.56 In short, manuscripts from the two
later groups of Adam’s text add the word ‘son’ (filius) before Hardecnudth
Vurm, perhaps suggesting that Hardecnudth was the father of Vurm.
The other view, with which I find myself in agreement, was first championed
in 1929 by Lis Jacobsen, who pointed out that the word filius is not in the
earliest group of copies of Adam’s text, and there the name of Hardecnudth
Vurm is given in the variant form ‘Hardewigh Gorm’, ‘Hardewigh Gorem’ or
‘Hardewich Gwrm’.57 She proposed that Hardecnudth and Vurm were one man
with a name and a nickname, misunderstood by later copyists of Adam’s text.
The whole of her study has not stood up to later criticism, but here I think she
may have a point. The word-order in the Latin construction of ‘filius
Hardecnudth Vurm’ with the term for ‘son’ before the two names is as awkward
in Latin as in Modern English, and it is hard to imagine a competent and well-
read Latinist such as Adam creating such a construction.58 Furthermore, neither
of the other contemporary German chroniclers to discuss Denmark, Widukind of
Corvey or Thietmar of Merseburg, mentions Gorm at all.59 Lastly and most
convincingly, there is a source of circumstantial evidence not apparently noted
elsewhere in the debate that supports Jacobsen’s case. It appears that elite
naming practices of male children in southern Scandinavia in the Viking Age
often involved the naming of the first son after his father, the second son after
his grandfather, and so on.60 Thus Cnut’s recorded male children were Swen,
Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut, respectively named after Cnut’s father (Swen),
his grandfather (Harald) and presumably his great-grandfather.
Crucially, Swen ‘Forkbeard’ named his recorded male children according to
the same pattern: Harald (after his own father) and Cnut (with Cnut as a variant
of Harthacnut: Cnut + a regional or adjectival epithet).61
We are left, if the reader will forgive the pun, quite Gormless.62 The
evidence is slight, but the overall agreement of the pattern here endorses this
impression of such naming practices, and otherwise we must make the wild
suggestion that two children named Gorm were born between Cnut and his elder
brother Harald and between Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut, and that both
children died in infancy.63
 It is hard to explain how both lines here omit Gorm, especially when he is
accorded such renown on the Jelling runestones, and perhaps we must conclude
that Gorm is present here under a different name. Adam of Bremen drew his
material from numerous sources, both written and oral, and it is simplest to
conclude that he became confused when dealing with two sources of evidence,
perhaps collected and incorporated into his work in different places and even
decades apart, and that Gorm/Vurm was a nickname given to a figure named
Hardecnudth/Hardegon.
Thus Hardecnudth/Hardegon was then the son of a Swen, who came to the
region of Hedeby-Schleswig from Nortmannia only three generations before
Cnut’s birth, seized control there and died in the winter of 958–9. In this context,
it is of passing interest that the epithet ‘Hartha-’ could be derived as the adjective
‘hard’ or the genitive plural of the ethnonym Hörðar, meaning ‘of the people of
Hordaland’, in western coastal Norway, perhaps resolving how to translate
Nortmannia.64 The implication of this is that Cnut’s dynasty may have been
established on Danish soil for as few as sixty years when he was born, and Cnut
may have grown up amongst the last of the elderly men who could remember
their arrival.
His grandfather and father spent the decades up to his birth and those of his
youth in constant activity, expanding their authority over the petty-kings and
chieftains who were their neighbours. What set these rulers apart from their
immediate peers was the understanding that conquests far from the seat of their
authority could be controlled through the building-up of infrastructure. Rather
than continually involving themselves in minor border squabbles, either gaining
or losing land when their power waxed or waned, they began systematically to
extend their control as a form of conquest, eroding the power of pre-existing
local elites. Both invested in quite novel constructions to hold onto their ever-
growing areas of influence in Denmark. Despite the grand and propagandistic
statements of the Jelling runestones, much was still to be achieved in the second
half of the tenth century. Harald Gormsson’s expanding authority must be
behind the series of uniform ringforts built towards the end of his reign on the
periphery of the heartland of his powerbase at Jelling, in north Jutland (Fyrkat
near Viborg, and Aggersborg, at the northernmost opening of the Limfjord), on
Funen (Nonnebacken in Odense) and Sjælland (Trelleborg and a fort discovered
in 2014 some 30 miles south of Copenhagen).65 Both Fyrkat and Trelleborg can
be shown to have been built in 979–81, and they are all near-identical,
bespeaking central planning on a royal scale. That at Trelleborg in Skåne is
similar enough to be identified as another member of the group, but it has
differences that suggest an indirect control of the construction there, and perhaps
also of that region. It is not clear whether these were intended to secure control
of localities far from the royal seat of power, or be used as bases in the event of
external attack, but they do attest to Harald’s growing presence throughout the
kingdom. Similarly, runestones also seem to attest to a process of political
upheaval and possible consolidation of power in Harald and Swen’s hands in
northern Jutland and south-western Skåne in the late tenth and early eleventh
centuries – whether we interpret them as monuments erected by traditional elites
to assert themselves in the face of powerful new royal agents or as statements of
power by these incoming agents.66
The foundation of urban sites, early towns, played a substantial role in this
process of power assertion. Towns had been founded in Denmark and functioned
as central places for trade, minting of coins, and secular and religious control
long before Cnut’s dynasty came to power. Three such towns existed in the late
tenth century, in Århus in the north-east of Jutland (a site dating from c. 900),
and in the older sites of Ribe and Hedeby-Schleswig on the west and east coasts
of southern Jutland (in existence from the eighth century onwards).67 However,
each of these places dwindled under Cnut’s father and grandfather, seemingly
ignored by them in preference to sites more under their control, and the
impression gained from the available sources of evidence points to the rapid and
total collapse of urban functions in these sites in the last decades of the tenth
century. Ribe appears to have been almost abandoned throughout the period, and
is without any archaeological layers that can be dated between c. 900 and
1077.68 For the reigns of Swen and his sons, there are almost no archaeological
deposits in any of these three towns. Moreover, Adam of Bremen states that after
the death of Archbishop Adaldag of Hamburg-Bremen in 988, the episcopal see
at Århus passed out of existence, presumably along with the functioning of the
urban site there, and the Vita Bernwardi records that c. 1000 Bishop Ekkihard
(or Esico) of Hedeby-Schleswig left his see and went into exile in Germany,
declaring the town deserted and the church destroyed.69 The other bishops
appear to have accompanied Ekkihard, along with an otherwise unattested
bishop of Odense. They are all recorded in an imperial privilege of 18 March
988 granting them rights in Germany, implying that they could no longer support
themselves from their Danish dioceses, or perhaps even return there safely.70
This state of affairs appears to have continued into Cnut’s reign, and while
Hedeby-Schleswig had minted coins in the middle of the tenth century and Ribe
probably also served as a mint site in the same period, none of these sites
produced coins in Cnut’s name throughout his reign.71
To fill the gaps left in the infrastructure by the abandonment of these sites,
three other towns were founded during the reign of Swen: Viborg in northern
Jutland, Roskilde on Sjælland and Lund in south-western Skåne. All three are
located in northern Denmark, almost evenly spaced across the region, but
crucially away from the other pre-existing urban sites and the border with
Germany and the regions under direct or indirect German control. With the
exception of Århus on the eastern coastline of mid-Jutland the pre-existing urban
sites were placed in the south of Jutland, close to the southern border. The forts
at Trelleborg and Fyrkat also fell into disrepair during Swen’s reign, and part of
their intended functions was perhaps thereafter played by the concentrations of
population in the vicinity of the new towns, which like the forts were evenly
spaced across the regions of Denmark.72 Viborg’s archaeology begins with
deposits that can be precisely dated through dendrochronology to the last decade
of the tenth century and the years around 1000, and the only man-made features
on the site that pre-date the urban structures are the remains of a number of
Viking-Age farm buildings with some associated ploughmarks.73 Roskilde has
little surviving early archaeology, but again there are traces of Viking-Age farm
buildings beneath the modern town, and its earliest urban structures existed by
987×1014.74 Adam of Bremen some decades later would identify it as the largest
urban site on Sjælland, and ‘the seat of Danish royalty’.75 He also records that
Harald Gormsson was buried in a tomb that he had prepared for himself in a
church dedicated to the Holy Trinity in Roskilde.76 It was most probably this
same royal mausoleum that the Encomium claims received the body of Swen.77
The Encomium states that this construction was erected at Swen’s instigation,
not his father’s, and that it was a monastery (monasterium), but the fact that both
sources note the dedication of the building to the Holy Trinity identifies it as the
same. The author of the Encomium appears to have been an inhabitant of
Flanders who had spent time in England, where burial in monasteries was
common, and he perhaps did not know that there were no monasteries in
Scandinavia in the early eleventh century, and made a small error in transferring
the mausoleum he was discussing into a non-existent monastic foundation. F.
Birkbæck has suggested that this church was built during the reign of Swen, and
its construction backdated by Adam of Bremen in an attempt to avoid connecting
any such activity to Swen, who is the villain of his account. However, it is
equally possible that both Harald and Swen had sufficient input into its
construction to feel that in the state in which they each saw the building they
were its founder.78
Archaeological excavations in the 1970s at Lund unearthed a large cemetery
from the period of the earliest occupation layers, with bodies buried in wooden
coffins datable by dendrochronology to the period from 994(±5)–1048(±5).79
The earliest traces of structures from Lund date to the period from 1010(±5)–
1023(±5).80 In addition, the Church of St Clements there was excavated by
Ragnar Blomkvist in 1932.81 This revealed fragments of an early wooden church
beneath the earliest and eleventh-century stone construction. A recent dating of
the wooden church to the early part of that century opens the possibility that it
was built during the reign of Swen.82
Similarly, Swen began to fill the gaps in the episcopal structures with his
supporters. He enthroned a missionary bishop named Gotebald, who had
previously preached in Norway and Sweden, to a see based on Skåne (and
presumably thus in Lund).83 The only remaining bishops in Denmark after the
flight of the Germans were the elderly missionary Poppo and a single bishop
plucked from the Danish nobility, Othinkar ‘the younger’.84 Other senior
ecclesiastical duties were perhaps performed by the royal chaplains or other
lesser clergy attached to the royal court.
All of this gives the impression of a stable dynasty slowly accumulating
authority and consolidating its hold on power in the regions. However, at the
midpoint of this process, in the mid-980s, perhaps only years before Cnut’s
birth, his family would turn on itself, unleashing a brief civil war that ended in a
scandalous regicide and apparently leaving a deep scar on Danish memory. In
the last days of Archbishop Adaldag (d. 988), Swen turned against his father
Harald, and, as Adam states, ‘set on foot many plots against his father’ so that
‘of a sudden, the Danes entered into a conspiracy . . . to make Swen king, to
declare war on Harald’.85 Adam sought to portray Swen falsely as a pagan, and
we might cast significant doubt on his other statements that this revolt was that
of a pagan son wishing to oust his Christian father, and that Swen’s followers
were reluctant and repentant converts to Christianity.86 However, we can
probably draw from these brief statements the facts that Swen did have the
support of sections of the Danish nobility, and that at the root of the matter were
tensions created by some unknown aspects of Harald’s rule. Swen’s forces were
stronger, and when they met in battle Harald was defeated and fled to his allies
on the Baltic coastline, where he died from his injuries.87 The Encomium,
coming from the camp of Swen’s son Cnut half a century later, gives its own
version of these events as partisan as that of Adam of Bremen, claiming that
‘even as a boy he [Swen] was held by all in close affection, and was hated only
by his father’.88 That source goes on to note that Harald’s ‘envy increased more
and more, so that he wished, not in secret, but openly, to cast him out, affirming
by oath that he should not rule after him’. This source frequently reshapes
history to serve as a moral warning for its own times, which had also seen the
murder of a member of the royal family (Edward the Confessor’s elder brother,
Alfred) and needed to stress royal unity between the two half-brothers
Harthacnut and Edward, but the comments here are introduced without the
characteristic moral lesson. Instead, the choice to give a rose-tinted view of this
rebellion and royal patricide may suggest that even in the 1040s this act was still
felt to be sufficiently shocking to warrant an elaborate explanation.
Much of this instability must have informed Cnut’s character and later
decisions. He grew up in a society where his family’s grasp on power was one of
conquest, and that only recent, most probably just on the edge of living memory.
This was supported by innovations that for the most part must have been
achieved in the face of local outrage. Power is rarely taken from local rulers with
their consent, and sections of the nobility must have been hostile to Cnut’s
dynasty, and wished for a return to the way things were before Cnut’s
grandfather and father extended their control. Almost all of Harald’s long-term
supporters, and some, if not many, of the Danish elites must have been
scandalized by Swen’s rebellion, and the blood this left on his hands. From birth
Cnut had learnt to strive and fight for his achievements, even when that led to
morally shocking decisions and dark, murderous actions to further his aims. He
grew up under the cloud of the death of his grandfather, Harald, could probably
securely count on few people for unquestioned support, and was keenly aware
that fortune could drag men down just as easily as raise them up.
It is of equal importance in our assessment of what drove him to bear in
mind that Cnut was the second of Swen’s sons. The Encomium states that he was
the elder brother, but as Lund has rightly concluded this goes against the grain of
all our other sources, and was most probably a detail added by the author of that
text retrospectively to promote Cnut and his sons’ rights to rule over any
surviving heir of his brother.89 The senior position amongst the siblings was
clearly that of his brother Harald. It was this Harald whom Swen left in charge of
Denmark when he and Cnut went to England in 1013, and as the Encomium is
forced to concede, when Cnut returned to Denmark after his father’s sudden
death, he had to ask his brother for, and was refused, a share of the kingdom.90
The only evidence to suggest that they had some form of joint kingship or that
Cnut had any measure of rule there before his re-invasion of England is the
earliest series of coins minted in Lund, which may date to 1014–15; however,
the dating is based solely on their following of English types of that date and is
far from secure.91
In the opening years of the second decade of the eleventh century, when
Cnut became a young man and began to build his own networks of alliances and
draw on them for support, he could not have known that his brother would be
dead within a few years. At that point, Cnut could expect little beyond the role of
an understudy in the rule of Denmark, and when he returned there in 1014 his
brother seems to have been so entrenched that Cnut could not challenge him
openly. In addition, the country probably could not have withstood another
scandalous murder within its new royal house. It must have been painfully clear
to him that like those of his great-grandfather and grandfather his fortunes had to
be made elsewhere through conquest, and won by his own efforts. There may be
a grain of truth in the Encomium’s statement that Swen, when considering an
invasion of England, ‘summoned Cnut . . . [and] began to inquire what were his
views concerning the matter’.92 The conquest of England would offer him a
region to inherit from his father, one that was far wealthier than that which was
to be his brother’s lot. Doubtless Cnut joined the rank and file of Swen’s
invading army on the boats that would take them to the English coast with a
sense that his time had come and so he had to make the most of this opportunity.

1For the best general discussion of Denmark in this period, see Roesdahl, Viking Age Denmark, and her
references there.
2See ibid., Sawyer and Sawyer, ‘A Gormless Dynasty’, and Maund, ‘“A Turmoil of Warring Princes”’.
3See in particular Maund, “A Turmoil of Warring Princes”’.
4Ibid., p. 32.
5As noted by Frank, ‘When Poets Address Princes’, pp. 193–4. This would seem to have been a
political decision, probably intended to set Cnut apart from his Norwegian and Swedish contemporaries, but
it lays bare the fluidity of such titles. Cnut clearly did not need to be called konungr by his skalds, and
suffered no apparent reputational damage from the absence of the term. The relevant Sigerich/Sigtrigg
runestone is DR. 4.
6For these Jarls of Hlaðir, see pp. 74–5 below and the references there. The claim to rule over sixteen
other jarls is found in the skaldic poem Vellelkla, verse 32 (Whaley, p. 323) by Einarr skálaglamm.
7See Ágrip af Nóregskonungasǫgum, ch. 11 (Driscoll, p. 20), and references there to a twelfth-century
discussion of this dynasty’s adherence to the title ‘jarl’.
 8P. H. Sawyer, ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, p. 10.
9DR. 190, 192 and 209.
10See Bolton, Empire, p. 114, for Thurbrand’s title. ASC 904 A (Bately, p. 63) records the existence of
a Hold Ysopa and a Hold Oscytel as well as ‘their king Eohric’ at the head of viking armies. It is worth
noting that this term is not recorded anywhere in the runic corpus.
11Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 62, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 19 and 17.
12Óttarr svarti, Knútsdrápa, verse 1 (Whaley, p. 769). New discussion of the marriages attested in our
narrative sources by Lund opens the possibility that Cnut could be a decade older than thought (Lund,
‘Svend Estridsens Blodskam’). However, this flies in the face of the contemporary statements of skaldic
verse.
13Thietmar, Chronicon, VII:39(28) (Holtzman, p. 446).
14Adam of Bremen, Gesta, scholion 24(25) (Schmeidler, p. 95). Note that this is an addition to Adam’s
text which I have identified as not of a form indicating that it was part of the earliest reconstructable
manuscript witness to the text, and thus is probably not the work of Adam or contributors who worked with
him (see my forthcoming ‘Preliminary Investigations into the Scholia of Adam of Bremen’s Gesta
Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum’). It is first attested in a manuscript of the late thirteenth century
(Copenhagen, Royal Library, GKS MS. 2296).
15For the fundamental discussion of these later accretions see Weibull, Kritiska Undersökningar, pp.
106–10.
16Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’, p. 27, and P. H. Sawyer, ‘Swein Forkbeard and the Historians’, pp.
27–40.
17For Estrith see Adam of Bremen, Gesta II:54(52) (Schmeidler, p. 114). There Adam records that
Estrith (under the name of Margaret in the main text, presumably a baptismal name; she is named as
‘Estrid’ in a scholion) was married to Jarl Ulf of Denmark, while Ulf’s sister was married to Earl Godwine
of Wessex. The main text and the following scholion record that she was also married to Count Richard of
Normandy (II:54[52] and scholion 40[41] [Schmeidler, pp. 114–15], with the same problems as that
discussed in n. 14 above). This is partly in error, and instead she may have married his son, Robert I of
Normandy. A further scholion there claims yet another marriage, of her to the ‘son of the king of Russia’
(scholion 39[40]; an addition with the same problems as that discussed in n. 14 above). Campbell, following
Freeman, places the order of Estrith’s marriages as first to Ulf, then to Robert of Normandy, and finally to
the Russian prince (Encomium, pp. 85–6, and this argument followed in turn by Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p.
73, n. 166). However, this is based on weak saga-evidence, and if the identification of the Russian as Ilja,
prince of Novgorod, is correct (see below at p. 169) then that was her first marriage as he died in late 1019
or early 1020. Robert of Normandy would have been in his early twenties at this time, and may have been
her next intended suitor, with her repudiation by Robert a few years later leaving her free to marry Ulf. Both
marriages, to the Russian prince and the Norman duke, may have been little more than diplomatic exercises,
and the parties may not have even met before the liaisons were dissolved.
18Gerchow, Gedenküberlieferung, p. 325 (entry 30). See Uspenskij, ‘Dynastic Names in Medieval
Scandinavia and Russia’, pp. 17 and 20, for the most likely Polish name that stands behind Santslave. See
also Hare, ‘Cnut and Lotharingia’, pp. 265–6, n. 23.
19John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1029 (Darlington et al., 510).
20Chronicle of the Bishops of Ribe (Jørgensen, pp. 26–7); see also Bolton, Empire, pp. 186–7, on this.
21See Bolton, ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’, pp. 252–8, on this distinctively Scandinavian type of medieval
marriage.
22Thietmar, Chronicon, VII:39(28) (Holtzman, p. 446).
23Jochens, ‘The Politics of Reproduction’.
24See ibid.
 25Moreover, we might compare his descendant Swen Estrithsson, who ruled Denmark from the late
1040s until his death in 1076. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, II: 261 (Mynors, Thomson
and Winterbottom, p. 480), claimed that he had fourteen sons, and Saxo Grammaticus lists twelve, while
Knytlinga saga lists fourteen sons (and two daughters), by at least five women. See below at p. 44, n. 64,
for details of these. To this can be added the Helena ‘known as Gunhild’ recorded on the Gunhild Cross in
the National Museum, Copenhagen (noted by Christiansen, Saxo Grammaticus, p. 232). The various
traditions are discussed and assessed by Christiansen, Saxo, II, pp. 230–2, n. 23.
26The late so-called ‘Supplement to Jómsvíkinga saga’, edited as an appendix to Campbell, Encomium
Emmae Reginae, pp. 92–3, claims that Thorkell the Tall fostered Cnut, but this is the sole source to claim
this, and as it heightens the later conflict between Cnut and Thorkell and shifts it towards a family drama,
this has probably more to do with Icelandic literary themes than actual events and should be set aside.
27Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:27 (Schmeidler, p. 87). Adam’s hostility to Swen and Swen’s so-called
‘paganism’ have been comprehensively studied by P. H. Sawyer, ‘Swein Forkbeard and the Historians’.
28Encomium Emmae Reginae, I:1 and 5; II:3 (Campbell, pp. 8, 14 and 18).
29On the conversion of Scandinavia in general see P. H. Sawyer, ‘The Process of Scandinavian
Christianization’, and the recent study by Winroth, The Conversion of Scandinavia.
30A wealth of literature exists on these: see Krogh, ‘The Royal Viking-Age Monuments’ and Gåden om
Kong Gorms Grav; Pedersen, ‘Jelling im 10. Jahrhundert’; Holst, Jessen and Pedersen, ‘Runestenens
Jelling’; and Holst et al., ‘Kongens Gård i Jelling?’; as well as the extremely lengthy bibliography of works
on Jelling published online at: http://velkommenihistorien.dk/Sider/litteratur1.html. See also Gelting,
‘Poppo’s Ordeals’, and p. 40–1 below.
31Bill and Daly, ‘The Plundering of the Ship Graves’.
32Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:28 (Schmeidler, pp. 87–8). It may have been the same construction that
the Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:3 (Campbell, p. 18) credits to Swen, perhaps as the latter completed it or
substantially added to it. See below, at pp. 48–9, for fuller disscussion.
33Gerchow, ‘Prayers’, pp. 235–6, and Hare, ‘Cnut and Lotharingia’, pp. 261–8.
34Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:79 (Schmeidler, p. 136). See also Olrik, ‘Den Danske Biskop Tymme’.
35Wolfhere, Vita Godehardi episcopi posterior, ch. 33 (Pertz, pp. 215–16).
36Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II: 26, 36 and accompanying scholia 25(26) and 35(37) (Schmeidler, pp. 85,
96–7 and 110) (both an early part of the tradition; see my forthcoming ‘Preliminary Investigations into the
Scholia of Adam of Bremen’s Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum’). For Asa see ibid., scholion
45(46) (not recorded in any manuscript before the fifteenth century) (Schmeidler, p. 124). See also Gelting,
‘Elusive Bishops’.
37Birkedahl, ‘Sebbersund’, Nielsen, ‘Sebbersund’, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 197–8, for an attempt to
give this some historical context.
38See Roesdahl, ‘Hvornår blev Kirkene Bygget?’, and Thaastrup-Leith, ‘Traekirker i det
Middelalderlige Danmark’, and note that they conclude that a campaign of widespread building of
churches, certainly those in stone, belongs to the mid-to later eleventh century. See also pp. 140–1 below
for comments on the churches that can be dated to Cnut’s reign.
39See Hallfreðr vandræðaskáld’s verses on his conversion by Óláfr Tryggvason. Poole, ‘The
“Conversion Verses”’, provides an edition and excellent discussion, and see also Edwards, ‘Christian and
Pagan References’, on these.
40Widukind of Corvey, Rerum Gestarum Saxonicarum, III:65 (Lohmann and Hirsch, pp. 140–1). For
this support see Gelting, ‘Poppo’s Ordeal’. See also Lund, ‘Mission i Danmark’, Refskou, ‘Ottonernes
Missionsvirksomhed’, and Roesdahl, ‘En Gravplads’.
41Rimbert, Vita Anskarii, ch. 24 (Waitz, p. 53). The practice is also attested in Egils saga
skallagrimsonar, ch. 50 (Sigurður Nordal, p. 128).
42Nielsen, ‘Hedenskab og Kristendom’, and Bolton, Empire, p. 198.
 43Roesdahl, ‘En Gravplads’.
44Krogh and Voss, ‘Fra Hedenskab til Kristendom’, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 199–200.
45The traditional date ascribed to this conversion is 965. However, Gelting in his ‘Poppo’s Ordeal’ has
redated this to 963, and identified Poppo as Folkmar of Cologne (also known as Poppo in contemporary
sources), the deputy of the archbishop of Cologne, who like Hamburg-Bremen also claimed Scandinavia as
his suffragan see. Thus Harald’s conversion was most probably a political act, and as Widukind notes (see
p. 38 above), the Danes had been familiar with Christianity and some had adopted it into the pantheon of
their gods for some time. This article changes much of what we thought we knew of Adam’s account of
early Christianity in Denmark, and places Cologne’s claims at its inception.
46See Krogh, Gåden om Kong Gorms, and Krogh and Leth-Larsen, Hedensk og Kristent, but for dissent
note Gelting, ‘Poppo’s Ordeal’, pp. 113–15, and references there.
47DR. 42; see Moltke, Runes and their Origin, pp. 206–7, for the modern English translation. See also
Jesch, ‘Reading the Jelling Inscription’.
48DR. 42, and Gesta, II:25 (Schmeidler, p. 83).
49Einarr Helgason, Vellekla, verses 16 and 32 (Whaley, pp. 304 and 323).
50On the date of his death see Refskou, ‘“In marca vel regno Danorum”’.
51DR. 42.
52Adam of Bremen, Gesta, I:55 (Schmeidler, p. 56).
53Ibid., I:59 (Schmeidler, p. 57).
54Ibid., I:52 (Schmeidler, p. 53).
55P. H. Sawyer, ‘Konger og Kongemakt’, p. 279; his own translation following his Danish ‘Man kan
ikke i alle detaljer stole på Adam af Bremens beretning . . . [men] Den mest tilfredsstillende tolkning af
Adams beretning synes at være, at Hardegon er en misforstået form for Hardeknud, og at han var far til
Gorm.’ For more detailed discussion of the debate see Sawyer and Sawyer, ‘A Gormless Dynasty’, p. 690,
and the references there.
56See Sawyer and Sawyer, ‘A Gormless Dynasty’, p. 690, nn. 9 and 10, for details of the debate.
57Jacobsen, Svenskevældets Fald, pp. 23–8.
58It is worth noting that the variant I prefer here has been followed by both the editor of Adam’s Latin
text, Schmeidler (p. 56), and its modern English translator Tschan (p. 49), where the latter preserves
‘Harthacanute Gorm’ in his main text, only admitting another identification on p. 47, n. 155.
59He does appear in the late Jómsvíkinga saga and Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, but the details
there are manifestly based on Adam’s account. I do not follow Jacobsen, Svenskevældets Fald, pp. 58–82,
in any suggestion that there was a Gormssaga.
60This is the subject of a paper I have in preparation, and appears to be a southern Scandinavian
practice, perhaps even restricted to Denmark and Danes overseas.
61The name Harthacnut occurs on his Jewel Cross and Arm-and-Sceptre type coins, minted in England,
in the form Cnut (see Jonsson, ‘Coinage’, p. 202), confirming that these were interchangeable name forms.
62As with most good jokes the pun here is someone else’s, repeated by me. See the title of Sawyer and
Sawyer, ‘A Gormless Dynasty’, for my source.
63That said, the weak spot in my argument here are the records of the sons of Swen Estrithson. He may
have had up to fourteen sons and four daughters, by at least five separate women, and those not perhaps one
after another. The order of seniority of the sons is recited differently by Saxo Grammaticus, Danorum
Regum Heroumque Historia, X:7 (Christiansen, II, p. 58) and Knytlinga saga, ch. 23 (Bjarni Guðnason, pp.
135–6). See Christiansen, Saxo Grammaticus, pp. 230–2, n. 23, for the most comprehensive discussion of
this problem. Saxo attests to a son named Gormo who shared a mother with Haraldus, and the latter does
seem to have been the eldest surviving heir on his father’s death. However, the Sveno and Kanutus recorded
there have different mothers to Gormo and Haraldus as well as to each other, and both are implied to have
been born later than Gormo and Haraldus. Knytlinga saga enumerates the children in this order (with
irrelevant names removed): 1. Knut (predeceased father); 2. Harald; 3. St Knut, then after a son who is not
relevant here; 5. Swen, and after some six others; 11. Guthorm (probably for Gorm, and so much later than
Harald). I do not think it is possible to reconcile these two lists, and perhaps we must just accept that while
the pattern holds true for Cnut and his father’s naming practices, those of Swen Estrithson’s sons were quite
different in that they do not appear to follow the order of genealogical descent and do include a Gorm.
Perhaps I am clutching at straws, but if we entertain the notion that this Gorm was the eleventh son, then he
may not even be named after Harald Gormsson’s father. The name is also attested on DR. 295 and perhaps
Sö 74 in contexts that are unlikely to be a member of Cnut’s dynasty.
64My thanks to John Hines for the proposal of this derivation.
65Roesdahl, Viking Age Denmark, pp. 47–9 and 147–55, and P. H. Sawyer, ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian
Empire’, p. 13.
66Bolton, Empire, pp. 189–90 and 229–32, drawing on the arguments of Randsborg, Viking Age, and B.
Sawyer, ‘Viking-Age RuneStones as a Crisis Symptom’.
67For general discussion of these sites see Clarke and Ambrosiani, Towns in the Viking Age, pp. 50–4
and 56–63. For more specific discussion of Århus see Madsen, ‘Introduction to Viking Århus’; for Ribe see
Nielsen, Middelalderbyen Ribe, pp. 35–6.
68Feveile, Ribe Studier.
69Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:46 (Schmeidler, p. 106); Thangmar, Vita Sancti Bernwardi, ch. 33 (Pertz,
cols. 418–19).
70The document was issued in the name of Otto III, and has been edited by Sickel, Die Urkunden der
Deutschen Könige, no. 41, pp. 440–1. See Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, for discussion.
71On earlier coinages in these sites, see Malmer, Nordiska Mynt, pp. 7–12 and 246–8. Note that Swen’s
coinage appeared with the legend ‘ZVEN REX AD DENAR / GODǷINE M-AN DNER’ (‘Swen, king
among the Danes / Godwine, moneyer among the Danes’) without mentioning any specific site. Only one
small and tight-knit group of coins minted in Cnut’s name has been possibly identified as from Ribe (with
the town name in very garbled forms), and this appears to be a very doubtful attribution. See Jonsson,
‘Coinage’, p. 226, and Jensen, ‘Ribes Mønter i 1000-tallet’, p. 48, for differing opinions on these coins.
72For the lack of maintenance of the forts at Trelleborg and Fyrkat in Swen’s reign, see Roesdahl,
Viking Age Denmark, pp. 147–55.
73See Kristensen, ‘A Viking-Period and Medieval Settlement’, p. 193, his ‘A Viking-Period’, p. 191, as
well as his Middelalderbyen Viborg, pp. 38–9.
74See Andersen, Højog and Sørensen, ‘Et Vikingetidshus fra Bredgade’.
75Adam of Bremen, Gesta, IV:5 (ed. Schmeidler, p. 233).
76Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:28 (ed. Schmeidler, pp. 87–8).
77Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:3 (Campbell, p. 18). Cinthio in De Första Stadsborna, pp. 33–5, and
most recently again in ‘Trinitatiskyrkan, Gravarna och de förste Lundaborna’, pp. 159–63, has argued that
this Church of the Holy Trinity is to be identified with the church of the same name excavated in Lund, but
such an error about a royal mausoleum of significant importance to Harthacnut and many of the Danes
resident in England, who were the Encomium’s primary audience, would appear glaring.
78Birkbæck, 13 Bidrag til Roskilde By, pp. 64–5. For details of Adam’s distortion of events to present
Harald Gormsson and Swen ‘Forkbeard’ in contrasting lights, see P. H. Sawyer, ‘Sven Forkbeard and the
Historians’.
79Andrén, ‘Stadsbilden’, p. 24, and Mårtensson, ‘Gravar och Kyrkor’, pp. 88–90.
80Andrén, ‘Stadsbilden’, p. 24.
81Blomkvist, Tusentalets Lund, and Cinthio, ‘The Churches of St. Clemens’, p. 104.
82Cinthio, ‘Trinitatiskyrkan, Gravarna och de förste Lundboarna’, p. 168.
83See Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, pp. 175–6. Adam claims he was English (Gesta, II:41 [Schmeidler, p.
101]).
 84Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:49 (Schmeidler, p. 110). See Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, pp. 174–5 and
177, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 177, n. 85, and pp. 179–80.
85Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:27(25)–28(26) (Schmeidler, pp. 87–91).
86See P. H. Sawyer, ‘Swein Forkbeard and the Historians’.
87The support of some part of the Danes (there the army), the battle, and Harald’s death from wounds
amongst the Slavs are all confirmed by the Encomium Emmae Reginae I:1 (Campbell, p. 8).
88Encomium Emmae Reginae, I:1 (Campbell, p. 8).
89Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’, p. 28. See also Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, pp. lvi–lvii,
and my comments in Bolton, Empire, p. 155, n. 1.
90Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:2 (Campbell, pp. 16–18).
91Blackburn, ‘Do Cnut the Great’s First Coins’. Blackburn’s principal arguments focus on the fact that
Scandinavian copies of English coins tend to copy the current English issue-type, or the issue-type in use in
England during the immediately preceding years. All the early Lund coins that bear Cnut’s name are copies
of King Æthelred the Unready’s Last Small Cross issue, current between c. 1009 and 1015. This idea was
criticized by Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’, pp. 29–30, but supported by me in Empire, p. 155, n. 3.
However, doubt has crept into my mind since 2009, and certainly these coins cannot be securely dated with
any accuracy.
92Encomium Emmae Reginae I:3 (Campbell, p. 10).
 Chapter 2

THE INVASIONS OF ENGLAND IN 1013

AND 1016

Scandinavian ships and their raiding parties were all too familiar to the
inhabitants of England who must have watched Swen and Cnut’s fleet appear on
the horizon and draw up their longships on the beach at Sandwich. The English,
or Anglo-Saxons, were themselves invaders who had arrived in the fifth century
from parts of Saxony, Frisia and Jutland, and seized control over the crumbling
remains of post-Roman Britain. Moreover, they still composed and sung songs
of a heroic age in Denmark, and the Beowulf manuscript, containing the sole
substantial composition of that type to survive, dates to the opening decades of
the eleventh century. However, half a millennium had passed since the invading
barbarians of the fifth century had assembled themselves into highly organized
kingdoms and produced a distinctive language and culture all of their own.1
They may have been prepared to accept that in a far distant past they were not so
unlike the invading Scandinavians, but centuries of Christianization, legal
developments and codifications, urbanization, social stratigraphization and the
development of a scribal bureaucracy, separated them from the invaders.
It is important to note that Swen and Cnut’s arrival in 1013 came at the end
of some thirty-five years of devastating Scandinavian raids on English territory.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is normally a rather dry account, reading like a
sparse bulletin of events, condensing even the most emotive of acts into a few
blank words, but here it descends slowly into a deeply impassioned narrative
describing the violence of the invaders and the collapse of a society.2 These
events left substantial scars on the memories of the English, and a century later
John of Worcester, presumably working from oral accounts, would describe
harrowing scenes of violence and the systematic murder of every man the
warbands encountered.3 Confronted with this tide of destruction many of the
English seem to have despaired, and turned towards prayer and public appeals to
God to rid them of the raiders.4
The invaders came first in 981, striking Southampton, and this force was
followed, until 1001, by numerous small raiding armies that struck at coastal
sites or headed inland on raiding campaigns.5 In 991 a larger raiding party
arrived and remained in England until 1005, closely followed by another in
1006–7. Then in 1009 a ‘great army’ headed by the warlord Thorkell the Tall
(about whom much will be said later) arrived at Sandwich and appears to have
received reinforcements in August of the same year from another immense fleet,
apparently under the control of Thorkell’s brother and close associate.6 This
force seized the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury and pillaged the southern
coastline, before making a winter camp on the River Thames and seizing
provisions from the surrounding Essex countryside. From that site they struck
into Oxfordshire and East Anglia in 1010, burning Thetford and Cambridge,
before returning to Oxfordshire and proceeding to lay waste the counties of
Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, and burning the town of
Northampton. At the peak of this orgy of carnage, they took the archbishop of
Canterbury prisoner along with many inhabitants of the town. The archbishop
was imprisoned for several months, and then executed on 19 April 1012
(perhaps by accident, and according to one version of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, by bones and heads of cattle thrown at him by a drunken mob after he
refused to pay any ransom); the other captives were presumably sold into
slavery.7 For the author of this part of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, this was an
inversion of all that was good and normal: ‘Then he was a roped thing, who was
earlier the head of the English race and of Christendom. There might be seen
wretchedness where earlier was seen bliss, in that wretched town from where
there first came Christendom [to us] and bliss before God and before the world.’
Æthelred ‘the Unready’ had been king of the English since 978, and was a
descendant of the West Saxon line of Alfred the Great who had reconquered the
various kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England after the viking raids of the ninth
century.8 Despite the unfortunate byname that history gave to him, Æthelred
appears to have been a strong and effective ruler, and more ill-counselled (as the
Anglo-Saxon unræd means) than not up to the task.9 However, he was powerless
in the face of such large and mobile forces, and had to resort to paying the bulk
of the invaders off and hiring the remaining crews of forty-five ships under
Thorkell the Tall to stay on as mercenaries in his service. Within months the
weaknesses of this arrangement were tested and found wanting, as early in 1013
Swen and Cnut’s vast fleet appeared, and the English, broken, beaten and at the
end of their tether, capitulated to Swen’s seizure of power.10
Swen led his fleet northwards up the eastern coastline from Sandwich, past
East Anglia and into the River Humber and River Trent up to Gainsborough.
There he met with representatives of Northumbria and Lindsey, the Five
Boroughs of the north of England and soon after all the regions north of Watling
Street to accept their homage. From here, and with English auxiliaries, horses
and provisions, Swen marched on Oxford and Winchester, subjugating those
towns before attacking London (unsuccessfully, with his forces never breaching
the city), then turning towards Wallingford and Bath to receive homage from the
nobles of those places. The defeat was overwhelming and Æthelred withdrew
with his wife and heirs to London, and then after the submission of that city, to a
fleet in the Thames, from where he sent his wife and children to safety in exile in
Normandy, joining them after Christmas in 1013.11
It is crucial to note that Swen’s arrival in 1013 was quite different from that
of the other Scandinavian raiders, including several earlier attacks in which he
appears to have played a part. Here his aim was conquest not raiding. He sought
to seize control at the level of central and local government and permanently rule
the country, rather than just raise wealth through pillage and ransoms. It is
probable he had taken part in earlier attacks intent on just raiding. Swen is
documented by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the head of a force attacking
London in 994, which raided widely in Kent, Essex, Sussex and Hampshire,
alongside an Óláfr who may be identifiable as Óláfr Tryggvason the future ruler
of Norway.12 The two ravaged widely in the south-east and along the southern
coast before accepting a Danegeld payment of £16,000 and departing. Swen
appears to have taken his fleet into the Irish Sea, where a ‘Swen son of Harald’
is recorded by the Annales Cambriae as harrying the Isle of Man.13 He may have
been present at the Battle of Maldon in 991, and at the great Scandinavian raid
on Saxony in 994.14 By this time he was most probably already the king of the
Danes, and as such represents a new evolutionary phase of viking raiding in the
late tenth century in which the armies could be led by the ruler of a Scandinavian
nation. Indeed, it was very likely a by-product of the development of the
machinery of royal control in Denmark, which enabled Swen to be, in Lund’s
words, ‘probably the first ruler of a Scandinavian country who was able to take
his army abroad on a viking expedition without, apparently, having to fear for
his position at home’.15 However, 1013 was different again, and represents
another evolutionary step away from simple viking raiding. William of
Jumièges’ record that Swen negotiated a treaty of alliance and mutual assistance
with Duke Richard II of Normandy before invading England in that year,
suggests an attempt to head off at the pass any potential Norman response.
Emma, Richard’s sister, had married Æthelred in 1002, and could have appealed
to him for aid on behalf of her husband.16 Swen appears to have intended to stay
after his conquest.
Medieval legends generally explain Swen’s change of intention from raiding
to conquest as revenge for the dead of the St Brice’s Day massacre of Danes in
England in 1002, which by the thirteenth century identified a sister of Swen
amongst those killed.17 This viewpoint was adopted by a generation of historians
in the mid-to later twentieth century, but I am not sure it stands up to much
scrutiny, and has the ring of a later rationalization about it.18 It is also possible
that Swen may have needed the wealth from such raids following the conflict
with his own father, but this event was long distant in 1013. Moreover, neither of
these two theories explains why Swen specifically invaded and seized power in
1013, rather than attempting to avenge his sister or just harrying and pillaging.
Instead, we might speculate that this invasion was an attempt to control viking
raiding and stabilize its effects on Scandinavian society.19 The vast majority of
such raids were most probably performed without the presence of a king or
grand ruler, and when successful they injected large amounts of movable wealth
into the elite groups in Scandinavia, empowering local magnates at the expense
of the central government. Enough examples survive in contemporary and later
sources of young Scandinavian nobles who were cast out or fled authority only
to raise wealth by raiding, and return home at the head of mercenary armies to
seize control, to suggest the dangerous influences such sources of wealth could
bring.20 Denmark was only recently under the grip of Swen, and had only just
begun to reorganize itself around a centralized government and single ruler,
therefore such destabilizing influences cannot have been welcome. Swen’s
participation in and then his seizure of command of these late tenth-century raids
may have been a necessity forced on him by the involvement of some of his
subordinates, which eventually compelled him to take control of this river of
money at its source.
From the English perspective, Swen’s Christianity must have set him apart
from many previous viking raiders, and may have made him a more palatable
figure to accept as an overlord. This was not an invading army whose leader
could be baptized and sent home pacified once his men had been defeated or
paid off, as Alfred had done with Guthrum in 878 and Æthelred with Óláfr
Tryggvason in 994.21 Many of the rank and file of the forces must have retained
pagan beliefs, or worshipped Christ only as one amongst a pantheon of gods, but
Swen was unequivocally Christian, and most probably travelled with a retinue
that included chaplains.22 So much of what we can know of Swen’s invasion
comes from the partisan voice of the writer of this section of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, who viewed his arrival as an inversion of all that was natural and
right, and one wonders whether other figures, such as secular elites, were more
comfortable with him.
A figure who looms large in this period, and was to be one of the key players
in Cnut’s life, was Thorkell the Tall. A few words should be said here by way of
his introduction.23 As briefly mentioned above, Thorkell had led a vast raiding
army into England in 1009, which had been disbanded only in 1012 when
Thorkell and the men of forty-five ships had switched sides and entered
Æthelred’s service. In fact, this may have been the trigger for Swen’s invasion.
The employment of Scandinavian armies as mercenaries was not new, but the
employment of one by a reigning monarch gave Thorkell access to vast English
revenues, and he was far from just an ordinary raider. The saga traditions
identify him as son of Jarl Strut-Harald (probably died c. 986/8), the ruler of
Skåne in eastern Denmark in the late decades of the tenth century.24 By about
980, Thorkell’s elder brother, Sigwaldi, was reported to have taken over the title,
and the narratives describe his part in the semi-legendary battle of Hjörungavágr
as the jarl of the region. The so-called ‘Supplement to Jómsvíkinga saga’ states
that another of Thorkell’s brothers, Hemming, held the jarldom immediately
before his own death in England in 1014, and Sigwaldi may have died by then.25
However, the connection between these later traditions and the Thorkell
named in our contemporary English sources has recently been called into
question by Ann Williams, and it is perhaps worthwhile to pause momentarily
here to re-examine the evidence.26 Williams’ argument is founded on the late
date and unreliability of what she uses as the principal source in this genre for
him: Jómsvíkinga saga, and the lack of prominence of Thorkell in the narratives
of the earliest saga sources in which he is only ever a supporting actor in the
drama there.27 The implication of this slight role is that the links between
Thorkell and the Scandinavian elites reported in the late sources may be
inventions or so subject to doubt that they should be set aside.28 Williams is
quite right to point out the problems of Jómsvíkinga saga, which should
eliminate it from use as a historical witness. I think no one would now claim that
Jómsvíkinga saga is free of legendary and literary accretions, exaggerations and
outright inventions, and elsewhere I have set it aside.29 However, I am not sure
that I can follow the jump to her notion that because Thorkell’s part in the saga
narratives is slight, it is of sufficient doubt for us to sweep it away. Williams is
wrong to focus on Jómsvíkinga saga and she misses a number of sources that
identify him (or at least someone of his name, understood by writers in the
thirteenth century to be him) as a member of this ruling dynasty of Jarls of
Skåne. The so-called ‘Supplement to Jómsvíkinga saga’ is a difficult and
troubling source that survives attached to Jómsvíkinga saga in a single
manuscript, but we must note that it contains a surprising amount of accurate
material and clearly pre-dates the fourteenth-century manuscript in which it
survives.30
Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla includes some sparse comments on this
ruling dynasty, including Thorkell’s part in it, but we might presume that this
source is dependent on the traditions set out in Jómsvíkinga saga.31 Yet to do
this we must account for that text’s independent aside on the career of the
skaldic poet Þórðr Sigvaldaskáld as being another invention.32 This poet is
identified there as Sigwaldi’s permanent court poet, who was later in attendance
of ‘Thorkell the Tall, his brother; and after the fall of the jarl Þórðr became a
merchant’. This poet was the father of perhaps the most celebrated and prolific
skald of this period, Sigvatr Þórðarson, who served both Óláfr Haraldsson and
Cnut, and he is an improbable candidate to choose if one wished to fabricate
parts of his life a century after his death. In addition, another source, the
Skáldatal, also links Thorkell to this dynasty.33 This source is a list of known
skaldic poets arranged by the rulers they composed for, compiled in the early
thirteenth century apparently as part of the research materials behind the
composition of Heimskringla. The manuscript witnesses to this list, which
descend from the redaction of the text once in the Kringla manuscript, place a
Harald Thorkelsson and his poet Þióðólfr Arnórsson at the end of the list of the
Jarls of Skåne, immediately after Sigwaldi.34 There could have been another
Thorkell in the dynasty of the Jarls of Skåne who was not the namesake in
Cnut’s following, but clearly Snorri believed this to be Thorkell the Tall, as he
identifies both him and his son in his narrative.35 In addition, the chronology of
the poet Þióðólfr Arnórsson, who is also recorded as composing for Magnús
Ólafsson (r. Norway c. 1035–47), agrees with the possible dates in which a son
of Thorkell might have lived.
 None of these sources falls very far from each other, and we could strike
through all this, as Williams suggests, as being too late and too complex to
include, but I think we would be at risk of throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. What strikes me here is that the link between Thorkell and this
dynasty of the Jarls of Skåne is not just the mere brotherhood of Thorkell and
Sigwaldi, upon which Williams focuses as a potential invention by a later writer
wishing to locate Thorkell within the Scandinavian elites, which would have
been easy to forge. If we presume that this brotherly link was invented in the
very late twelfth century when Jómsvíkinga saga was composed, we must also
presume that by the time Snorri began to research Heimskringla a handful of
decades later, the forger(s) had gone to the trouble of inventing stories about the
father of one of the most famous skalds of this golden age of the art linking him
to Thorkell as well as composing an entire skaldic poem on Thorkell’s son. A
simple assertion of brotherhood might be an invention, but these further details
push the boundaries of what was probable for a forger to pull off quite beyond
their limits. Alternatively, we could suggest that another Thorkell who had a son
named Harald was a member of the dynasty of the Jarls of Skåne, but was not
Thorkell the Tall, and a misidentification was made in the late twelfth century.
However, no source suggests or even supports this, and we should probably be
economical with the number of ‘what ifs’ we create. Much more reasonably, we
should take the cluster of references to Thorkell’s relationship to the Jarls of
Skåne and the supporting detail of a court poet of his brother Sigwaldi passing
into his employ, as well as the naming of Thorkell’s son as a member of this
dynasty by the Skáldatal, as representing an accurate historical tradition, albeit
written down about two centuries after Thorkell’s death.
We can also say a few words about the power of the Jarls of Skåne in
Denmark in the late tenth and eleventh centuries. While no verse now survives,
it is telling that this dynasty appears to have had court poets. Like most forms of
any intricate and highly skilled art, skaldic poetry seems to have been costly for
the patron, and the existence of poems thus presupposes a level of wealth and
influence for the patron. In the surviving corpus of verses, patrons with skalds
attached to their retinue for some time are always of royal or quasi-royal
status.36 Due to the Icelandic and Norwegian focus of the saga traditions, Danish
verse survives in substantially smaller quantities, and commonly only in isolated
fragments.37 However, the various manuscript witnesses to Skáldatal do ascribe
to Strut-Harald a poet named Þióðólfr or Hvíni, perhaps in error for another now
lost name, and to Sigwaldi a poet named Þórðr Sigvaldaskáld (whose epithet
suggests a long association with that patron), as well as noting the relationship
between Harald Thorkelsson and Þióðólfr Arnórsson.38
The position of Skåne is also of importance for charting the authority and
influence of Thorkell’s dynasty. As a promontory of the Swedish landmass it
juts out into the Baltic, separating that body of water from the Øresund and
Kattegat and access to the western regions of Denmark and the North Sea. We
can only speculate here, but it seems likely that substantial taxes could be
claimed by the elites of this region on goods passing through these waters.
Moreover, the location of this region at the furthest point away from the
traditional centre of royal power in central Jutland most probably gave these
elites greater independence than other ruling dynasties in Denmark.
The fruits of this commanding position perhaps can be seen in the
archaeological excavations at Uppåkra on the western coast of Skåne, at about
the midpoint of the part of the coastline facing Sjælland. This site has produced
artefacts (particularly bronze and precious metalwork, votive objects, and a
staggering number of ‘sacrificed’ weapons) that identify it as the main central
place in this landscape with wide trade links across the region and Europe.39 It
was the most important site in western Skåne in the Migration and Viking Ages,
and a natural fortress on top of a large and densely occupied hill in a wide
marshy landscape between the mainland and the seafront, and must have been a
crucial site in the power of the Jarls of Skåne. The lion’s share of the grand
metalwork objects discovered there come from the Migration and Viking Ages
up to the eighth or ninth centuries, with the last great find being that of an ornate
silver animal statue with inlaid glass eyes, perhaps a lion fighting with two
snakes taken from a reliquary made in western Europe and brought to Uppåkra
in the ninth century. However, in the tenth and eleventh centuries we still find
occupation layers, as well as indications of trade and commerce, such as Arabic
dirhams (coins) of the tenth century, three coins of Æthelred, and general metal-
detector finds such as weights.40 The site, or the road network that supplied it,
clearly still held a commanding presence in the landscape, and necessitated the
founding of Lund on the adjacent mainland at the centre of this road network.
The foundation of Lund was linked to Swen and Cnut’s power in the region, and
almost certainly played a part in the final reduction in size and importance in the
last years of the tenth century of Uppåkra, which lay almost abandoned by the
middle of the eleventh century.41
Thus, Thorkell looks to have been a potential problem for both Swen and
Cnut. He had access to wealth and must have had substantial influence within
sections of the Scandinavian nobility. In addition, in his youth Thorkell had
probably experienced first hand his dynasty’s humbling by Harald Gormsson
and Swen, and by 1013 he had already had a long career as a warlord and must
have been at his wealthiest, loaded with the proceeds of raiding and payoffs from
his three years of campaigning in England. He was clearly not under Swen and
Cnut’s control, and was perhaps for the first time in a position to challenge Swen
for control of some, if not all, of Denmark. Whether he wished to do so or not,
he must have been a considerable source of worry for Swen and Cnut.
Let us return to the invasion of England in 1013. Just as Swen’s invasion
differed greatly from the viking raiding that had preceded it, so his intentions
about what to do with the country when it was finally under his sway differed
greatly from all previous models of rule. The West Saxon line of Æthelred was
exclusively that of southern men, whose interests centred on Wessex, a vast
region in the middle of the southern coastline, with its northernmost border
along the line of the towns of Bath, Abingdon and Reading. To the west lay
Cornwall and to the east London and Kent, over which they had progressively
extended their grip since the ninth century. This was the region in which these
rulers spent most of their time. Less familiar, but under significant control, were
the Midland regions of East Anglia, Mercia and Lindsey, which were less
frequented by southern rulers the further north they lay. George Molyneaux has
recently shown that legal reforms, reforms of coinage production and imposition
of royal agents from the mid-tenth century onwards, drew all these regions
together as a kingdom, giving the monarch powers to ‘monitor, constrain, and
direct significant aspects of the behaviour of even quite ordinary people
throughout the area from the Channel to the Tees’.42 That said, such reforms
were still a recent phenomenon when we turn northwards to the region of York,
and royal authority there seems to have been established by the imposition of a
handful of royally appointed officials.43 The ability to call such officials
southwards to attend a royal meeting is not the same thing as uniform control
over the population of the region, and accounts of the feud between Thurbrand
the Hold and Styr Ulfsson suggest that local lords in the north may have
operated with a greater degree of autonomy than their counterparts in the
south.44 Æthelred did visit the north in c. 1000 and again in 1014, but these were
fleeting visits. As William of Malmesbury stated in the early twelfth century, the
king of England, although content with an escort of his own men while in the
south, ‘takes with him a large company of auxiliaries’ when in the North.45
Northwards of York lay Durham and an area under the control of an aristocratic
family based at Bamburgh, both of which were semi-autonomous regions.46
Swen may have felt drawn to the north of England by the greater number of
Scandinavian settlers or the looser governing structures that may have resembled
those of Denmark, or both, and he focused his attentions there. He commanded
his men from, and died at, his camp in Gainsborough near Lincoln, and as noted
by Jonathan Wilcox there is evidence that he intended to have himself crowned
at nearby York.47 The D text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records the
appointment at York of Ælfwig as bishop of London on 16 February 1014, only
thirteen days after Swen’s sudden death. Such an election could only be made at
a national assembly, or witenagemot (literally ‘meeting of the wise’), and as
thirteen days is hardly enough to call a nationwide meeting it seems most likely
that Swen summoned it to have his rule formalized, but died while most of the
dignitaries were in transit.48 The choice of York is startling, because no such
meeting had previously been recorded there, and no northern witenagemot at all
since the mid-ninth century, unless one counts the northern Midland meetings at
Tamworth in 855 and 857 and Nottingham in 930.49 Indeed, rulers after Swen
would focus their attentions on the south, and the only recorded northern
witenagemot that follows the period under concern here was that at Lincoln in
1045, and perhaps that at Northampton in the north Midlands in 1065.50 This
York meeting must have been intended to set Swen’s rule quite at odds with the
earlier regime based in southern England.
Moreover, Cnut’s marriage to Ælfgifu of Northampton also dates to this
period, and firmly tied Swen and Cnut into the ruling elites of the Midlands and
northern England.51 Ælfgifu was Cnut’s first wife. Despite nearly a millennium
of misrepresentation as merely his concubine, this was a form of union that was
common and recognized by Scandinavian and Scandinavian-descended
contemporaries as an elite practice used to unite dynasties. It could be set aside
when the political benefits dwindled, but with the offspring retaining legal
rights.52 The slur of ‘concubine’, with its suggestion of sexual slavery and
illegitimacy of offspring, is found first in the Encomium, a narrative initially
written for the edification and pleasure of Cnut’s second wife (Emma of
Normandy). The term is there given alongside the slanderous claim that one of
Ælfgifu’s offspring by Cnut was in fact the child of a servant smuggled into her
bed and passed off by her as a royal heir.53 The paucity of sources that even
mention Ælfgifu doubtless forces the reliance of modern historians on the
Encomium – but as a rule of thumb it is perhaps sound practice when one wants
to understand a man’s first wife to take all comments from the second wife (or
produced for her) with a pinch of salt.
Ælfgifu was a member of a powerful Mercian family, who rose to
prominence when one of its members named Wulfric Spott entered the inner
circle of Æthelred in 980.54 From then until 1002 he witnessed royal charters as
one of the king’s closest advisors, and around 993 his brother, Ælfhelm, was
appointed the ealdorman of Northumbria, an office he held until his death in
1006. Wulfric Spott founded Burton Abbey, and one of the charters preserved in
its medieval archive reveals a clique of powerful northern nobles associated with
this Mercian family. The witnesses at the head of the secular ministers in the
witness-list of Æthelred’s confirmation of the endowment of Burton Abbey (a
document that must have been produced at its founder’s, Wulfric Spott’s,
request) are revealing about the connections of this family.55 The names of
Æthelmær and Ordulf head the list and are recognizable as Æthelred’s close
family members and principal advisors.56 These are followed by Wulfgeat and
Wulfheah, who are most probably the sons of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, Wulfric
Spott’s brother. After an individual named Wulfstan who defies simple
identification, these are in turn followed by the rare northern names Styr and
Morcar, who would seem to be northern English allies of this family. Styr also
appears amongst the witnesses on another Burton document dated 1009, and he
appears again in the company of this family in a charter dated 996, from the
archive of the New Minster, Winchester: ‘Ælfhelm and Wulfheah and Wulfric
Wulfrun’s son and Stir Wulf’s son and Nafena and Norþman his brother’, in
which Wulfric Spott is listed with his matronym rather than his nickname.57 The
use of a patronym for Styr here also allows us to identify him with a supporter of
Æthelred based around Durham, and one of the two key players in what is
perhaps the most famous feud in Anglo-Saxon history.58 A number of eleventh-
and twelfth-century narratives from Durham Cathedral, notably the De
Obsessione Dunelmi, record the details of a bitter feud between two influential
Northumbrian nobles named Styr Ulfsson and Thurbrand the Hold.59 These
narratives suggest that while Styr held no formal office in Northumbria, he was
an influential figure who wielded some considerable authority. The fact that he
donated seven estates to the community at Durham, in both the northern and
southern parts of Northumbria, but concentrated on the north-eastern region
around Durham, confirms that he was a man of significant influence and
wealth.60
Morcar was an equally influential northerner, and was named the ‘thegn of
the Seven Boroughs’ by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle on his death in 1015.61 He
appears to have held authority over these ‘Seven Boroughs’ with his brother
Sigeferth, and they probably encompassed a region of the northern Midlands
elsewhere referred to as the Five Boroughs (Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham,
Stamford and Derby), with the addition of York and Torksey.62 Morcar was one
of the beneficiaries of Wulfric Spott’s will, and Peter Sawyer has shown that it is
likely he was married to Wulfric’s niece (the daughter of Wulfric and Ælfhelm’s
sister, Ælfthryth).63
Moreover, the last two names that follow Styr Ulfsson in the document from
the archive of the New Minster, Winchester, are also easily identifiable as
northern nobles. Northman must have been the ‘Norðman miles’ to whom
Æthelred gave estates in Twywell, Northamptonshire, in 1013, and he is
probably the namesake whose landholdings link him to the community at
Durham.64 The late eleventh-century Historia de Sancto Cuthberto records a
Northman as one of three earls who was able to forcibly abstract from the
community twenty-four estates in the vicinity of Durham during the episcopate
of Bishop Aldhun (990–1018), with one of these estates, at Escomb,
subsequently returned by the donation of a ‘Norðman eorl’ recorded in an
addition to Durham’s Liber Vitae.65 Nafena appears later in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle as the father of a Thurcetel who was executed alongside Earl Uhtred
in 1016, apparently as his associate, and this association leads us even further
northwards.66 This Uhtred was yet another significant figure in the north, who
held an office, comparable to an earldom, from a stronghold at Bamburgh,
wielding authority over the northern region of Northumbria, or at least the north-
eastern coastline from the Scottish border to the River Tees, from some point in
the 990s until his death.67 He was a supporter of Æthelred, and in c. 1004 he
repudiated his first wife in order to marry Styr’s daughter, Sige, and
subsequently was remarried to one of Æthelred’s daughters (also named
Ælfgifu).68 No more than these threads can now be recovered from history, but it
does appear that the family of Ælfgifu of Northampton were aristocrats of wealth
and influence based in the Midlands, who by design or accident had strong ties
to elites throughout the north of England right up to the Scottish border.
 Importantly, while the family of Wulfric Spott were amongst Æthelred’s
closest advisors from 980 to the early years of the eleventh century, they fell
dramatically from favour in 1005.69 As Simon Keynes notes, it was then that
their subscriptions of royal charters ceased abruptly, and the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle reports that in 1006 Ealdorman Ælfhelm was killed, his sons
Wulfheah and Ufegeat were blinded, and Wulfgeat was deprived of all his
territory.70 John of Worcester adds that their downfall was orchestrated by
Eadric streona, and that the blinding of Wulfheah and Ufegeat was ordered by
Æthelred himself.71 They presumably retired to their Midland estates, and their
valuable northern connections must have withdrawn from the royal court at the
same time. The proposed union of the family with Swen and Cnut must have
seemed like a reprieve to them, and offered the conquerors access to Midland
and northern political circles.
Swen died suddenly on 3 February 1014, bringing these plans to an abrupt
stop.72 The various notices of Swen’s death have been extensively studied, with
Lene Demidoff devoting an entire paper to them. However, one such notice, and
perhaps the most touching and poignant, is, to my knowledge, always omitted
from modern scholarship – that of a half-stanza in Þórðr Kolbeinsson’s poem for
Swen’s son-in-law, Eiríkr Hákonarson, composed in the years immediately after
1016.73 There the poet states: ‘King Swen is reported from the south to be dead,
and his dwellings to have been desolate; misfortune scarcely spares most men.’74
Swen’s focus on the north and apparent wish for unprecedented change in
how England was run may now have sealed the immediate fate of his dynasty in
England. I think we might safely postulate that such a dramatic sea change and
proposed removal of power from the hands of the nobility of southern England
did not sit well with them. It is hardly surprising that on Swen’s death the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle states ‘all the councillors’, backed in John of Worcester’s
words ‘by general agreement’, sent to Normandy for Æthelred to ask whether he
would return from exile to govern them ‘more justly than before’.75 Æthelred
sent his son Edmund Ironside and an entourage to England to negotiate, and
afterwards the same council ‘declared every Danish king outlawed from England
forever’. The embassy returned to Normandy with an accord agreed, and brought
back Æthelred during Lent of 1014.76 Cnut, however, still remained in the north,
and reached his own settlement with the inhabitants of the north-east region of
Lindsey, while semingly in command of the invading forces.
 Æthelred had been given a second chance, and could not afford to allow
Cnut further time to regroup. Thus, on his return, Æthelred struck immediately at
Lindsey and exacted violent revenge for their support of the Danes, and ‘all
human kind that could be got at were raided and burned and killed’.77 Cnut was
forced to take to sea with his fleet, apparently so quickly that his father’s body
had to be left behind and brought later, perhaps by ‘a certain English woman’
sometimes identified as Cnut’s first wife, Ælfgifu of Northampton.78 They sailed
southwards as far as Sandwich, where they put ashore the hostages who had
been surrendered to Cnut’s father (doubtless to ensure the loyalty of the English
who had sworn allegiance to Swen during his takeover), after mutilation by the
cutting off of their hands, ears and noses.79 From here the fleet turned eastwards
to the open sea, and returned to Denmark.
Cnut could not now afford to rest. While he must have been an experienced
operator within the Danish political system, and had had his first taste of the
English political machinery, he was Swen’s second son. His elder brother,
Harald, was firmly in control of Denmark. In a hyperbolic tone the Encomium
narrates the reuniting of Cnut and his brother as a tearful embrace, with each
brother pressing kisses on the other’s cheeks.80 This we might set aside as an
exaggeration composed some two decades later, but what may be accurate here
is the record of Cnut’s intention to return to England with another force.
Certainly, he wasted no time in Denmark, and began to forge another network of
Scandinavian warlords from which to draw another vast invading army. There
appears to have been no standing army at this time in Denmark, and the social
infrastructure was not yet centralized to the point where a ruler could call up
such a force.81 Thus, Cnut had to build a large network of personal supporters
from the most important elites of the kingdom, balancing their egos, wants and
various pre-existing rivalries and alliances to place himself at the centre of this
network. Each of these men had their own followings of lesser nobles, and so on,
forming a sunflower-like structure, with a single sturdy stem above ground but a
huge array of branching roots beneath the surface. Thus, when the stem was
pulled the entire root network followed.
I have mentioned Thorkell the Tall above, and it now seems fitting to discuss
the other main Scandinavian influence on Cnut during this period of his life: the
Norwegian Eiríkr Hákonarson, Jarl of Hlaðir (Modern Norwegian: Lade, a large
rural estate now on the eastern outskirts of Trondheim). The Jarls of Hlaðir had
ruled the northern coastal regions of Norway in the second half of the tenth
century, and maintained close relationships with Cnut’s dynasty.82 Jarl Hákon
Sigurðsson (r. c. 961–95; Eiríkr’s father) had brought Norwegian military forces
to the aid of Harald Gormsson on at least one occasion in the late tenth century,
and members of the jarl’s family had sought refuge in the Danish court during
the periods of exile forced on the jarls by the Norwegian rulers Óláfr
Tryggvason and Óláfr Haraldsson.83 Eiríkr himself married Cnut’s elder half-
sister Gytha, most probably while Cnut was still a child. The seizure of power by
the Norwegian king Óláfr Tryggvason c. 995 indirectly contributed to the death
of Eiríkr’s father and forced him and his brother Sveinn into exile in Sweden,
and thence perhaps to raiding in the Baltic. They ambushed Óláfr Tryggvason at
the Battle of Svolder in 999/1000 at which Óláfr died, leaving them to return
home to their family’s old allies.
Thus, Eiríkr was a middle-aged man in 1015, with experience of rule and
substantial personal contacts throughout the elites of Scandinavia. In addition, he
was a trusted ally, married to Cnut’s half-sister, and whose dynasty had relied on
Cnut’s for aid on several occasions in the recent past. Importantly, his area of
political interest was also sufficiently far enough removed from Cnut’s to avoid
any serious overlap of authority and thus potential conflict. Eiríkr seems to have
been a stable and experienced influence on Cnut, and most probably understood
and shared Cnut’s need to seize territory outside of Scandinavia. Eiríkr and his
brother’s rule in Norway would appear to have already been under threat when
he joined Cnut, and the collapse of their authority there began with Sveinn
Hákonarson’s loss of the Battle of Nesjar to Óláfr Haraldsson on 25 March
1016.84 Sveinn retreated again to Sweden, and died there soon after, perhaps of
injuries sustained in the battle, leaving Eiríkr as head of his dynasty but without
a Norwegian territorial foothold. Like Cnut, therefore, Eiríkr may also have been
searching for a new region to rule.
As we might expect from what has been said above, Thorkell the Tall’s
alliances with Cnut appear to have been quite the opposite of those that Cnut
shared with Eiríkr. Like Eiríkr, Thorkell was probably middle-aged in 1015. We
do not know what he did when Swen successfully invaded England in 1013.
Thorkell had been hired as a mercenary by Æthelred, and he may well have
escorted him to safety, or abandoned his new employer as soon as his fate
became clear. The Encomium narrates how, after Æthelred’s return to England,
Thorkell resurfaced in Denmark (having been dispensed with by Æthelred),
approaching the shore cautiously and only when permission had been secured by
intermediaries.85 This done, he asked for mercy, and offered his local knowledge
of England in the event of another invasion.86
 It was from the men of these two quite different warlords, as well as many
others, that Cnut forged his invasion fleet. The breaks with tradition of skaldic
verse in this period suggest how fragile the balance of power was. Skaldic verse
is an overwhelmingly conservative genre, and changes in its format are rare and
always surprising. The earliest surviving verse for Cnut, the anonymous
Liðsmannaflokkr, narrates the invasion of 1015–16 and the fall of London, and
must date to between 1017 and 1021.87 It is almost unique amongst the skaldic
corpus in appearing to have two patrons, Thorkell and Cnut. As the principal
function of such verses was to extoll the virtues of one particular ruler over all
others, this deviation from the norm must have been obvious to its Scandinavian
audience. It opens with an extremely unconventional address not to a single
patron, but to the anonymous invading armies in general, urging them to strike
swiftly before the English realize their presence, to put on ‘that kind of shirt
which the hammer sews’ and ‘nourish the raven on the blood of Englishmen’.
Only in verse four is a possible patron introduced in the identification of part of
the forces as ‘Thorkell’s men’, and in the next verse the impression that he is the
subject of the poem is strengthened by an apparently conventional direct address
to him followed by laudatory statement: ‘The earl, who briskly broke the ravens’
fast, seems to me outstanding’ (the final word, hár, punning on Thorkell’s
nickname, ‘the tall’, and attesting to the contemporary usage of this epithet).
Only at the end of the next verse is it quickly noted that during the campaign
‘dissent arose’, setting up for the decisive turning point in the opening of verse
seven, in which ‘Cnut decided, and commanded all the Danes to wait’. This
short phrase creates tension, and implicitly hands authority in the verse to
Cnut.88
We might have swept this aside, and concluded it was a short-lived
experiment in patronless poetry in this period, but for the fact that another near-
contemporary skaldic poem also reflects similar trends, and that it was composed
for Eiríkr.89 Soon after the conquest, a poet named Þórðr Kolbeinsson composed
a lengthy verse in his honour, Eiríksdrápa, which in its second section narrates
the invasion of England. In verse nine it alludes to the ‘marriage alliance’
between him and Cnut and the fact that this has proved its worth, and verse ten
opens with ‘Moreover, Cnut, the Scylding, who sailed over the sea, let his
warships sail out to the shallow of the shore’, a line that in the original alliterates
three times with Cnut’s name. This verse then discusses the peaceful meeting of
the ‘helmeted earl’ (Eiríkr) and the ‘prince’ (Cnut), which ‘came about easily on
the day when both men wished to come over the sea’. Superficially this mention
of Cnut assigns the following events to his invasion, but the mention of a ruler in
a praise poem other than its obvious patron is again almost unprecedented, and
the naming of that ruler as a peaceful ally as opposed to a sworn and vanquished
enemy is markedly unconventional.
It should be noted that these two poems were not independent sources, and
indeed the poet of one consciously echoes the other, with the notably similar
opening lines of stanzas: ‘Gongum upp, áðr Engla’ (Liðsmannaflokkr, verse 1,
line 1), and ‘Gengu upp, þeirs Englum’ (Eiríksdrápa, verse 16, line 1), as well as
setting up the verbal opposition of the two patrons as jarl and hilmir.90
Eiríksdrápa has the wider proposed date range of 1016 to the probable death of
the patron c. 1023, as opposed to Liðsmannaflokkr’s 1017–21, but it is not clear
which came first, and the two may have been composed within weeks or months
of each other immediately after the end of the campaign.91 Contemporary
skaldic poets frequently echoed or appropriated each other’s works, and we can
most probably read into these ambiguities of literary patronage a knowledge by
the poet of actual ambiguities in the leadership of Cnut’s forces. The subtle
differences within the works (with Eiríkr having an easy alliance with Cnut,
whereas Thorkell has a competitive role) also most probably reflect the actual
nature of Cnut’s alliances.92
Cnut sat at the centre of this spider’s web of personal compacts and
competing interests, and waited for a crisis in England that would give his attack
an edge. This was provided in 1015 by Æthelred and his son Edmund Ironside,
when they placed themselves at odds with each other over the executions of the
northern lords Morcar and Sigeferth.93 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that
these men were denounced at a great public meeting in Oxford by one of
Æthelred’s most powerful, acquisitive and probably corrupt councillors, Eadric
streona (his byname meaning ‘the grasper’).94 They may have been exposed as
playing some part in Swen’s invasion, or as sympathizing with it.95 The
Chronicle states that they were killed ‘dishonourably’ and the king seized ‘all
their property’ and ordered Sigeferth’s widow, Ealdgyth, to be imprisoned in
Malmesbury Abbey. More than any other region of England, Edmund Ironside
seems to have formed bonds with the eastern Danelaw, and these appear to have
dragged him into this conflict on the opposing side to his father, the king.96 Only
two charters in Edmund’s name survive, one of which is a grant to Thorney
Abbey from 1015–16, and the other a grant of land to Peterborough Abbey,
made for the souls of Edmund, his wife and Sigeferth.97 While the ætheling
Æthelstan left decorated weaponry and valuable horses to both of his living
brothers, only Edmund received land, specifically estates in East Anglia and
farther north in the Danelaw.98 Thus, Edmund would appear to have been
obliged to act when his father struck at elites from this region, and came to the
defence of the families of these men in defiance of his father and the royal court.
Between the Feast of the Assumption and the Nativity of St Mary (15 August–8
September 1015), he released Sigeferth’s widow and gave her the ultimate
protection he could, by marrying her, then moving northwards to occupy her
deceased husband’s estates and accept the formal submission of the dependants
of the executed men.99 He now stood at the head of the persecuted kin-groups,
directly facing off with his father, the king.
Cnut must have been waiting eagerly for news from England, and
immediately after these events he struck swiftly at the port of Sandwich with a
great fleet, sailing around Kent and entering the River Frome to raid in Dorset,
Somerset and Wiltshire. He then had a stroke of luck, as the ageing Æthelred
became seriously ill. The king took refuge at Cosham, leaving Edmund Ironside
to rally the English forces. Early in 1016, Cnut and his armies entered
Warwickshire, and when Edmund tried to assemble the forces in the area, the
local militia refused to support him unless he had the support of his father and
the London garrison. These Edmund had secured by 6 January, but still the full
penalty and force of the law had to be threatened to mobilize this army, and
Æthelred himself was forced to travel to Mercia to show his public support. It is
perhaps telling of the fears or even beginnings of paranoia of the elderly king at
this stage that, having heard that an unnamed follower or some auxiliary troops
would betray him there, he fled back to London and this force immediately
disbanded.100 Edmund then played his trump card and rode to the far north to
seek the support of Earl Uhtred. The presence of the royal heir apparent was
enough to draw Uhtred and his forces into the battle in the south, but evidently
these were still not enough, and Edmund had to use these forces to make an
example of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Leicestershire by raiding and harrying
amongst the English there ‘because they would not go into battle against the
Danish army’.101 Cnut continued to devastate along the eastern coastline, raiding
in Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire,
Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. Skaldic verse composed for Eiríkr and Cnut
record that Eiríkr’s forces slaughtered an English army (perhaps that of Ulfcetyl)
at a site named Hringmaraheiðr, and most probably to be identified with
Ringmere Pit, near Thetford, while Cnut’s forces caused bloodshed in an
engagement with soldiers inside the town of Norwich.102 Following this, Cnut
and Eiríkr turned northwards through the open countryside to York and
Northumbria. This detour was a tactical manoeuvre in that the invaders seized
the region quickly (probably as Uhtred’s march south had emptied it of troops
loyal to the crown), and here Cnut installed Eiríkr as regional governor. Again
skaldic verse composed for Cnut adds to this picture, noting that he and Eiríkr
brought sorrow to the people in Hemmingaborg, west of the River Ouse
(probably Hemingbrough, East Yorkshire), and killed English some distance
northwards nearby the River Tees, most probably recording the northernmost
extent of this harrying of Uhtred’s lands.103 Messengers seeking Uhtred were
probably allowed to pass freely southwards, and Uhtred abandoned his joint
action with Edmund and fled back home. There he submitted to Cnut out of
necessity, and gave him hostages, probably trying to curry favour. Cnut appears
not to have been reassured by these manoeuvres and, as noted above, Eiríkr
needed a new territorial base. Therefore, Uhtred was summarily executed.
Edmund withdrew to London where his father had already sought refuge,
and Cnut returned south through the western parts of the country, returning to his
ships and main forces before Easter 1016. Fortune then dealt Cnut another stroke
of luck as Æthelred died on 23 April. Confusion reigned, with the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle noting that the nobles who were holed up within London’s walls,
along with the garrison there, elected Edmund Ironside king; whereas John of
Worcester states that ‘the bishops, abbots, ealdormen and all the nobles of
England [presumably with the exception of those in London], assembled
together and, by general agreement, elected Cnut as their lord and king, and
coming to him at Southampton, renounced and repudiated in his presence all the
descendants of King Æthelred’.104 Edmund marched into Wessex, receiving the
submission of the region and raising troops there, but these forces joined him
perhaps not so much out of a sense of duty but because he arrived at the head of
an army. Cnut besieged Edmund’s long-time stronghold of London. Attempts to
take the city failed, and Cnut turned back to Wessex, meeting Edmund’s forces
at Penselwood in Dorset, where the English won the day. The forces met again at
Sherston in the days after midsummer for a battle lasting two days, with the
Encomium and Gaimar in his Anglo-Norman translation of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle attributing much of the actual fighting to Thorkell’s forces.105 There
was no apparent victor here, but crucially this is the first time that the sources
report English defectors and their armies fighting in support of the Danes. This is
perhaps what Æthelred had feared in the first few days of January when he fled
Mercia for the safety of London, and it seems to have been the crucial tipping
point of the campaign, when we can first see the turning of events in Cnut’s
favour. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle names the self-interested politician Eadric
streona amongst these turncoats at Sherston, as well as a more mysterious
Ælfmær deorling, and to these John of Worcester adds an Algarus filius
Meauues (who must be Ælfgar, son of [Æthelweard] mæw), as well as the forces
from Hampshire and Wiltshire.106 The psychological impact of these acts of
treachery on the English as well as the Danish side must have been great. Eadric
streona seems to have played the part of the serial traitor, swinging between
political opposites whenever each or other side seemed in the ascendant, and his
appearance here is no surprise. Ælfmær deorling is otherwise unknown, and
much more will be said about Ælfgar, son of Æthelweard mæw, below.
However, none of these men appears to have been in charge of the forces called
up from the Wessex heartlands of Hampshire and Wiltshire, regions that we
might have thought to be stalwart supporters of any member of the West Saxon
dynasty, and their inclusion here by John of Worcester points towards a wider
shift of support away from Edmund and towards Cnut.
At this stage we must pause briefly to consider a crucial factor in this war:
Cnut’s use of English collaborators. As noted in the section on sources above,
the uppermost names of each column of types of signatory in witness-lists
appended to royal charters represent in some form a record of those figures at the
royal court, and the order of those names appears to record some hierarchies and
relationships within that court. Two groups of English nobles can be discerned in
the last of Æthelred’s charters and again in the first of Cnut’s in positions
indicating that these men did not merely survive the conquest in 1016 but thrived
under its pressures.107 They all appear consistently in lowly positions within
Æthelred’s charters, and rise immediately after Cnut’s takeover to positions of
the greatest prominence, immediately beneath the newly imposed Scandinavians
in the court. The first group circulated around a figure with the rare name of
Odda, who occurs initially amongst the secular ministers of Æthelred’s court in a
charter from 1013.108 He resurfaces in documents from 1014 and 1015, and after
the silence of 1016 and 1017 from which almost no charters survive, Odda is
recognizable by his associates there as the same man in witness-lists attached to
documents produced in the archive of Exeter Cathedral.109

S. 931b S. 951 S. 953

(Barking) (Exeter) (Exeter)
1013 1018(?) 1018(?)
Ethelmer Ðored Þoryd
Elfgar
Aslac
Aslac
Odda
Tobi
Tobi
Ethelric Ælfgar Ælfgar
Elfgar Odda Odda
Ælfgar
 Ordgar Ælfgar

Here on occasions either side of the conquest an Ælfgar or Elfgar witnesses

immediately before Odda, and another Ælfgar or Elfgar closely following them
after an intermediate figure (either Ethelric or Ordgar). The geographical
distance between Barking and Exeter makes it unlikely that any cross-
contamination of the documents could have occurred, and moreover the
association of these men in such sources can be shown to have endured
throughout the next decades of the eleventh century. By tracing their continuing
careers through the following years it is possible to identify this Odda as an
important politician who held the estate of Deerhurst in Gloucestershire, where
he built a surviving chapel in honour of his brother.110 In 1051 he was elevated
to the office of earl of Western Wessex. The Ordgar here also commonly
witnesses documents amongst this group of associates, and in fact in Cnut’s
reign Ordgar features only once where he is not immediately associated with
Odda.111 Like Odda, his later charter attestations allow us to identify Ordgar as
the royal minister of that name to whom Edward the Confessor granted land at
Littleham in 1042.112 Through this grant it is possible to deduce that Ordgar was
the head of an influential aristocratic family based on the Devonshire and
Cornwall border.113 The appearance of both Odda and Ordgar alongside their
respective brothers in a Devonshire document from the mid-1040s demonstrates
that Ordgar had a brother named Ælfgar, who is perhaps one of the two men by
that name here.114
The second group of associates discernible in Cnut’s charters focuses on the
name of the second Ælfgar in the 1018 witness-lists from Exeter, who can be
shown to be the same Ælfgar, son of Æthelweard mæw (also known
independently as Ælfgar mæw), whom John of Worcester places amongst the
English turncoats at the Battle of Sherston. The longer version of the 1018
Exeter witness-list reads:115

Þoryd
Aslac
Tobi
Ælfgar
Odda
 Ordgar
Ælfgar
Ælfmær
Ælfged
Byrihtric

The names here immediately following the second Ælfgar – Ælfmær (corrected
to Æthelmær), Ælfged (Ælfget), and Byrihtric (Beorhtric) – attest together on a
large number of documents from Cnut’s reign in positions of great
prominence.116 Looking backwards into Æthelred’s charters, we note that there
was only one prominent minister named Ælfgar in the last years of his reign, and
he is named in a grant dated 999 as Ælfgar mæw.117 Furthermore, in the charters
from Æthelred’s last years this Ælfgar mæw nearly always attests with an
Æthelmær and his father Æthelwold.118 Æthelwold’s name does not appear after
1007 and he perhaps died then, but Æthelmær may have continued to witness in
conjunction with Ælfgar mæw in a charter of 1007; and more probably alongside
Ælfgar and a Brihtric who may be Ælfgar’s son, Beorhtric mæw, in another of
1009.119 Confirmation of this identification can be found by tracing their careers
forward. The attestations of both Ælfgar and Æthelmær cease during the 1030s,
and they probably did not live beyond that decade; however, the last name here,
Beorhtric, endures into the 1040s, 1050s and 1060s, being accorded the titles
nobilis in 1050 (the same title as Odda in that document), and consiliarius
(perhaps translated as ‘royal advisor’) in 1061.120 Beorhtric is none other than
the wealthiest non-noble landowner below the rank of earl recorded in
Domesday Book, which identifies him in 1065 under the name of Beorhtric son
of Ælfgar as holding a vast property empire based in Gloucestershire and
Worcestershire.121 The estates of Cranborne and Dewlish listed amongst his
possessions there allow us to see that he is the same man described in the late
medieval chronicle of Tewkesbury Abbey, which also names his father Algar
meaw (Ælfgar mæw) and grandfather Haylwardus meaw (more correctly
Æthelweard mæw) with their distinctive byname.122 This epithet mæw
(pronounced similarly to modern English ‘mew’) is an Anglo-Saxon
onomatopoeic name for ‘seagull’. The Tewkesbury Chronicle, while not fully
understanding this outdated word and swapping it for ‘snew’ (meaning ‘snow’),
relates the perhaps true story that members of the family suffered from an
albino-like skin condition that left them with large white patches on their faces.
 These two groups of men seen to have given their support to Cnut during the
invasion of 1015–16 – and they thrived as a result. At least one of the crucial
members, Ælfgar mæw, is recorded amongst the turncoats at the Battle of
Sherston. As the two groups were immediate neighbours – with Odda’s estates
apparently focused on Deerhurst in Gloucestershire (at least later in the century)
and Ælfgar mæw’s family holding the large adjacent estate of Tewkesbury – it is
highly unlikely that they acted independently of each other. With the shadow of
the Second World War still hanging over us, some find certain terms for such
behaviour uncomfortable, but I have been unable to find any better one to
describe them. These men were collaborators.
What is perhaps most shocking about these individual collaborators is that
many were related to Edmund Ironside: Odda was certainly related to one of
Æthelred’s other sons, Edward the Confessor, to whom some of his property
passed after his death; Ordgar was the grandson of a namesake whose daughter
Ælfthryth married Edgar, Æthelred’s father, in 964; and the Tewkesbury
Chronicle records that Ælfgar mæw was ‘descended from the illustrious line of
King Edward the Elder’, Æthelred’s great-grandfather.123 Treachery such as this
was not by any means morally acceptable in eleventh-century England. During
the period of invasion, Archbishop Wulfstan of York preached against men
turning on their rightful lord in tones aimed at acts such as this.124
Cnut’s Christianity must have considerably increased his appeal in the eyes
of the English. Without doubt many of the Scandinavians who followed him to
England in his armies were not Christian. The Norwegian dynasty of the Jarls of
Hlaðir were passionate pagans, who had used their religious affiliations to assert
themselves against their Christianizing rivals for power in Norway.125 Many
others must have added the Christian god to a pantheon of pagan deities, or
undergone halfway ceremonies such as the ‘primsigning’ discussed above, and
one suspects that Thorkell the Tall fell into this category.126 However, Cnut as
the head of this structure was uncompromisingly Christian, and thus the English
could feel reassured that if he was to be the future king of England then he at
least shared their religious values.
Let us now return to the war of 1015–16. Perhaps fearing the potential effect
of the London garrison in future battles, Cnut returned again to that city.
Edmund travelled farther into Wessex to raise more troops, returning with these
to London to relieve the siege. This assault drove sections of the invading forces
to their ships and they fought at Brentford.127 Fear of the London garrison
evidently gripped Cnut, and as soon as Edmund returned to Wessex, Cnut again
besieged the city, before travelling up the River Orwell to raid. Edmund led a
charge against them in Kent and the war may have seemed to have turned in his
favour; certainly, the untrustworthy Eadric streona rejoined the English forces.
Cnut and his allies, both old and new, threw everything into a single battle,
sailing with the fleet to Essex, where they drew Edmund into a fierce conflict at
a hillsite named Ashingdon or Assandun.128 Negotiations before this, or just fear
inspired by the scale of the invading armies, caused Eadric streona to desert
Edmund again for Cnut. This was the decisive battle, and the roll-call of the dead
included ‘the flower’ of the English nobility, with the E text of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle declaring that ‘Cnut had the victory and won himself all England.’129
The obituary lists of Ely show that many of the landed aristocracy of that region
also fought and died for Edmund at Ashingdon/Assandun, and they are unlikely
to have been alone in this.130 It is important for how we view Cnut’s religious
beliefs that the Liber Eliensis states that the monks of Ely who were present
carried the relics of St Wendreda of March into the battle.131 The account tersely
notes that they were seized by Cnut (presumably on the battlefield of
Ashingdon/Assandun after victory) and later deposited in Canterbury. Crucially,
rather than break up the ornamental reliquary for its valuable precious metal and
gemstone components into more easily transportable treasure that could be
divided amongst his followers, Cnut kept the reliquary and its contents in one
piece for some months (and perhaps until 1018), until he was in a position to
present it to Canterbury.132 He had no fixed centre for his armies at this stage,
and thus nowhere to deposit treasure, and so the reliquary and its component
parts must have been carried with him and his forces. It is tempting to speculate
that, just as the monks of Ely had borne them into battle, Cnut carried the relics
at the head of his forces, as was common on contemporary battlefields in
mainland Europe, or at least displayed them amongst his own possessions while
on campaign.133 The fame of St Wendreda probably did not extend much further
than Ely, but she was English, and that she appeared to allow her relics to be
taken by the invaders, and carried by them, must have implied much to both the
English and Scandinavian Christians about divine support for Cnut’s candidacy.
Edmund appears to have wanted to fight on, but his support base seems to
have been quickly draining away. Skaldic verse suggests that in the aftermath of
Ashingdon/Assandun a single further battle occurred on the northern side of a
great forest named Danaskógar in Old Norse, most probably to be identified
with the Forest of Dean on the western side of the River Severn.134 The verse
claims that there was a massacre of English forces, and following it messengers
must have been sent by Edmund to Cnut to arrange peace talks. They met at
nearby Deerhurst in Gloucestershire, a site most probably owned by the
collaborator Odda (it was certainly his some decades later). The two
commanders arranged their forces on opposing sides of the River Severn to
avoid random clashes, and the leaders were rowed out in fishing boats to meet
on a small island named Olanege/Olanige (meaning ‘the island of Ola’, and now
no longer a separate entity but reclaimed and part of fields some 300 metres to
the west of the standing structure of Odda’s chapel).135 There Cnut, Edmund and
their respective advisors reached an agreement, dividing up the southern and
Midland parts of the kingdom, with Edmund receiving Wessex and Cnut
receiving Mercia (in which lay Deerhurst and Tewkesbury, and thus the main
interests of his collaborators). The north was left in the hands of Cnut’s ally,
Eiríkr, perhaps because it lay somewhat outside of the English king’s direct
grasp and Edmund lacked the power even to attempt to take it back.
Just as in 1013, this arrangement was short lived, and Edmund died on 30
November in the same year, most probably in London. Two Anglo-Norman
historians, Gaimar and Henry of Huntingdon, claim that he was murdered in an
ignominious manner, either stabbed with a spear or shot with a crossbow bolt
from below while sitting on a toilet, but it is equally possible that he died from
wounds sustained during the long campaigns of 1015–16 or from subsequent
infections.136 The earliest sources to note his death, including the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle and the Encomium, do little more than record it, the latter suggesting
that it was God’s will in order to avoid the division of the kingdom.137
Following this, Cnut called a witenagemot at London, which elected him king of
the whole country.
The accounts of 1016 do not appear to describe an unstoppable invasion.
Edmund had success at Penselwood, at Otford, and in the stalwart and continued
defence of London, and Cnut seems to have feared the London garrison
throughout the conflict. The multiple changes of sides by Eadric streona appear
to be a good indicator of the shifting successes of each side in the invasion.
Ultimately, the fate of the war seems to have rested on the mood of the English
aristocracy. They were exhausted and defeated before Cnut began, and the tone
of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle rises to its most indignant shriek when narrating
Edmund and Uhtred’s ravaging of the English counties unwilling to send them
troops. Cnut had been wise to wait for a crisis in the English leadership, but
sheer luck brought him windfalls in Æthelred’s sickness and death during this
conflict. Support for Edmund appears to have been lukewarm in some quarters,
and the loss of his father probably forced more nobles into a neutral position to
wait for a victor before offering support. The competition between Cnut and
Edmund for the crown seems to have been that of a cunning and intelligent man
versus a more straightforward warrior, with Cnut using more underhand methods
such as securing the support of a core of English collaborators to tip the balance
in his favour, whereas Edmund repeatedly tried to raise more troops. One
suspects that any stability, no matter who ended up on the throne, was welcomed
with open arms by the English, perhaps even more so if that came with the
promise of an end to Scandinavian raiding.

1For an excellent study of the early stages of this see Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms.
2ASC 991–1013 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, pp. 86–98).
3John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1011 and 1013 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 468 and 474).
4See Lawson, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan’, pp. 152–6, Keynes and Naismith, ‘The Agnus Dei Pennies’, and
Woods, ‘The Agnus Dei Penny’.
5ASC 981–1008 D (Cubbin, pp. 48–54).
6ASC 1009–1013 D (Cubbin, pp. 54–8), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1009 (Darlington and
McGurk, pp. 462–4). For Thorkell the Tall, see pp. 59–65 here.
7ASC 1012 E (Irvine, p. 69).
8Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, p. 18 et passim, prefers ‘Cerdicing’ (i.e. descendants
of Cerdic, the supposed founder of the dynasty) to the geographically specific ‘West Saxon line’.
9On this see Keynes, ‘The Declining Reputation’ and Diplomas, as well as Roach’s biography of
Æthelred in this series.
10ASC 1013 D (Cubbin, p. 58), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1013 (Darlington and McGurk,
pp. 472–4).
11ASC 1013 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 98), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1013 (Darlington
and McGurk, p. 474).
12ASC 994 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 87), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 994 (Darlington
and McGurk, pp. 442–4).
13Annales Cambriae (Williams, p. 20), and Lawson, Cnut, p. 23.
14Lund, ‘The Danish Perspective’, although there is no direct evidence that Swen was in Saxony.
Perhaps see also Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 32–5.
15Lund, ‘The Danish Perspective’, p. 133.
16William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, V:6 (Van Houts, 16–18).
17The earliest reference known to me to the St Brice’s Day massacre inducing Swen’s invasion is that of
William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, V:6 (Van Houts, pp. 14–16). In the thirteenth century
John of Wallingford in his chronicle names Swen’s sister as a victim of this as well as the motivation for his
attack (Vaughan, pp. 60–1). On the event in general see Keynes, ‘The Massacre of St. Brice’s Day’.
18For an example see Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 380.
19Similarly, Swen and Cnut’s Norwegian contemporary Óláfr Haraldsson would be praised in skaldic
poetry for suppressing raiding within Norway and abroad in order to strengthen peace in that society: see
Sigvatr Þórðarson, Erfidrápa Óláfs Helga, verses 4–6 (Whaley, pp. 669–73).
20Two contemporary examples are discussed in Bolton, Empire, p. 214.
 21ASC 878 A (Bately, p. 51), and ASC 994 E (Irvine, pp. 61–2).
22See pp. 35–7
23For this figure see Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, Appendix III, pp. 73–82, Keynes, ‘Cnut’s
Earls’, pp. 54–7, and Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, as well as references there.
24The late saga-source, Fagrskinna, ch. 19 (Bjarni Einarsson, p. 122), is the only witness to Strut-
Harald’s date of death. See also Heimskringla Óláfs Saga Tryggvasonar, ch. 34 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, I,
pp. 272–3). Note that Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, p. 73, erroneously followed the late
Jómsvíkinga saga in giving him the title of Jarl of Sjaelland. This is in error, and the family are identified in
better sources as the Jarls of Skåne.
25This source, a þáttr found at the end of the version of Jómsvíkinga saga in Flateyjarbók, has been
edited by Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, pp. 92–3.
26Williams’ paper (‘Thorkell the Tall’) was first delivered in 2011 at a conference in Gregynog
(Powys), was subsequently made widely available in an electronic format via academia.edu, and then
revised for print publication in 2016. See also my comment on her criticisms of a historical method
involving both contemporary sources and sensitively handled later sources at pp. 22–6 above.
27Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, pp. 151–2.
28While Williams does not actually state this clearly, this is the upshot of the last section of her
published paper, which begins by observing Thorkell’s slight role in the saga narratives, explained as ‘by
the time of writing, Thorkell was regarded as the brother of Sigvaldi’, and ‘Thorkell’s alleged relationship
with Sigwaldi takes us out of history and into legend’ (both p. 151).
29She may be responding to Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, pp. 73–82 and 87–91, especially p.
73. Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, follows Campbell’s discussion of the Scandinavian parts of Thorkell’s life on p.
54 of his account.
30See Bolton, Empire, pp. 211–12, especially n. 28.
31Heimskringla, Óláfs Saga Tryggvasonar, chs. 34–5 and 43 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, I, pp. 272–4, and
II, p. 54).
32Heimskringla, Óláfs Saga Helga, ch. 43 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, p. 54). This would suggest that
Williams’ statement, ‘no skald seems to have felt moved to compose eulogies for Thorkell’ (‘Thorkell the
Tall’, p. 149), is inaccurate, although such poetry is not recorded in any surviving account or in Skáldatal.
33The Skáldatal has been edited by Finnur Jónsson in his Snorra Edda, on pp. 259, 268 and 284, but is
greatly wanting; a facsimile of the Uppsala manuscript (De la Gardie 11) has been published as Grape,
Kallstenius and Thorell, Snorre Sturlasons Edda.
34The relevant parts of the manuscripts are Reykjavík, A.M. MS. 761a 4to, fols. 16v–17r (paper
transcript of c. 1700), and Uppsala, Universitetsbibliothek, MS. R. 685, f. 25v (early eighteenth-century
paper transcript of the Swedish antiquary Peter Salan); I have given their readings in Bolton, Empire, pp.
206–7. See Guðrún Nordal, ‘Skáldatal and its Manuscript Context’, for discussion of this source. The
Kringla manuscript of c. 1260 was destroyed in the Copenhagen fire of 1728, apart from a single leaf
surviving since the late seventeenth century in the Royal Library, Stockholm; it was presented to Iceland in
1975 by King Carl Gustaf XVI, and is now in Reykjavík, Landsbókasafn Íslands fragm. 82.
35Heimskringla, Óláfs Saga Helga, chs. 183 and 239 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 333 and 399).
36Gade, The Structure, p. 3, Fidjestøl, ‘Norse-Icelandic Composition’, p. 321, and Kuhn, Das
Dróttkvætt, p. 228.
37See also Townend, ‘Whatever Happened’, for discussion of another corpus of lost skaldic verse.
38Þióðólfr or Hvíni is otherwise recorded in the ninth century, and I have argued elsewhere that his
name here is probably an error introduced during the copying of a lost ancestral version of the list. See
Bolton, Empire, pp. 206–7.
39See Bolton, Empire, pp. 224–9. See also Larsson and Hårdh, ‘Uppåkra’.
 40Branca et al., ‘Detektorfunna’, Silvegren, ‘Mynten från Uppåkra’, and Gustin, ‘Vikter’. See Helgeson,
‘Helge’, for the silver animal statue.
41Along with the smaller settlements in its vicinity. See Bolton, Empire, p. 226 and n. 88 there.
42Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, the quotation here from p. 11. See also Campbell,
‘Some Agents’ and ‘The Late Anglo-Saxon State’.
43Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, pp. 177–9. My comments about the chaotic nature of
authority in Northumbria in this period (see Bolton, Empire, pp. 117–18) work with rather than against
Molyneaux’s conclusions. Whereas I have focused on the ‘bewildering array of competing and co-
operating’ power blocs of varying sizes in the region, he focuses on the ties that bound individual elements
of these structures to the royal court in the south.
44See Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 51–3, Kapelle, The Norman Conquest, pp. 19–20, and Bolton, Empire,
pp. 113–17, with a map of the estates of Thurbrand’s grandsons showing their clustering around York on p.
116.
45William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ch. 99 (Winterbottom and Thomson, p. 326).
46Whitelock, ‘The Dealings of the Kings of England’, pp. 77 and 82–3, Kapelle, The Norman Conquest,
pp. 24–6, Bolton, Empire, p. 110, and Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, p. 199.
47Wilcox, ‘Wulfstan’s Sermo Lupi’.
48On the functions of a witenagemot see Liebermann, National Assembly, pp. 63–4, Oleson, The
Witenagemot, pp. 91–3, and the important recent work of Roach, Kingship and Consent.
49See Liebermann, National Assembly, pp. 45–7, n. 21, for a full list of all recorded witenagemot (in
which he does record one at York for 685, but this is highly unlikely to have a basis in fact), and for an
updated list of those held 900–1066, ordered alphabetically by site, see Keynes, ‘Church Councils’,
appendix I (where he notes for York that while no witenagemot are recorded there, a number of tenth-
century royal meetings with groups of elites are).
50Liebermann, National Assembly, pp. 150–1 and 153.
51See Bolton, ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’, and Insley, ‘The Family of Wulfric Spott’.
52Bolton, ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’, pp. 253–8.
53Encomium Emmae Reginae, III:1 (Campbell, p. 40). Note that Emma and her supporters appear to
have been quite active in this smear campaign. John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1035 (Darlington and
McGurk, p. 520), reports that he knew of allegations that this heir was in fact the son of a cobbler, and that
his elder brother (who was dead by the 1040s and thus omitted by the Encomium) was the son of a priest’s
concubine.
54See Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 188–9, P. H. Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. xxxviii–xliii,
Whitelock, ‘The Dealings’, pp. 80–1, and Insley ‘The Family of Wulfric Spott’ for discussion of Wulfric
and some of his family members.
55S. 906. Edited in P. H. Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, no. 28. The term ‘secular ministers’ here is
a literal translation of the Latin ministri, and in modern English perhaps implies too much of a government
role. The men with such titles from high up the witness lists should be seen as royal agents with no apparent
fixed portfolio, with some of these attached to the royal court, and those further down the lists merely
important landholders from the localities. See Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 84–231, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 14–
15.
56See Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 132, n. 165, and 209.
57S. 922; edited by P. H. Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, no. 32. S. 877.
58See Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 51–3, and Kapelle, Norman Conquest, pp. 19–20.
59De Obsessione Dunelmi, edited in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: Historia Ecclesiae
Dunhelmensis (Arnold, I, pp. 215–20).
60A grant by one Stir filius Ulfi to Durham, which evidently was entered into a Gospel Book there, is in
the late eleventh-century Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, ch. 29 (Johnson South, p. 66), Symeon of Durham’s
twelfth-century Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, edited in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: Historia
Ecclesiae Dunhelmensis (Arnold, I, p. 83); and the fifteenth-century Liber Ruber, edited by Craster in his
‘The Red Book of Durham’, p. 526.
61ASC 1015 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 99).
62Morcar and Sigeferth are identified as brothers (sons of one Earngrim) by John of Worcester,
Chronicon, s.a. 1015 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 478). For the ‘Seven Boroughs’ see Whitelock, Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle, p. 94, n. 2.
63P. H. Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xliii.
64S. 931.
65Historia de Sancto Cuthberto, ch. 31 (Johnson South, pp. 66–8), states that the bishop gave these
estates to his supporters. However, Symeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, edited in
Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: Historia Ecclesiae Dunhelmensis (Arnold, I, p. 83), and the Liber Ruber
(Craster, pp. 526–7) claim that these were loaned to these men through necessity and were subsequently
held by force. The reference within the Liber Vitae is Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis (Stevenson, p. 57).
66ASC 1016 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 101).
67Kapelle, Norman Conquest, pp. 14–26.
68De Obsessione Dunelmi, ch. 2, edited in Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: Historia Ecclesiae
Dunhelmensis (Arnold, I, 216).
69Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 188–9 and 209–13.
70Ibid., pp. 210–11.
71John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1006 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 456–8). Boyle, ‘A Welsh
Record’ discusses the report of this in a Welsh chronicle.
72The Encomium Emmae Reginae, II,3 (Campbell, p. 18), and Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon VII,
39(28) (Holtzmann, p. 446), both note that his body was left in England, and then carried to Denmark later
by a unnamed woman, who was warned of Æthelred’s intentions to disinter the corpse. On this see Bolton,
‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’, p. 259.
73On Swen’s death see Demidoff, ‘The Death of Sven Forkbeard’ and P. H. Sawyer, ‘Swein Forkbeard
and the Historians’.
74Þórðr Kolbeinsson, Eiríksdrápa, verse 10 (Whaley, p. 503; the translation is Carroll’s, published
there). The first two lines are especially well crafted to evoke emotion, opening with the king’s name, ‘En
Sveinn konungr sunnan / sagðr es dauðr, en auðir’, and including in the second line a repeating half-rhyme,
which initially continues the alliteration on ‘s’ (and Swen’s name) from the first line, before drawing our
attention to the phrase ‘reported to be dead’. The last word in this half-rhyme ends the line on auðir
(desolate). The text here is so touching within the context of an otherwise violent and swashbuckling poem
that Fidjestøl (Det Norrønne Fyrstediktet, p. 116) concluded that it and another fragment, recorded as the
work of Þórðr Kolbeinsson for Eiríkr, must in fact have been from an erfidrápa (a memorial poem
composed post-mortem) for Swen instead. However, they fit well within the rest of Þórðr’s composition for
Eiríkr, and instead most probably record the great respect and tenderness of affection of the latter for his
father-in-law.
75ASC 1014 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 98); John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1014 (Darlington and
McGurk, pp. 476–8).
76This is dated solely by John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1014 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 476–8).
77The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is followed here (ASC 1014 CDE [O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 99]).
78Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:3 (Campbell, pp. 18).
79The details of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are followed here (as n. 77 above), while John of Worcester
states that the hostages lost their hands and ears, and had their nostrils slit (Chronicon, s.a. 1014 [Darlington
and McGurk, pp. 476–8]).
80Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:2 (Campbell, pp. 16–18).
 81See Lund, ‘The Armies’ and ‘The Danish Perspective’, pp. 114–42, and ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’,
pp. 32–3.
82This dynasty has yet to find a modern political historian with a strong interest in it. See Koht’s entry
for ‘Haakon Sigurdsson’ in Norsk Biografisk Leksikon, pp. 187–91, Davidson’s entry for ‘Hákon jarl
(“earl”) Sigurðarson’ in Pulsiano, Medieval Scandinavia, p. 259, Andersen, Samlingen av Norge, pp. 99–
101, Ström, ‘Poetry as an Instrument’, and Jon Vidar Sigurdsson, Det Norrøne Samfunnet, pp. 27–34.
83See Einarr Helgason, Vellekla, verses 25–28 (Whaley, pp. 314–18).
84Sigvatr Þórðarson, Nesjavísur (Whaley, pp. 556–78), and Hellberg, ‘Slaget vid Nesjar’.
85Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:3 (Campbell, p. 18).
86It has been noted, but not studied in any detail, that the Encomium contains several parts that are
clearly written to pander to pro-Thorkell elites in its intended audience, and yet few such factions can have
remained in Cnut’s court after the 1020s. Thorkell’s son, Harald, did appear to enter or remain in Cnut’s
service after his father’s expulsion in 1021 and subsequent death in Scandinavia, attesting charters in the
1030s and 1042 (for this see Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 66, and Williams, ‘“Cockles amongst the Wheat”’,
pp. 9–11; but also note that Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, p. 157, n. 82, subsequently rejects this, perhaps
following the view found in a footnote to Tschan, History of the Archbishops, p. 109, n. 274, citing
Steindorff, Jahrbücher, I, p. 277), as well as perhaps holding a key role in the rule of Norway. Perhaps
Harald, or followers of his, were the intended recipients of this rose-tinted view of his father’s actions.
87Liðsmannaflokkr (Whaley, pp. 1014–28). See also Poole, Viking Poems, pp. 86–115, and Townend,
‘Contextualising’ p. 163, in which he dates this verse to c. 1016–17. I would add to this the observation that
as Thorkell is named as a ‘jarl’ in verse 5 of Liðsmannaflokkr (Whaley, p. 1022), this poem should probably
be dated to 1017 at least, when Cnut appointed him to an earldom. There are no indications that, like several
of his brothers, he held the jarldom of Skåne at any stage.
88Liðsmannaflokkr, verses 6–7 (Whaley, pp. 1023–5).
89Þórðr Kolbeinsson, Eiríksdrápa (Whaley, pp. 487–513).
90Liðsmannaflokkr, verses 1 and 5; Þórðr Kolbeinsson, Eiríksdrápa, verses 16 and 13 (Whaley, pp.
1016 and 1022, and 511 and 507).
91See Townend, ‘Contextualising’, pp. 161–4, for the current dating of these poems, as well as my
comments above in n. 87.
92Poole reached similar conclusions in his ‘Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History’, p. 283, and Viking
Poems, pp. 99–100.
93On this see Stafford, ‘The Reign’, pp. 35–6.
94ASC 1015 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, pp. 99–100). This source as well as John of Worcester’s
Chronicon (Darlington and McGurk) forms the backbone of the following narrative here. On Eadric
streona, see Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 67, Deerhurst, A.D. 1016 and ‘A Tale of Two Kings’, pp. 211–17;
Stafford, ‘The Reign of Æthelred II’, pp. 35–7; and on tensions between Eadric and the family of Cnut’s
first wife, Ælfgifu of Northampton, see Insley, ‘Politics, Conflict and Kinship’.
95Stafford (‘The Reign of Æthelred II’, p. 36) suggests instead that Edmund may have been reacting to
the political machinations of Æthelred’s wife since 1002: Emma, in having her own children anointed and
promoted over him, thus leading him into revolt. She further suggests that Sigeferth and Morcar’s crimes
may have been a part of this revolt, not that of Swen’s invasion. However, there is no further indication of
tension between Edmund and his father or half-brothers, and after Cnut’s marriage to Ælfgifu of
Northampton, Sigeferth and Morcar, as her family’s allies, must have looked dangerously close to Cnut.
96His mother may have had her origins there. See Whitelock, ‘Dealings’, p. 80. See also Stafford, ‘The
Reign of Æthelred II’, p. 36.
97S. 947 and 948.
98S. 1503; Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 20, pp. 56–63 and 167–74.
99John of Worcester gives the date here: Chronicon, s.a. 1015 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 478–80).
 100ASC 1016 CDE (O’ Brien O’Keeffe, p. 100). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that the threat came
from the unnamed follower, whereas John of Worcester (Chronicon, s.a. 1016 [Darlington and McGurk, p.
482]) states that it came from the auxiliaries.
101John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1016 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 482).
102Þórðr Kolbeinsson, Eiríksdrápa, verse 15 (Whaley, p. 510), and Óttarr svarti, Hǫfuðlausn, verse 9
(Whaley, p. 752). These verses were dismissed by Campbell (‘Skaldic Verse’, pp. 3–4, 13 and 15) as
improbable given the battle-lines of 1015–16, on no more evidence than the lack of the mention of such
battles in English sources. On the partisan nature of such English sources, see Keynes, ‘Declining
Reputation’, pp. 229–33, and for a defence of the veracity of the verse see Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse’,
especially pp. 276–9. On the Anglo-Saxon nobleman Ulfcytel see Marten, ‘The Shiring of East Anglia’, pp.
14–16, Williams, Æthelred the Unready, p. 52, Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse’, pp. 288–9, and Campbell,
Encomium Emmae Reginae, p. 93.
103Óttarr svarti, Knútsdrápa, verses 5 and 6 (Whaley, pp. 772–4). See also Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse’, pp.
272–3, for further discussion.
104ASC 1016 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 101); John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1016 (Darlington
and McGurk, p. 484).
105John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1016 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 486–8), records the length of
the battle. On the part played by Thorkell’s forces, see Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:6–7 (Campbell, pp.
20–4); Gaimar, Lestorie des Engles, lines 4229–56 (Bell, pp. 134–5). This crucial battle is also recorded by
Óttarr svarti’s Knútsdrápa, verse 6 (Whaley, p. 774), as the opening of a new southern part of the campaign.
See Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse’, pp. 273–4.
106John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1016 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 486).
107Bolton, Empire, pp. 22–35, with part of this material expanded to form my Conquest and
Controversy.
108S. 931b.
109S. 933, 934, 951 and 953. On the variant witness-lists attached to the last two see Bolton, Empire, pp.
25–6, n. 59.
110See Williams, Land, Power and Politics, for details of Odda’s later career and family connections.
111S. 976, a spurious grant supposedly from 1035, which includes only four ministers.
112S. 998.
113See Finberg, ‘The House of Ordgar’, and his Lucerna, pp. 186–202, for discussion of his family and
landholdings on the Cornish border.
114S. 1474.
115That appended to S. 953 (Exeter).
116While it is evident that the names Ælfmær and Æthelmær are distinct from each other, they are often
confused in the sources. See Keynes, Diplomas, p. 235, n. 15, for discussion of the phenomenon. This is the
only witness to a minister with the name Ælfmær during the reigns of Cnut and Harthacnut, and four other
charters (S. 896, 953, 955, 961 and 969) have an Æthelmær in this context. The emphasis in italics in this
list of names is mine.
117S. 896. His attestations in these years have been traced by Keynes, Diplomas, p. 209.
118All are named together in S. 896.
119S. 915 and 921.
120S. 1021, 1033 and 1034. See Keynes, ‘Regenbald the Chancellor’, pp. 200–1, for discussion of the
first of these.
121See Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 260–2, for an assessment of his vast estates, and Williams, ‘A West
Country Magnate’, for an account of his later career.
122The main body of the Tewkesbury Chronicle was edited in Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, II, pp.
59–65. However, the relevant sections of his exemplar were corrupt at some of the points relevant to the
‘mæw’ family. These sections can be restored by use of London, British Library, Additional MS. 36985 and
Oxford Bodleian, MS. Top. Glouc. D.2. Domesday Book, Dorset 1,16 and 25,1 (Thorn, Thorn and
Newman). See Williams, ‘A West Country Magnate’, p. 48. On the witnesses to this part of the Tewkesbury
Chronicle, see Bolton, Empire, p. 33, n. 99.
123See Bolton, Empire, pp. 30–1 and 34–5.
124Wulfstan, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos (Whitelock, p. 31).
125See Ström, ‘Poetry as an Instrument’.
126For such ceremonies, see p. 38 above. Thorkell certainly did act as a Christian when in England. He
was remembered at Bury St Edmunds, in a marginal reference in the Easter Tables of a Psalter once owned
by the community there, as involved in the reform of that community (see Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 56, n.
65).
127The fighting at Brentford is also recorded by Óttarr svarti’s Knútsdrápa, verse 7 (Whaley, p. 775), as
a sacking of the town.
128The battle of Ashingdon, or Assandun, is also recorded by Óttarr svarti’s Knútsdrápa, verse 10
(Whaley, p. 779), as a ‘great feat of battle’.
129ASC 1016 E (Irvine, p. 74).
130Ely Calendar in Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. O. 2, I (Dickens, p. 21).
131Liber Eliensis, II:79 (Blake, p. 148). St Wendreda was a local saint, about whom little is now known.
She had founded a nunnery at March in Cambridgeshire, at an unknown point in English history, and her
relics were subsequently translated to Ely in the tenth century, where they were placed in a gold shrine set
with jewels. See ibid., II:76 (pp. 145–6).
132See below at pp. 108–9.
133See Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea, p. 24.
134Óttarr svarti’s Knútsdrápa, verse 10 (Whaley, p. 779); see Poole, ‘Skaldic Verse’, pp. 275–6 for
discussion of this.
135It has most convincingly been identified by Harris as an area of land of approximately 6 acres
immediately between Deerhurst and the Severn and separated by a brook (in fact a much silted-up and once
larger watercourse), named in the seventeenth century and later as the Naight (a contraction of Middle
English ‘atten ait’, i.e. ‘an island’) and mapped at the same time. See Harris, ‘The Site of Alney’ for
discussion and maps.
136Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, VI: 13 (Greenway, pp. 360–2), and Gaimar, Lestorie des
Engles, ll. 4396–4496 (Bell, pp. 140–1).
137Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:14–15 (Campbell, p. 30).
 Chapter 3

THE EARLY YEARS OF RULE IN

ENGLAND

THE YEARS OF SURVIVAL: THE INITIAL TWO YEARS OF

RULE IN ENGLAND
Peace had finally come to the English, and many in the country must have
agreed with the Encomium’s interpretation of recent events, that God ‘took away
from the body the prince’ (Edmund) so that ‘at his decease free ingress might be
open to Cnut, and that with the conclusion of peace the two peoples might have
for a time an opportunity to recover’.1 However, the view was different from the
top, and Cnut must have felt drawn in two opposing directions. He was a young
man surrounded by mature and powerful allies, and he had as much to prove to
his newly conquered people as he did to his Scandinavian followers, each with
large armies now at rest in England. He was the de facto ruler of a vast country,
made up of a number of regions. At the heart of this stood Wessex with a highly
organized central nervous system of national and regional government focused
on the person of the king and his regular meetings. Cnut may have known of
some of this before, but now he had to embrace it and become part of it. His only
right to rule other than that of conquest was as a son of a would-be king who had
not even survived long enough to attend his own formal election. The English
were war-weary and hungry for peace, while the invading Scandinavians
doubtless expected substantial spoils of conquest, and Cnut had to satisfy them
both. Between these two clearly defined groups was a third made up of those
whose interests lay partly with both groups. Amongst them were English
noblemen who threw in their lot with the Danes and thus expected rewards, as
well as Scandinavians who had settled in England before Cnut’s invasion and
identified more with the interests of the English landowning populace. It must
have been a mare’s nest of conflicting wants, exacerbated by several decades of
mutual hate and distrust. As the dust settled in the aftermath of Edmund’s death,
it was probably clear to Cnut that the rag-bag and part-time nature of his forces
meant that he could not rule by force for very long, and in the long run he had as
much to fear from elements of his own armies as he did from any of the English
who might oppose him. He had to appease the English and show himself to be a
calm and moderate ruler, while rewarding his Scandinavian followers with the
orgy of seized wealth and lands that they expected.
The strains of these opposing forces and perhaps also his inexperience
showed in the first couple of years. These were ones of apparent knee-jerk
reactions to keep Cnut in power. Firstly he had to deal with other potential
claimants to Æthelred and Edmund’s throne. In the aftermath of Edmund’s
death, Cnut called a national assembly at London. John of Worcester states that
at this assembly he questioned the nobles about their agreement with Edmund
concerning inheritance of the kingdom, and the council agreed that Edmund
himself had not entrusted any part to his brothers in life or death, and that he had
wished, rather surprisingly, for Cnut to act as a guardian to his children in the
event of his untimely demise. The first part of this agreement is not entirely
unlikely; however, it beggars belief that Edmund’s potential heirs should be safe
under Cnut, and if John’s witness is accurate here then in 1016 this clause was
probably the creation of Cnut or those seeking to appease him. The meeting
ended with the taking of oaths to Cnut and his formal election as king.
However, it was not all one-sided, and here we see Cnut’s first attempts to
reassure the English and to assume the mantle of his predecessors. Cnut’s
lawcode of 1018 has been solidly attributed to the drafting hand of Archbishop
Wulfstan of York and its promulgation placed at the national meeting at Oxford
in that year.2 However, Pauline Stafford has rightly noted that a section of it
stands apart from the main body and clearly pre-existed the full code.3 The
section now known rather dryly as II Cnut, chs. 69–83, does not draw on the
same sources as the rest of the code that now encompasses it; it uses terminology
not found anywhere else in the canon (for example, the collocation ‘lagu teacan’
in II Cnut 75.2); it uses typically non-Wulfstanian vocabulary (for example,
‘bunda’ for husband in II Cnut 76.1b); and it is completely innovatory in its
topic (the abuses of lordship from the king downwards, heriots or death duties
owed to the crown, what should happen to widows, and the protection of a man’s
landholdings from rapacious seizures).4 Yet it has internal coherence, beginning
with an address in the first person (‘Now this is the mitigation by which I wish to
protect all of the people from what they were hitherto oppressed . . .’), like the
opening of several other lawcodes (in II Cnut it appears elsewhere only in the
prologue and opening chapter), and ending with a lengthy homiletic addition by
Wulfstan urging the people to love God and follow the law (II Cnut 84). Stafford
sought to see a coronation charter in this lawcode, and in the sense of a brief
lawcode probably promulgated immediately on Cnut’s coming to full power I
am in agreement with her. Clearly it predates the 1018 code, and was written
without the intervention of Wulfstan. It may have been drafted for promulgation
to Cnut’s Mercian subjects in 1016, or more probably the whole nation in 1017.
The focus of this short lawcode on the condemnation of the abuses of
lordship and other abuses of power, such as the protection of a man’s
landholdings from seizures and what should happen to widows, is telling.
Concerns such as these were doubtless widespread throughout a country that had
seen several decades of invasion and raiding, which created further injustices in
their own wake and drew the attention of the agents of the law away from the
immediate needs of the populace. Eadric streona had made a name for himself
by exploiting his position of power under Æthelred’s government to rapaciously
build up his landholdings at the expense of others, and he was unlikely to have
been completely alone in this. Moreover, with the wholesale slaughter of a
significant part of the male English population, the issue of unjust marrying of
widows in order to control the estates and rights they inherited must also have
been one of great topical importance. This early lawcode offered placatory
words from an incoming conqueror, and its clauses were aimed at the whole
uppermost stratum of society, from the lord to the lowest landowning class. This
earliest lawcode and its reassurances that Cnut was interested in a return to the
quiet rule of law may stand behind John of Worcester’s statement that in 1017
Cnut ‘then concluded a treaty with the nobles and the whole people, and they
with him, and they confirmed a firm friendship between them with oaths, and
laid aside, and set at rest all their own animosities’.5
Cnut now turned his attention to the political map of England and appeasing
the most powerful of his Scandinavian followers. The southern English elites
may have been angered at his father’s plan to move the centre of power
northwards, and he was not about to make that mistake again. His rule was to be
focused on the south, and he would only adapt the status quo rather than attempt
to replace it. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 1017 he ‘succeeded to the
whole kingdom of England, and divided it in four: Wessex for himself, East
Anglia for Thorkell, and Mercia for Eadric streona, and Northumbria for
Eiríkr’.6 What is meant by this short entry is not entirely clear. Thorkell and
Eiríkr were given their regions as earldoms, and the latter had most likely
remained in his since partway through the invasion. These were politically sound
acts, according these powerful Scandinavian lords significant respect in the
division of spoils, while putting some distance between them and the hub that
was Wessex. Western Mercia remained in the hands of Eadric streona, as he was
most probably already its de facto ruler and would have been a wily and difficult
figure to uproot. Cnut took the old rump of royal power, but the region already
had at least one living ealdorman who would remain in control, and we are left
to speculate that in fact this region fell under the special control of Cnut. Few of
his predecessors from the West Saxon line had made many forays out of
Wessex, and so if all that was meant was that Cnut focused his attentions there,
then the chronicler’s words would appear redundant. It is possible that what is
being suggested here is that despite more than half a century of the drawing
together of all England south of the Tees through legal and coinage reforms and
the imposition of royal agents, Cnut effected a substantial break between these
regions.7 The machinery of West Saxon government stood, but each of the three
nobles mentioned here may have been given greater autonomy over their
regions.
For western Mercia this arrangement did not last long, and at Christmas
1017, Eadric streona was tricked into appearing at the court in London away
from his own estates and supporters, and summarily executed.8 In the long run
this act seems to have drawn more praise than criticism, and while Eadric
streona must have had supporters in western Mercia (most of whom presumably
fell from power soon after him), he made his way to the top by treading on
other’s necks, and his enemies must have been legion. The resulting political
vacuum presented Cnut with an opportunity to settle more of his powerful
Scandinavian followers in that region, and he implanted Hákon, son of his ally
Eiríkr, into the top of the administration of Worcestershire, evidently alongside
the pre-existing ealdorman, Leofwine.9 In the account of Hemming from later in
the eleventh century, the arrival of Hákon is placed immediately after the
invasion and laying waste of Worcestershire, which presumably was part of the
invasion campaign of 1015–16, and so it is possible that Hákon had held some
role there since then, which was later formalized and extended after Eadric
streona’s execution.10 Another Scandinavian, Eilaf, was placed into an earldom
centred on Eadric streona’s stronghold of Gloucestershire, appearing in royal
charters from 1018 onwards.11 Finally, the area that had followed Eadric streona
into the battle of Assandun in 1016, the Magonsætan (comprising the
populations of Herefordshire north of the River Wye and southern Shropshire),
received by Cnut’s order a Scandinavian named Hrani as its earl, again dated by
Hemming to the autumn of 1016.12 Hemming records that Hákon and Hrani
were accompanied by a band of followers who also took part in the abstraction
of estates from Worcester Abbey, and it seems likely that Eilaf also brought
other Scandinavians to the region.13
Local records suggest that a number of Scandinavians were settled in other
areas, notably the south-east, apparently without formal offices. They were of
sufficiently high social status for English scribes to record them with
aggrandized titles, but when it is possible to check, they do not appear to have
fulfilled the duties normally associated with the titles. A Halfdan is named
‘princeps regis’ in a document purporting to record Cnut’s confirmation of the
privileges of Christ Church, Canterbury, in 1018, and he must also be the
Haldene scearpa again described as one of Cnut’s ‘principes’ who was
remembered in the obituary lists of the community as the donor of estates at
Hythe and Saltwood.14 He may also be the man of the same name recorded
amongst the earls in a charter granted by Cnut to Abbot Æthelwold and the
brethren of St Mary’s, Exeter, in 1019, but he is otherwise unrecorded as an earl
and is unlikely to have held a proper earldom.15 Another such figure is to be
found in the Thored who appears in the Christ Church, Canterbury, confraternity
entry alongside Cnut and two other Scandinavians (Kartoca and Thuri, each
named as ‘our brother’ by the community).16 He was probably the ‘optimatus
regis’ recorded in a land sale of 1020×1023, which ‘was confirmed in London in
the presence of King Cnut’, and the man who donated an estate at East Horsley,
Surrey, to Christ Church, as well as two Gospel Books decorated with gold and
silver.17
Something now had to be done with the potential heirs: Edmund Ironside’s
brother Eadwig, and his sons Edward and Edmund. The former was outlawed,
with the C text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle noting that he was killed on Cnut’s
orders, and the latter two were sent away to ‘the king of Sweden’ (Cnut’s half-
brother and sometime ally, and in fact probably ruler of just the area around
Lake Mälaren and its vicinity) to be killed, but instead he sent them on to
Hungary.18 The Anglo-Norman Gaimar has them sail from Porchester directly to
Denmark, and alludes to a later plot to restore them to power, and he may be in
possession of other parts of the same story not known to John of Worcester
here.19 Another figure who may have been part of the royal family is now known
only as Eadwig ‘king of the ceorls’ (ceorl = free man of lowest class), and he
was perhaps also expelled at this time.20 However, the purge could not stop
there, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle lists a series of Englishmen who
presumably had shown their opposition to Cnut openly and were now put to
death.21 They included Æthelweard, son of Æthelmær stout, the ealdorman of
the western provinces who had submitted to Swen at Bath in 1013, and
Beorhtric, son of Ælfheah, the governor of Devon (with John of Worcester
adding ‘although blameless’ to this).22 Cnut’s union with Ælfgifu of
Northampton, and the bonds between him and the northern aristocracy and the
obligations that these brought, now seems to have been an inconvenient hang-
over from his father’s abortive plans. The son of Ealdorman Leofwine of Mercia,
Northmann, who had played his part in these northern alliances, was also
killed.23
These acts may have been necessary for Cnut to remain in power, but few
can have been popular with the English. Reassurances of peace and continuity
with the previous regime were brought about by other means. The political
currency of his union with Ælfgifu of Northampton most probably died along
with Swen, and she must have been set aside sometime after that and before
1017. This allowed another figure of fundamental importance to Cnut’s life to
enter the stage, and in July 1017 he ordered Emma, the wife of the deceased
Æthelred and the daughter of Duke Richard II of Normandy, to be brought to
him, and he married her with full Christian rites.24 She was most probably
brought from Normandy, where she had fled.25 The Encomium notes the sending
of emissaries by Cnut to the Norman court, and the Inventio et Miracula Sancti
Vulfranni, written in the Norman abbey of St Wandrille in the early 1050s,
claims that Duke Richard gave his assent to the union.26
Emma seems to have been a formidable political figure in her own right, and
was especially well positioned to exploit the situation to its full. Her mother was
a Danish noblewoman named Gunnor, and her family had been unashamedly
proud of their Danish origins.27 She must have spoken Cnut’s own language,
probably had contacts with members of the Danish aristocracy, and understood
the fragile nature of Scandinavian elite marital unions. It may have been her
insistence that Cnut and she were married fully in the Christian (and thus non-
Scandinavian) tradition, forming a more permanent link between them.28 She
had been Æthelred’s wife since 1002, and within England she brought Cnut
continuity and was a close personal contact who knew the court and its key
players. The Encomium is probably quite accurate when it notes that their
marriage contributed greatly to laying ‘the disturbances of war to rest’.29 Beyond
England’s borders Emma brought even greater security, as Normandy could be
expected not to now aid any proposed military incursions to reinstate Æthelred’s
children, Alfred and Edward (later ‘the Confessor’), who remained in exile in the
Norman ducal court.
In addition, much stability must have been ensured by Cnut’s English
collaborators. The sparse records of this brief period include very few mentions
of them, but the appearance of a fully fledged court hierarchy in the witness-lists
from 1018 onwards suggests that it was in this formative period that Cnut began
to organize around himself the circle of men who would later sit at the top of the
national government. This involved ealdormen and earls, both from Æthelred’s
administration and new Scandinavian appointments like Eiríkr and Thorkell and
new Englishmen such as the famous Godwine, who appears first in the witness-
lists of charters as an earl in 1018.30 Odda, Ælfgar mæw and their followers are
also prominent in this circle of government ministers, just below a thin layer of
Scandinavian officials such as Thored, father of Azor. Thored’s name appears at
the head of ministers or in a prominently high position in eleven of the twenty-
seven of Cnut’s charters that contain any witnesses of this social rank; he figured
at the head of this group in the Exeter witness-lists of 1018, and likewise in
grants from 1023 and 1024.31 His career continued until 1045, and crucially he
received a grant of land in Ditchampton from Edward the Confessor in
1045×1046.32 Ditchampton is less than two miles from Wilton, and a Thored
(here Toret), who must be the same man, appears in Domesday Book as the
giver of land at Laverstock, Wiltshire, to Wilton Abbey, providing that his two
daughters were subsequently clothed by the community.33 After his death
Thored was succeeded by his son Azor Thoredsson, who was until recently
thought to be a wealthy landowner in Wiltshire.34 However, recent
identifications of him elsewhere in Domesday Book, made possible by the
development of the Prosopography in Anglo-Saxon England project, have
enabled us to see that his landholdings were over four times as large (in wealth)
as previously thought, with holdings in twelve counties placing him amongst the
very wealthiest landowners of his day beneath the level of the king and the
earls.35 Odda, Ælfgar mæw and their associates, accompanied by a handful of
implanted Scandinavians, brought continuity to Cnut’s court, and knowledge of
the innermost workings of national and local government that must have been
invaluable. What is certain is that they did not disappear, and they and their
offspring appear at the head of the national and relevant local government as
important and influential statesmen throughout Cnut’s reign, that of his sons and
Edward the Confessor – and in the case of Beorhtric mæw, up to the Norman
Conquest.36 It is quite incapable of proof, but I have wondered whether Cnut
spent parts of the months in 1016 while lord of Mercia, and parts of 1017 as full-
king in occasional intensive studies of English infrastructure under the tutelage
of these Englishmen.
A general observation may be made about the numbers of Cnut’s charters
surviving for each year of his reign. To argue anything from the absence of
evidence is always a dangerous exercise, and we must agree with M. K. Lawson
that for charters Cnut’s reign ‘is the least well-represented of any between those
of Æthelstan and Edward the Confessor’, but it is notable that the number of
surviving charters issued by the royal court almost drops away to nothing in
these early years.37 The numbers for Æthelred’s last years are few but quite
stable, and under Cnut are usually regular if not stable.

ROYAL CHARTERS ISSUED BETWEEN 1011 AND 103538

Date Number of charters

1011 2

1012 5

1013 3

1014 2

1015 1
1016 2

1017 0

1018 2

1019 2

1020 1

1021 0

1022 1

1023 2

1024 1

1025 0

1026 1
1026

1027 0

1028 0

1029 0

1030 0

1031 2

1032 3

1033 5

1034 1

1035 4

For Æthelred’s last years between two and five charters survive for each year,
from various archives. The year 1013 was the last one inside this range with
three charters, with drops thereafter in 1014–16 to one or two, most probably
because the normal business of government was disturbed by the various raids
and archives were burnt by invading armies. Only two charters (issued by
Æthelred and Edmund Ironside respectively) survive for 1016, and then there is
nothing until 1018. Of the other gaps in Cnut’s charters the largest reflects his
absence from the country: that of 1027–30 when he was in Rome and then in
Scandinavia. The years 1025 and perhaps 1021 are also vacant, and Cnut was
almost certainly in England for some of these years at least, but these are
perhaps the exceptions that prove the general rule. As noted above, a small
number of charters have date ranges that are too wide to allow easy tabulation
here, and these should be noted as potentially falling into such gaps. However,
even if these were issued in the years 1017, 1025 or 1027–30, they would only
slightly alter, rather than change, our entire impression of these trends.
What are we to make of this? It is possible that the charters for these early
years were all destroyed by chance, but not really probable. The dwindling
numbers of Æthelred’s last years suggest that this dearth in Cnut’s early years is
instead part of a trend, and perhaps there were fewer or even no charters granted
by Cnut’s royal court in 1016–17, and in these years some of the normal
functioning of government, at least that which produced written charters, was
put on hold.39 This can only have been because, as in Æthelred’s last years, the
fight to stay in control required enormous effort.

STABLE KINGSHIP: 1018 AND SUBSEQUENT RULE IN ENGLAND

By 1018 Cnut was more secure, had managed to appease the English somewhat,
dispose of troublesome figures such as Eadric streona, and reward his most
powerful Scandinavian followers without too much risk to his own control over
Wessex. His survival of this period clearly gave him confidence and he seems to
have found his feet as a ruler. What we can see of the instruments of royal
government appear to have returned to functioning in a regular and orderly
fashion. Cnut now had breathing space to concentrate on dispensing with the
rank and file of the Scandinavian forces, and consolidating the impression of
himself as a fair and moderate ruler in the eyes of the English.
In 1018 what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle calls ‘the tribute’ (gafol) of
£72,000 was rendered all over England, with London forced to pay an extra
£10,500 doubtless due to its wealth and long-standing support of Æthelred and
Edmund Ironside.40 This was entirely in accordance with Scandinavian practice,
and seems to be a common form of tax claimed by an invader or incoming king
at the outset of his reign, perhaps in order to allow him to pay off the debts
incurred during coming to power. Harthacnut did the same on his invitation to
the English throne in 1040, immediately exacting a ‘very severe tax’ from the
population. A similar practice would appear to be recorded by Robert of Torigny
in the mid-twelfth century, in which he notes that the Norse king of Sodor and
Man owed tribute to the Norwegian ruler, paying ten marks of gold when each
king succeeded to rule, and then ‘does nothing else for him in his whole life,
unless another king succeeds’.41 A substantial part of these monies must have
been used to reward those who had joined the campaign with a promise of a
share of the booty or to pay off more formal mercenaries hired to bolster these
forces. As a result of this the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that many of
Cnut’s forces were sent back to Denmark in 1018, leaving him with just forty
ships.42 The collection of these funds was made rapidly, and with significant risk
of upsetting the status quo and startling the English. Many ecclesiastical
institutions must have lost substantial treasures at this time, and other sources
show that estates could be confiscated and forcibly sold to anyone who could
immediately pay the tax due on them. In doing so Cnut managed to demobilize
the majority of his forces back in Scandinavia, safely away from his new English
realm, and could demonstrate to the English populace that while it had cost them
another Danegeld, he could achieve what no English ruler had managed to do,
namely, successfully order the raiding parties to leave permanently. Despite the
immediate cost, for the English this must have seemed like an answer to their
prayers.
Cnut’s attention returned immediately to reassuring his new English subjects.
It has been argued, quite convincingly, that the witenagemot called in Oxford in
1018 was presented with a brief lawcode that was an adapted version of
Æthelred’s Enham code of 1008, and which now survives in a single manuscript:
Cambridge, Corpus Christi MS. 201.43 The preamble of this code talks of the
establishment there of the peace (frið) and friendship (freondscip) between the
Danes and the English, and with a literary flourish promises to observe the laws
of Edgar, that is to return to the perceived golden days of Æthelred’s father. The
preamble finishes with the statement that the witan would ‘with God’s help
investigate further at leisure what was necessary for the nation’. This
investigation of ‘what was necessary for the nation’ most probably led to Cnut’s
more extensive lawcodes: those known as I Cnut (a religious and church
lawcode) and II Cnut (a secular lawcode), both probably issued in 1020.44 This
1018 Oxford code is in Wulfstan’s idiom and survives in a manuscript associated
with him, but the spirit of this code and the public ceremony surrounding it
accords with Cnut’s other conciliatory acts and is probably that of him and his
immediate circle.45
The drawing of a line under past grievances between the Danes and the
English, and publicly opening inquiries into further injustices that might be
corrected, was political theatre at the outset of Cnut’s reign, offering the English
reassurance and portraying him as a ruler who cared about the ills that beset
them and who would commit time and resources to addressing them. This was a
politician emerging, replacing the young invader as the bulk of his fleet
disappeared over the horizon.
From 1018 at least he was working hard on winning over key members of
the Church. His Christianity has been noted above, and this must have gone
some way to reassuring the English clergy.46 Clearly Wulfstan had already
committed himself to Cnut’s cause by the time of the Oxford meeting, perhaps
drafting the lawcode for Cnut at that time. His words here indicate unequivocally
his personal support for Cnut and his rule in England, with the admonition that
‘foremost’ the people must hold to a single Christian faith and ‘love King Cnut
with due loyalty’. This was sharpened in the 1018 brief code with the addition of
the phrase ‘as is correct’ (mid rihtan), stressing the legitimacy of the new
regime.47 Moreover, the exhortation in this early code to ‘zealously observe the
laws of Edgar’ was also a politically loaded endorsement of Cnut with sharply
defined connotations. In Wulfstan’s compositions from the final years of
Æthelred’s reign, the reign of Edgar was nostalgically portrayed as a golden
age.48 Connecting Cnut to this both conveniently hopped over the reign of
Edgar’s son, Æthelred, and signalled to a contemporary audience a return to
peace and prosperity. We cannot know whether the form of Cnut’s letter to the
English of 1019–20 is as he issued it, but its survival amongst homilies in a
series of leaves of a manuscript evidently used for preaching by the archbishop,
and perhaps annotated in Cnut’s own hand, does indicate that Wulfstan took an
active role in the endorsement of Cnut’s rule.49
Similarly, Cnut’s initial interactions with the archbishopric of Canterbury
smack of a desire to win support there and perhaps demonstrate his devotion.
Two of the earliest records of his reign are a writ, dating approximately to
1017×1019 and formally endorsing the archbishop’s liberties and privileges, and
a grant of 1018 recording a royal gift of woodland in Ticehurst, Sussex, directly
to Archbishop Lyfing.50 The former notes that Cnut made a royal visit to
Canterbury to lay a written version of that document on the altar of the cathedral
before a public assembly. Further traces of this royal visit can perhaps be found
in the addition of the names of Cnut and three of his Danish followers in a
Gospel Book from that house, evidently recording their entry into confraternity
with the community of Christ Church.51 There Cnut is lauded in elevated terms
as ‘our beloved worldly lord, and our spiritual brother in heaven’, and
interestingly David Pratt suggests that the Gospel Book itself was a gift from
Cnut to the community.52 Furthermore, the Liber Eliensis states that the relics of
St Wendreda in Ely were seized by Cnut immediately after the battle of
Assandun and were later deposited in Canterbury.53 This public ceremony might
have been the most advantageous for relics of an Anglo-Saxon saint, taken by an
invader and returned to an English cathedral.
The little we can detect of Cnut’s interaction with the bishoprics of Wessex,
the rump of support for the previous regime, was in the same conciliatory vein.
On two occasions in the early 1020s he seems to have attempted to influence the
succession of a bishop, in trying to get his own candidate elected, but when
challenged on this he let matters run their own course rather than push through
his wishes by force. Goscelin’s Vita Sancti Wlsini indicates that when Bishop
Brihtwine of Sherborne was expelled from his see in unknown circumstances c.
1023, Cnut imposed a preferred candidate, Abbot Ælfmær of St Augustine’s,
Canterbury.54 However, William Thorne in his Chronica reveals that Ælfmær
went blind soon after and had to return to Canterbury, at which point Cnut was
unable or unwilling to impose another favoured candidate and after a few years
Brihtwine returned to office (and certainly had returned by 1030).55 Similarly,
William of Malmesbury, in his Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, states that Bishop
Æthelwine of Wells was forcibly replaced by another Brihtwine early in Cnut’s
reign.56 Again this probably occurred c. 1023, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s
record of this Brihtwine as one of the three members of clergy involved in the
translation of the relics of St Ælfheah identifies him as an associate of Cnut.57
However, William of Malmesbury makes it clear that Æthelwine returned soon
after to expel Brihtwine from office, and eventually Brihtwine re-expelled
Æthelwine and held on to the bishopric. This last act may have been with royal
support, but the toing and froing here of the candidates hardly indicates Cnut’s
firm influence.
However, these attempts to win favour (or at least not to merit scorn) with
the archbishops and the bishops of Wessex seem to have masked other rapid
manoeuvres to reduce the power of Cnut’s enemies and plant his followers in
important ecclesiastical and secular posts. London and East Anglia had held
staunchly to the cause of Æthelred and Edmund Ironside, and they were the most
probable sites for resistance to his regime. London had become the economic
powerhouse of southern England during the later tenth century, and was of
crucial importance. Thus it was placed under permanent military occupation,
with a resident fleet of Scandinavians garrisoned nearby, perhaps on the adjacent
southern bank of the Thames.58 These were the ‘lithsmenn in London’ who
chose Harold Harefoot as king after Cnut’s death, and the taxes measured by
rowlock recorded in that same source for 1035 and 1040 are probably those
collected to pay for this fleet.59 Liðsmannaflokkr identifies ‘pleasant London’ as
the site where the warband who recite the verse will settle down, and it was
clearly a point of safety for Cnut early in his reign where he could seize and
execute Eadric streona in 1017 and set out on the assault on St Paul’s to seize the
relics of St Ælfheah in 1023.60 The traces of this garrison are also felt in the Old
Norse loanword husting for London’s urban assembly, and Pamela Nightingale
concluded that this name was introduced in the early eleventh century due to the
Scandinavian domination of this assembly.61 Certainly by the time of the
Norman Conquest, the city’s administration was firmly in the hands of a figure
of Scandinavian descent, who is named Esgar by the Carmen de Hastingae
Proelio, and identified by the Waltham Chronicle as the grandson of a Danish
immigrant and senior political figure during Cnut’s reign, Tovi pruða.62
Linguistically, the influence of their long-term residence there can be detected in
the dedication of St Olave’s, Southwark, to a Scandinavian saint, and the naming
of the adjacent Tooley Street, which, as Bruce Dickins noted, is derived from a
garbled version of the Latin of the saint’s name. A substantial ethnically
Scandinavian population was still discernible there in the early twelfth century,
when a parish dedicated to a St Magnus, most probably the Scandinavian Jarl of
the Orkneys (d. 1116), was founded on the opposite bank of the Thames, at the
foot of a fording point leading from Southwark to the city proper.63 The
archaeology closely mirrors this, most obviously in the presence of a large stone
in the cemetery of St Paul’s with a carved beast in the Scandinavian Ringerike
style, featuring a runic inscription naming the men who raised the stone as Ginna
and Toki.64
The ecclesiastical elites of this region had been powerful supporters of the
previous regime, and could not have expected to be left alone for long. However,
unlike Cnut’s dealings with secular lords who had displeased him, he could not
merely trap and execute a bishop or abbot without great scandal and the ensuing
condemnation of the Church. He seems instead to have concentrated his efforts
on reducing their financial power and thereby eroding any potential threat.
London, at the southernmost tip of this eastern coastal region, acted as its centre
for trade. It had supported Æthelred and Edmund Ironside throughout Cnut’s
invasion, and its bishop, Ælfhun, had escorted Æthelred’s children to safety in
Normandy in 1013. Ælfhun did not return from there but his successor, Ælfwig,
was presumably the cleric who played the greatest part in the election of
Edmund Ironside to the kingship in 1016. It was perhaps to be expected that
London’s bishop would fare badly during Cnut’s initial years. The punitive tax
of 1018 on the whole city of London has been mentioned above, and in addition
Domesday Book records another large exaction by Cnut from the bishopric, the
vast thirty-hide manor of Southminster, Essex, which was not returned until after
1066.65 Susan Kelly has argued that a list of naval dues owed by the bishop of
London and the community at St Paul’s, which is preserved in a charter from
that archive, is a record of the entire landholdings of those institutions c. 1000.66
If this is correct then we should note that of the fifteen identifiable estates held
by the community at this time, six were in private hands by 1066 with all but
two remaining so (one of which, the estate of Tollington, was held by a man of
the king); and of the eleven identifiable estates held by the bishop c. 1000, two
were in private hands by 1066 and remained so, and another had been reclaimed
from private ownership. Cnut was also responsible for removing a source of
income from the monastery of St Paul’s in London. This was the resting place of
the relics of St Ælfheah, the archbishop murdered by Scandinavians in 1009,
whose cult grew quickly after his death. Both the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and
Osbern’s Translatio Sancti Ælfegi Cantuariensis record Cnut’s involvement in
the removal of the saint’s body from London to Christ Church, Canterbury, in
1023.67 The latter presents it almost as a heist with the king’s huscarls
(immediate Scandinavian retinue) feigning an attack on the gates of the city.
Meanwhile Cnut, the archbishop of Canterbury and a small number of men stole
in, broke open the tomb with a candelabrum, and carried off the body to a
waiting armed longship, which Cnut personally steered along the opposing bank
to avoid possible attacks from inhabitants of the city.68 Pilgrimage routes must
have been re-established after peace returned in 1016, and the loss of the relics
of a popular and topical saint would have reduced the finances of St Paul’s
considerably. Moreover, while the main part of the saint’s body was carried to
Canterbury, a fifteenth-century chronicler of Westminster Abbey, John Flete,
stated that Cnut had donated a series of relics to them including a finger of St
Ælfheah.69 This community, a few miles upriver from London and significantly
outside the city walls, was small during the years that preceded Cnut’s reign but
grew under his patronage and that of later Anglo-Saxon kings; and Flete also
suggests that Cnut intervened in monastic affairs there to guarantee the election
of his preferred candidate, Wulfnoth, as abbot in 1023.70 If correct, then such an
act would have diverted many potential future pilgrimages, and the revenue they
brought, to Ælfheah’s relics away from the non-corporal relics in St Paul’s to
nearby Westminster, and under the control of Cnut’s preferred candidate there.
As noted above, Ely lost the relics of St Wendreda during the invasion, and it
is notable that the abbots of Ely, Thorney and Ramsey, who had mostly held
consistent positions of prominence in Æthelred’s charters and courts, all but
disappear from Cnut’s, with the exception of documents for which they were
crucial local witnesses.71 Only the abbot of Peterborough bucked this trend, and
that may be more to do with his close association with Emma, Cnut’s new wife
(having accompanied her into exile and returned with her in 1017), than the
geographical placing of his see.72
At the same time Cnut was implanting his followers into the secular
institutions of Wessex. In the decades before he came to power, Wessex had
been divided into two distinct areas of influence: the eastern counties of
Hampshire and Berkshire, perhaps with authority extending into Sussex and the
areas around London, and the ‘Western Provinces’ of Wiltshire, Somerset,
Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. The office of the earl of the crucial eastern part,
whose areas of influence faced and perhaps bordered London, was vacant in
1017, and into this Cnut put the young and probably ambitious and aggressive
politician, Godwine.73 Godwine’s father seems to have been dispossessed by
Æthelred and perhaps exiled, but kept the support of that king’s sons. He appears
to have thrown in his lot with Cnut as another disgruntled member of the English
aristocracy. Godwine was serving in this office by 1018, and Cnut seems to have
subsequently raised him up and tied him into the Danish royal family after a
campaign in Scandinavia that can be dated to 1022.74 In the words of the Vita
Ædwardi regis, at this point Godwine was made dux et baiulus (earl and office-
bearer) of ‘almost all the kingdom’ and married to Gytha, the sister of Jarl Ulf of
Denmark, who himself married Cnut’s sister, Estrith, as part of this complex
dynastic knot.75
 The earldom of the ‘Western Provinces’ appears to have been held by an
Ealdorman Æthelweard from either 1015–16 or 1017–18 to 1020.76 He was most
probably a member of an aristocratic family who held authority there for a
number of generations, and it has been suggested that he may be identified with
the son-in-law of Ealdorman Æthelmær (who himself held a prominent position
at Æthelred’s court in the 990s and opening years of the eleventh century,
founded Eynsham Abbey and retired there around 1005, lastly coming back out
of retirement to act as ealdorman of the ‘Western Provinces’ at the end of
Æthelred’s reign).77
One county under Ealdorman Æthelweard’s jurisdiction, Dorset, has more
evidence for the settlement of Cnut’s secular followers than any other. Much of
this comes from charters. Through the chance survival of the cartularies of
Sherborne and Shaftesbury, and strong antiquarian interest in the now-lost
Abbotsbury cartulary, we have a greater than usual number of grants (or records
of them) surviving for Dorset.78 As early as 1019, Cnut granted land at
Cheselbourne to a man with the Scandinavian name Agemund, while another
Scandinavian named Bovi, who was certainly a landholder in the region a few
years later, appears in the witness-list of this document and was perhaps also
resident in the region at the time.79 In 1024 a grant of land at Portisham was
made to a minister of Cnut with the strange name of Urk. This name was so
incongruous even to English contemporaries that the draftsman of a later charter
concerning him explains that this figure ‘after the fashion of his own people was
known since infancy by the name’.80 In 1033, Cnut granted further estates in
Horton to the Bovi of the 1019 witness-list, naming him ‘his faithful minister’
there.81 In addition, seventeenth-century transcripts survive of fragments of
records once contained in cartulary of Abbotsbury.82 Both the antiquaries John
Leland and Clement Reyner connected the foundation of a monastic house at
Abbotsbury to Urk, and him to Cnut.83 Reyner dated this monastic foundation to
1026. Another antiquarian, Thomas Gerard, noted that Cnut granted the estate
used for the foundation to Urk, and an undated extract from this charter survives
in the transcripts of another antiquary, Henry Spelman.84 Furthermore, Gerard’s
account records another estate named Hilton that Cnut gave to Urk, as well as
the fact that lands at nearby Tolpuddle were owned by Urk’s wife, and thus may
also have been a royal gift.85 Finally, a manuscript of Spelman’s account records
a single phrase from the body of an undated grant to Bovi, evidently from
another, otherwise unknown, grant to him.86 The charters suggest that these men
operated as a co-ordinated local group, witnessing royal grants as local figures of
importance. Bovi appears amongst the ministers of both Agemund’s grant of
1019 (fifth of thirteen ministers there) and Urk’s grant of 1024 (in third place in
the second column of ministers). Similarly, Agemund appears in Urk’s grant of
1024 (second in the first column of ministers), and Urk appears in Bovi’s grant
of 1033 (fourth of twenty ministers). Spelman’s record of a lost charter
concerning Bovi in the Abbotsbury cartulary also indicates links between these
two as the cartulary was associated primarily with Urk as the founder of the
community. The inclusion of one of Bovi’s grants in this archive suggests, as
Simon Keynes says, that they ‘had dealings of some kind with each other’.87 As
local witnesses, Bovi and Urk represented the area in the royal court together,
witnessing a grant of Cnut to Sherborne Abbey of sixteen hides at Corscombe,
an estate within their sphere of influence in Dorset.88
Clearly these men arrived from Denmark with Cnut. None of these names
occurred in any documents from Æthelred’s reign, and Urk and Bovi are named
in documents as royal huscarl, a title that at this early date most probably
indicates membership of a Scandinavian ruler’s private retinue.89 That is
certainly its meaning in the Translatio Sancti Ælfegi, where the term is
explained as ‘the soldiers of his [Cnut’s] household, who are called huscarles in
the language of the Danes’.90 A fragment of evidence from the Domesday Book
for Dorset also suggests that such officials were heavily involved in the local
administration in this region, in that Dorchester, Wareham, Shaftesbury and
Bridport paid one mark of silver for each ten hides in the borough ‘for the use of
the royal huscarls’ (ad opus huscarlium regis).91 This type of reference occurs
nowhere else in Domesday Book and has defied simple explanation.92 The tax
must have been calculated from the relative prosperity of these towns.
(Dorchester paid tax to the king for ten hides, and thus one silver mark for the
huscarls, while Bridport paid tax for five hides and half a mark to the huscarls,
and Shaftesbury paid tax for twenty hides and two silver marks to the huscarls.)
This appears to be more than a simple case of demobilized soldiers, and begins
to look like a conscious attempt by Cnut to insert members of his immediate
retinue into the Dorset landscape and provide for their ongoing lives there.
It is when we try to reach outside of Dorset that we encounter problems. We
can scour the records of moneyers and the rather late records of Domesday Book
for the south-western counties looking for Scandinavian names and concluding
that these were similar implants into the landscape there.93 However, the only
solid identification of a potential candidate is that of a moneyer named Viking
who worked at Lydford and Exeter from c. 1029 to 1035 and c. 1059 to 1062.94
My previous use of this approach, albeit tentatively and speculatively, has
attracted criticism (probably quite rightly) from C. P. Lewis, who took a wider
approach and extended his survey of likely Scandinavian settlers across the
whole of Wessex.95 He is right to point out that ‘the circumstances in which the
[Dorset] charters have survived make it unsafe to read anything more into their
small numbers and restricted geographical distribution’, and it is a sobering
thought that neither Agemund, Urk or Bovi definitely appears in any source
outside the records of the Abbotsbury cartulary.96 A fundamental notion that
separates my approach from that of Lewis is the position of Godwine after
Æthelweard’s outlawry. I suggested that whereas Godwine was clearly the earl
of eastern Wessex from Cnut’s earliest years, he may not have been responsible
for the western part until late in the reign, thus leaving an administrative vacuum
for Cnut’s Scandinavian followers to fill; Lewis prefers to see Godwine as earl
of both parts immediately after Æthelweard’s downfall, thus leaving no
vacuum.97 There is no solid evidence either way, and we must content ourselves
with only suggestions. We might decide that the statements of the Vita Ædwardi
regis that Godwine accompanied Cnut on a campaign in Scandinavia (otherwise
datable to 1022), entered into a marriage alliance, and was appointed dux et
baiulus of ‘almost all the kingdom’ by Cnut, should be read as a sequence of
actions that occurred one after another.98 This allows us to identify 1023 as the
year in which Godwine began to witness Cnut’s charters as the primary earl, and
connect that to his appointment as dux et baiulus. The first two statements can be
shown through other sources to have occurred together, but the last sounds like a
laudatory flourish to me, and the text was written over four decades after 1022.
Alternatively, we could see that as occurring later in the 1030s, when he and
Leofwine become the sole earls included in the majority of charter witness-lists,
but always with Godwine first.99
In addition, Lewis and I are asking slightly different questions. He, quite
convincingly, charts some eighty-one possible Scandinavian settlers to Wessex
who are recorded in Domesday Book as alive during the reign of Edward the
Confessor (1042–66). He shows that they may have arrived during Cnut’s reign
or been the children of such immigrants, and are spread across the entire
landowning social scale and the whole of Wessex. However, as he himself notes,
this is unlikely to have been the result of a single influx of Scandinavians. It
must instead be the product of Cnut’s settlement of his followers throughout his
reign, Godwine’s grants to others, and perhaps with the more successful of them,
some fifty years of building up landed empires within the region. On the other
hand, what I find quite remarkable about the Dorset group, if we can call them
that, is that they are recorded in the landscape so early in Cnut’s reign (Agemund
and perhaps Bovi in 1019; Urk in 1024). Moreover, even if we had no surviving
record of the Abbotsbury cartulary, then the strange references to the silver
marks due to the huscarls in Dorset would mark this county off as something
special. I was probably wrong to theorize, however tentatively, that this
settlement elsewhere in Devon and across the Somerset border could be
connected to Cnut’s early years. On reflection, Dorset does seem to be a unique
case. However, it is this case that bears witness to Cnut’s implanting of his close
followers into the English landscape and the continuing contact between those
men and his royal court.
Such insertions into Dorset, at least, may have angered Ealdorman
Æthelweard, and caused him to act. His career came to a dramatic end in the
early part of 1020 when Cnut outlawed him at Easter.100 What his crime was we
can only speculate, but it was clearly a great scandal and followed a period in
which Cnut had been in Denmark, perhaps to accept the kingship there. If we
can place the addition to the C text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about the
outlawing of Eadwig ‘king of the ceorls’ also in this Easter assembly, then we
might read into this that Æthelweard played an instrumental part in a revolt
against Cnut.101 We can, however, be surer of the effects of this sentence. As an
outlaw Æthelweard was outside the protection of law, and could be harmed or
killed with impunity. Most probably he followed the path of many other outlaws
and went into exile. He does not appear in our sources again.
The outlawry of such a grand figure as an ealdorman, the head of the
regional administration and almost certainly a key member of an established
English local elite, was sure to stir up unrest, and Cnut appears to have returned
to his conciliatory mode. Although undated, his visits to Glastonbury Abbey to
honour the tomb of Edmund Ironside by offering prayers and laying a cloak
embroidered with peacock feathers upon his sarcophagus, and his donation of a
gold shrine for the relics of St Edith (a sister of Æthelred) at Wilton, were
probably made at this time.102 The construction of a stone church at the battle
site of Assandun to commemorate the dead (albeit in neighbouring Essex and not
Wessex proper), and its consecration in 1020 by Cnut, Thorkell the Tall,
Archbishop Wulfstan and other bishops, abbots and ecclesiastics, was probably
also part of this public appeasement.103
 In addition, the death of Archbishop Lyfing in early 1020 presented Cnut
with another opportunity to reassure the elites of western Wessex of his support.
In November 1020, Cnut appointed Æthelnoth, previously dean and prior of
Christ Church, Canterbury, to the archbishopric. An aside in Osbern’s Translatio
Sancti Ælfegi Cantuariensis states that Cnut and Æthelnoth’s intimacy
originated in the fact that Æthelnoth had ‘anointed him’, perhaps indicating that
he had presided over a ceremony of confirmation at Cnut’s election in
Southampton in 1016, as suggested by Edward Freeman, or alternatively either
the peace settlement of 1016 or at Oxford in 1018.104 Æthelnoth was presumably
present at Cnut’s entry into confraternity with the community of Christ Church
alongside three Scandinavian followers in 1018.105 Most importantly, he appears
to have been a member of Ealdorman Æthelweard’s immediate family and his
appointment occurred only six months after the outlawry of the ealdorman. John
of Worcester recorded that Æthelnoth was ‘the son of the nobleman Æthelmær’,
who can be identified with Ealdorman Æthelmær of the Western Shires, the
probable predecessor of Æthelweard in the office and perhaps his father-in-
law.106 Thus, Æthelnoth may have been equal in status within his family to the
ealdorman, and of approximately the same age. He may even have stood closer
to the core of the kin-group as a natural son of Æthelmær, rather than a son-in-
law.
If Cnut had been supportive of the archbishopric of Canterbury before, now
he offered them virtual carte blanche within Kent. As soon as Æthelnoth was
invested, Cnut extended the liberties he had endorsed for Lyfing, including in
this new document the rights of griðbryce, hamsocn, forstal and flymenafyrmðe,
the same liberties that were reserved in II Cnut 12 exclusively for the king unless
he wished to ‘show especial honour to anyone’.107 Elsewhere Cnut granted to
Æthelnoth extensive judicial and financial rights over ‘as many thegns as I have
granted to him’.108 These rights excluded all other authorities, and have little
precedent in Anglo-Saxon royal grants.109 As a part of this, the archbishop also
seems to have been granted the ‘third penny of the shire’ (tertium denarium de
comitatus), which was the third of the revenues of justice that was to be kept by
the local ealdorman or earl as payment for ensuring the local peace.110
Outside of the southernmost counties of England, and after the depredation
of some ecclesiastical institutions in East Anglia and London, Cnut’s role in the
period from 1018 to mid-1021 was that of a nominal king or absent overlord,
who seems to have left the running of East Anglia, western Mercia and the north
to his appointed earls, ealdormen and jarls, appearing in a single recorded
instance of a large meeting at Thorney Abbey perhaps in 1020 or early 1021.111
Similarly, he appears to have taken almost no interest in Scotland, Wales and
Ireland in this period, beyond that of perhaps acting as a distant overlord on a
single occasion to King Rhydderch ap Iestyn of Morgannwg.112
The year after Æthelweard’s outlawry, Cnut faced another ostensible
challenge to his rule, but this time from a more familiar opponent, Thorkell the
Tall. Keynes has shown that Thorkell’s subscriptions to royal charters identify
him as the most important nobleman in England up to this point, and this
impression is upheld by the address of Cnut’s letter to the English of 1019–20
directly to Thorkell as his principal royal agent in the country.113 Similarly to
Æthelweard, all we have is a few brief words concerning his outlawry. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that on 11 November 1021 Cnut outlawed the
earl, with John of Worcester adding that Thorkell’s wife, Edith, was outlawed
alongside him, perhaps implying her involvement in some way in whatever
caused the fall from favour.114 Freeman suggested that Thorkell had made a bid
for the English throne, and considering what we can deduce of his prior
interaction with Cnut and his family this does seem likely, or at the least that
Thorkell’s actions immediately before November 1021 led Cnut to conclude that
such a coup d’état was imminent.115 Freeman noted that the late Scandinavian
account of Thorkell’s dynasty known as the ‘Supplement to the Jómsvíkinga
saga’ states that Thorkell married a daughter of King Æthelred who had
previously been the wife of Ulfcetyl of East Anglia.116 No other source claims
that Ulfcetyl was married to a daughter of Æthelred, but it is not improbable.
Freeman also noted that a daughter of Æthelred named Edith did in fact marry
Eadric streona, and thus was a widow after 1017. However, there is clear
garbling in the name given to this woman in the ‘Supplement’, Ulfhildr, which is
suspiciously Old Norse in origin and literary in that the first element of it all too
neatly echoes the first element in Ulfcetyl’s name. That much is Freeman’s
theory, and it has recently received strong criticism from Ann Williams.117 She
is correct to point out the weaknesses in Freeman’s theory, but this does not
mean we must strike off the whole affair as unknowable beyond the bald fact of
Thorkell’s outlawry.118 It is remarkable, and demands our attention at least, that
a late Scandinavian source does state that Thorkell was married to a daughter of
Æthelred. Even without this Scandinavian source, we would still be left to draw
some conclusion about John of Worcester’s apparently pointed reference to the
exile of Thorkell’s English wife alongside him. It is incapable of proof, but his
possible revolt against Cnut or a bid for power in England is the most reasonable
explanation for his sudden fall from Cnut’s favour, and entirely in keeping with
what we can discern elsewhere of their tense relationship.
The matter could not end with Thorkell’s outlawry and probable exile. Like
the Scandinavians in western Mercia, Thorkell had most probably settled many
of his closest followers on estates throughout East Anglia. Threats may still have
lurked there, or at least Cnut seems to have been concerned about the potential
for this, and he went on a royal visit to the region a few months later in 1022. A
visit to Ely is recorded in the Liber Eliensis, and can be dated by a land
exchange between Cnut and the abbot of Ely, almost certainly ratified during
this visit.119 This exchange was made in 1022 on an auspicious date perhaps
suggesting a public ceremony: the festival of St Æthelthryth (23 June), the saint
credited with founding the house. Elsewhere in the region, Cnut’s influence left
traces in grants of land at Horning in Norfolk to the abbey of St Benet of Holme,
which date to c. 1022.120 In addition, this may well have been the point when
Emma was given responsibility for eight and a half hundreds of land in west
Suffolk.121 Lucy Marten suggests that this involvement of Emma in the region
may have been intended by Cnut to partially fill the vacuum left by Thorkell’s
exile.122
The evidence is more sporadic and anecdotal than for Dorset, but it remains a
possibility that Cnut also settled some of his trusted Scandinavian followers in
this region, presumably to fill the power vacuum and keep an eye on Thorkell’s
remaining followers. Traces of these men are found in a number of local records.
The Ramsey Chronicle states that Cnut alienated the estates of Englishmen in the
region of the monastery and gave them to his ‘comrades in arms’, and names one
of these as a Thorkell, who held the estate of West Elsworth, Cambridgeshire.123
The same text then records that many such Danes fled in the late eleventh
century, enabling Abbot Æthelric to buy or cheat their lands (proudly relating
that one such transaction occurred when the Dane was drunk, and presumably
thus agreeable to a less competitive price).124 A document copied into the body
of the same text gives the will of a woman called Thurgunt, who gave land at
Sawtry to the abbey.125 Her husband, Thorkell of Harringworth, enforced the
will, and he was without doubt a Danish immigrant and was named Turkil Danus
by the entries of Domesday Book for Huntingdonshire.126 The Red Book of
Thorney reports that after the Norman Conquest ‘he abandoned his estates, and
gave his support to the Danes who were his kinsmen’, presumably during Swen
Estrithsson’s invasion of 1069–71.127 The twelfth-century foundation charter of
Sawtry Abbey links Thorkell of Harringworth to Cnut. It states that the king
caused him to settle in the area of Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, and
records his involvement in the local administration on Cnut’s behalf,
reapportioning the fen to the south and east of Whittlesey Mere.128 Thorkell of
Harringworth and his wife Thurgunt are most probably the Turkil and Turgund
in the Thorney Liber Vitae, amongst the lists of names of local landowners who
made donations or entered confraternities with the abbey in the first half of the
eleventh century.129 A few entries above these two are the names of Turkyl Hoge
and his anonymous wife. This Thorkell hoga was recorded in the chronicle of
Hugh Candidus as a wealthy benefactor of Peterborough Abbey, and appears to
have been a landholder based in Cambridgeshire.130 He was of some
significance in the local administration, in that amongst the estates he left to
Peterborough Abbey was a record of his ownership of a monetarius in Stamford,
perhaps part of the revenues of the mint there.131 In addition, we can establish a
connection here to Cnut, in that Thorkell hoga prominently attested a charter of
Cnut dated 1024 amongst names of men who were some of the king’s closest
advisors.132 Moreover, the charter was the one granting Portisham to Urk, a
region on the opposite side of England where Thorkell hoga cannot have been
present as a local witness but instead seems to have figured as an important
Scandinavian who probably knew some, if not all, of the men settled in Dorset.
This charter of 1024 for Urk also includes two further Scandinavian names that
appear in local East Anglian records, those of Brothir and Thorsten, who must be
the Browter and Turstan steallare, who appear together after Thorkell hoga’s
name in the Thorney Liber Vitae.133 The ‘staller’ is another Scandinavian office,
like that of huscarl, which was introduced with Cnut’s men, but seems to have
been confined to the Eastern Danelaw and eastern coastline.134 It was a title
denoting high rank and a court position.
The reader must permit me an aside here on Danish matters even though this
chapter focuses mainly on England, as matters in England now forced Cnut to
turn his attention to Denmark. Thorkell the Tall had shown himself able to raise
armies in Scandinavia quickly and efficiently, and less than a decade before he
had worked for Æthelred against Cnut and his father without any qualms. The
Translatio Sancti Ælfegi states that on Thorkell’s exile to Denmark by Cnut with
only six ships, he ‘was suspected by the leaders of the Danes, lest he should
foment internecine strife’.135 Similarly, the late eleventh-century Vita Edwardi
regis would appear to be talking about this threat when it states that in Denmark
‘some unbridled men, putting off his [Cnut’s] authority from their necks, had
prepared to rebel’. That source places this event within a series of others that led
up to its hero, Earl Godwine, accompanying Cnut on a military expedition to
Denmark in 1022×1023, the year(s) immediately following Thorkell’s exile.136
The C text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 1023 he and Cnut were
reconciled, and it adds that the two exchanged sons, while Cnut ‘entrusted
Denmark’ to his own son and Thorkell.137 Evidently the implication here is that
Cnut lacked the power to oust this influential opponent, but could force him to
come to terms. More will be said about this arrangement in a subsequent
chapter.138 The Translatio Sancti Ælfegi ends its comment on Thorkell with his
pursuit through all the districts of Denmark, and death at the hands of ‘an
ignorant mob and being thrown ignominiously to the wild beasts and the
birds’.139 Death at the hands of a mob was a common end for Scandinavian
rulers, and Cnut may not have played a direct part in this.140
Cnut had been fortunate with this second uprising. Thorkell was clearly a
more viable threat than Æthelweard, but the threat had been contained quickly
and sent back to Scandinavia. Indeed, with the passing of time and some
hindsight it may have appeared to Cnut to have been a blessing in disguise, as
this affair had brought the apparently simmering tension between Thorkell and
him to a head, and ended in Thorkell’s downfall. In addition, Cnut appears to
have avoided any major factioning of the Scandinavians still in England over
this issue, and by driving Thorkell out and then chasing the battles to Denmark
and the Baltic, these armed conflicts had not been felt on English soil, and in
English eyes therefore Cnut would still be the man who brought them the much
longed-for peace. Interestingly, Henry of Huntingdon notes an English
contingent in these forces, and the Vita Edwardi regis makes it clear that
Godwine proved himself to Cnut in these battles. In this, the English forces may
have had their first taste of victory in several decades, and that against a
Scandinavian enemy on their own home soil. Even though they served alongside
other Scandinavian allies, it must have seemed like a role reversal of Æthelred’s
last years, with the English as the slaughtering raiders. Again, Cnut was all
things to all men. For the Scandinavians he was the ideal powerful and
benevolent ruler of skaldic verse, who could prevail against any opponent and
gain support through redistributing booty, while for the English he was a
guarantor of peace, who had turned their fortunes around.
 1Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:7 (Campbell, p. 23).
2Whitelock, ‘Wulfstan and the Laws’ and ‘Wulfstan’s Authorship’.
3Stafford, ‘The Laws of Cnut’.
4Ibid. and Pons-Sans, Norse-Derived Vocabulary, pp. 159–62.
5John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1017 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 502).
6ASC 1017 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 103). Note Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, p.
1, on the use of the term Angelcynnes ryce here.
7See Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, for an excellent study of the unifying influences
from the mid-tenth century onwards. For Cnut’s apparent division of the kingdom, and the focus of his
activities and patronage on Wessex, see Bolton, Empire, pp. 60–2, 68–72, 86–7, 104–6 and 109–19 (but
note I argue he took a greater role in East Anglia after Thorkell’s expulsion in 1021).
8ASC 1017 CDEF (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 103), with the late F text adding ‘very justly’ to the notice of
his execution. John of Worcester adds that his body was thrown over the city walls and left unburied
(Chronicon, s.a. 1017 [Darlington and McGurk, p. 504]).
9See Williams, ‘“Cockles amongst the Wheat”’, pp. 6–8, and the same author’s ‘The Spoilation of
Worcester’ in general on the settlement of Scandinavians in this region.
10Hemming, Chartularium (Hearne, I, p. 251).
11See the variant forms of the witness-list appended to S. 951 and 953 as examples. Hemming in his
Chartularium (Hearne, I, p. 280) records Eadric’s connection to this region. As Eilaf’s name is not recorded
in an East Norse version in any runic inscription, I have used the English spelling here as it is a close
approximation to what one might expect from the Old Danish version of his name, and was probably
written phonetically by the scribe.
12Hemming, Chartularium (Hearne, I, p. 274).
13Ibid., pp. 274 and 251. See also Williams, ‘The Spoliation of Worcester’, p. 385.
14S. 952. See the edition of the obituary-lists by Fleming, ‘Christchurch’s Sisters’, p. 130, and on
Halfdan, see Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 62.
15S. 954.
16London, British Library, Royal MS. I. D. ix, fol. 43v. Reproduced in this volume.
17S. 1463 and 1222. See Fleming, ‘Christchurch’s Sisters’ for the various versions of the obituary-list,
and see also Bolton, Empire, p. 17, n. 22.
18ASC 1017 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 103), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1017 (Darlington
and McGurk, pp. 502–4), who claims that the sending away of the royal heirs to be killed was done on the
advice of Eadric streona. John notes that Edmund died some time later, but Edward married and his children
were Margaret, Queen of Scots, a nun named Christina and Edgar, who returned as an abortive royal
candidate in the later eleventh century. On these figures see Hooper, ‘Edgar the Ætheling’, and Williams,
The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 7, 32, 99 passim.
19Gaimar, Lestorie des Engles, lines 4548–60 (Bell, pp. 144–5).
20The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle presents us with a problem regarding this character. Setting aside the
question of who he was, and what his strange appellation is meant to mean, the fact is that the main core of
the Chronicle (ASC 1017 DE [Cubbin, p. 63, Irvine, p. 74]) at this stage reports his expulsion in 1017,
immediately after Eadwig, Edmund Ironside’s brother, whereas the C text moves the note of his expulsion
to 1020 associating it with the outlawing of Ealdorman Æthelweard (ASC 1020 C [O’Brien O’Keeffe, p.
104]). This might be scribal error on the C copyist’s part, but his addition of a notice of the death of the
preceding Eadwig on Cnut’s orders shows that he had some facts relevant here that were not known to his
peers. Alternatively the note on this Eadwig ‘king of the ceorls’ may have been misplaced in the D and E
texts, next to the name of the other Eadwig who was Edmund’s brother. This is now incapable of resolution,
and readers may choose whichever solution suits them best.
21ASC 1017 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 103).
22John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1017 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 504).
23ASC 1017 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 103).
24Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 220–4.
25Thus I set aside the theory of Poole that skaldic verse suggests she was in London (‘Skaldic Verse and
Anglo-Saxon History’, pp. 290–2). He constructs an argument based on a reference within the skaldic verse
Liðsmannflokkr to a widow who lives within stone (perhaps the stone walls of London), namely, that she
was trapped in London. However, his only other sources for this are the less than reliable Thietmar of
Merseburg and William of Jumièges, and comparison with the skaldic corpus suggests that this appeal to a
woman is a rare poetic device rather than denoting an actual historical figure.
26Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:16–17 (Campbell, p. 32), and see van Houts, ‘Historiography and
Hagiography’, p. 251. Note that elsewhere van Houts interprets the Latin poem Semiramis as a satire on this
marriage (‘Note on Jezebel and Semiramis’). There is also much useful comment on these diplomatic
relations in the same author’s ‘The Political Relations’.
27Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 209–10 and 212–14.
28See Bolton, ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’, pp. 253–8, on these Scandinavian elite unions.
29Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:16 (Campbell, p. 32).
30Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 70–4 and 84–7. For his dynasty see also Raraty, ‘Earl Godwine of
Wessex’, Williams, ‘Land and Power in the Eleventh Century’, Mason, The House of Godwin, and Barlow,
The Godwins.
31S. 951 and 953, 959, 961, 960, 964, 967, 962 and 975. Thored’s influence at court has been discussed
in Bolton, Empire, pp. 15–19, and by Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex’, p. 180.
32S. 1010.
33Domesday Book, Wiltshire, 13, 20 (Thorn and Thorn).
34See Clarke, English Nobility, p. 32, for details of his wealth.
35See Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex’, pp. 180–2, with particular note to n. 76 that lists the
PASE identification as ‘forthcoming’. The PASE project has been published online at:
http://www.pase.ac.uk/index.html
36See Williams, ‘A West-Country Magnate’.
37Lawson, Cnut, p. 66.
38Owing to questions of authenticity and proposed datings that are not confined to a single year, it is
impossible to produce a complete tabulation of the royal charters issued in this period. What is given here is
an approximation only, intended to illustrate trends in production. Note that here I have given the maximum
possible allowance for authenticity, and admitted charters that may have suspect features, but that may
plausibly contain an accurate record or have authentic witness-lists that would indicate access to a now-lost
authentic record. Where there is doubt about the date of the charter within a close range of years, the datings
or use of the charter in Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, has been followed. I have had to set aside charters with the
wide date ranges over a large number of years, as with S. 949 (1017×1035), 979 (c. 1023×1032, but
probably early 1030s), 979 (1023×1032), 982 (1028×1035) and 992 (1033×1035).
39This also noted in passing by Keynes, ‘Church Councils’, p. 128.
40ASC 1018 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104). The size and veracity of this tribute has inspired a
lengthy debate amongst modern historians. See Lawson, ‘The Collection of Danegeld and Heregeld’,
‘“Those Stories Look True”’ and ‘Danegeld and Heregeld Once More’, and Gillingham, ‘“The Most
Precious Jewel”’, ‘Chronicles and Coins’, as well as Metcalf, ‘Can We Believe’.
41ASC 1040 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 107), and Robert of Torigni’s Chronica, edited in Chronicles
of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I (Howlett, IV, p. 229).
 42ASC 1018 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104). Amongst the demobilized men were members of a kin-
group who left runestones in the vicinity of Orkesta, north-east of Stockholm. U344 records that an Ulf took
geld (payment) in England three times, the first with Tosti, the second with Thorkell (probably ‘the Tall’),
and the third with Cnut. Approximately thirty such ‘England runestones’ survive, scattered across Sweden
and Denmark, and recording those who had returned from England or who had died and been buried there
(see Sm101, which records the death of a Gunnar who was buried in a stone coffin in Bath). On these see
Nilsson, ‘Vikings Deceased in England’, and Syrett, The Vikings in England.
43Kennedy, ‘Cnut’s Law’, pp. 72–3. The text has since been published online as part of the Early
English Laws project: http://www.earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/laws/texts/cn-1018
44Edited by Liebermann, Die Gesetze, I, pp. 278–307 and 308–71.
45See Whitelock, ‘Wulfstan and the Laws’ and ‘Wulfstan’s Authorship’, and Wormald, The Making of
English Law, pp. 347–8.
46See pp. 36–7 above.
47Kennedy, ‘Cnut’s Law’, pp. 72–3.
48Whitelock, ‘Wulfstan and the Laws’, pp. 442–3, discusses the occurrences of Edgar’s name in
Wulfstan’s writings.
49On this source and its limitations see the sources section above, at pp. &&&. The text is published in
Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, pp. 273–5), and the manuscript has been published in facsimile as Barker, York
Gospels, fols. 158r–160v. See Ker, ‘Handwriting’, especially pp. 330–1 for the potential identification of
Wulfstan’s own hand.
50S. 950 and 985.
51London, British Library, Royal MS. I. D, ix, fol. 43v. Reproduced in this volume.
52Pratt, ‘Kings and Books’, pp. 335–8. Note also his discussion of the fact that the addition appears to
be in the hand of the scribe Eadwig Basan.
53Liber Eliensis, II:79 (Blake, p. 148).
54De Vita Sancti Wlsini, ch. 16 (Talbot, ‘The Life of Saint Wulsin’, p. 82). The dating is established by
Ælfmær’s final attestation in S. 959. See Bolton, Empire, p. 99.
55William Thorne, Chronica, ch. 4 (ed. Twysden, Historiae Anglicanae, col. 1782); see Bolton, Empire,
p. 99.
56William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ch. 90 (Winterbottom and Thomson, p. 304).
Note that Lawson, Cnut, p. 150, n. 143, suggested that these two events are conflated versions of a single
series of acts, but records of the bishops of Wells indicate otherwise. See Bolton, Empire, pp. 99–101, for
fuller discussion.
57ASC 1023 D (Cubbin, p. 64).
58On London’s position in the economy, see Hill, ‘Trends in the Development’ and ‘An Urban Policy’.
59ASC 1035 E (Irvine, p. 76) and 1041 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 107). See also Hooper, ‘Military
Developments’, p. 98, and references there.
60Liðsmannaflokkr, verse 10 (Whaley, p. 1028); ASC 1017 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 103); and
Osbern, Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, pp. 300–8).
61See Nightingale, ‘Origin of the Court’, pp. 562–4.
62Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, ll. 679–752 (ed. Barlow, pp. 40–4). Waltham Chronicle, ch. 14 (ed.
Watkiss and Chibnall, p. 24). He came to be a substantial landholder, see Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in
Wessex’, pp. 185–6.
63Dickins, ‘The Cult’, p. 67.
64Vince, Saxon London, p. 57. On the runestone, see Wilson and Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, pp. 135–6,
Fuglesang, Some Aspects, p. 189, Roesdahl et al., The Vikings in England, pp. 136 and 163, Barnes,
‘Towards an Edition’, p. 33, and Graham-Campbell, Viking Art, pp. 130–1. It is reproduced in this volume.
65Domesday Book, Essex, 3, 9 (Morris).
 66Kelly, Charters of St Paul’s, p. 98.
67On this see also Marafioti, The King’s Body, pp. 192–5.
68ASC 1023 CE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104). D is fuller (Cubbin, p. 64), and see also Osbern’s
Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, pp. 300–8).
69John Flete, History of Westminster Abbey, ch. 14 (Armitage Robinson, p. 70).
70Ibid., ch. 18 (Armitage Robinson, p. 81).
71Bolton, Empire, pp. 90–1.
72Ibid., p. 91.
73Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 70–1. General studies of this character are listed above in n. 101.
74Ibid., pp. 71–3, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 47 and 213.
75Vita Ædwardi regis, ch. 1 (Barlow, p. 6).
76See Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 68, for discussion of the date on which Æthelweard took up the office
of ealdorman.
77Both suggested by Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 68.
78Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’.
79S. 955. We must be careful when claiming that Cnut granted these men their estates. An additional
clause in Old English in S. 969 shows that in 1033 Bovi obtained the estate of Horton through the payment
of the tax owed on this forfeited estate (see p. 106 above). However, whether they were given the lands or
bought them, their obtaining of royal documents to ratify this suggests Cnut’s acquiescence, if not his hand,
in this. Bovi’s unusual name is that recorded elsewhere on runestones in the East Norse form ‘Bosi’ or
‘Bose’ (see Peterson, Nordiskt Runnamnslexikon, p. 47).
80S. 961. The contemporary note on his name is in S. 1004. The translation from the Latin here is by
Ann Williams; see ‘A Place in the Country’, p. 158. In the same work she tentatively suggests that the name
might mark him as Orcadian in origin (p. 166, n. 3, based on the observation by Gillian Fellows-Jenson
made in 1994 that outside of a handful of English records it occurs only in a patronymic in an Orcadian
runic inscription, with Williams postulating an unlikely Pictish origin for it). She lists the variants ‘Orcy’
and ‘Urki’ from charters, as well as ‘Orecy’ in the guild-statutes of Abbotsbury (see ibid., pp. 158 and 166,
n.1), and thus I would prefer to see it as a variant of *Orikkia (Old Swedish) or *Óroekia (Early West
Norse), with elision of the second vowel, which is recorded on runestones in the close forms ‘urika’ (nom.,
U539A and U350) and ‘uruku’ (acc., DR83). See Peterson, Nordiskt Runnamnslexikon, p. 175.
81S. 969.
82See Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, for details of these transcripts.
83Collectanea (Hearne, IV, p. 149), and Reyner, Apostulatus, p. 132. See Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, pp.
221–3, for discussion of these.
84See Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, pp. 220–32, for the texts of both Gerard’s and Spelman’s records.
85Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, pp. 222–3. On Urk’s later career see Williams, ‘A Place in the Country’.
86The nine-word Latin phrase occurs only in the Harvard manuscript of Spelman’s tract. See Keynes,
‘Lost Cartulary’, p. 232, for this.
87Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, p. 232.
88S. 975.
89Urk in Gerard’s text (see Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, p. 222) and an extant writ of 1044 (ed. Harmer,
Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 1, pp. 120 and 425–6), and Bovi in the rubric of S. 969. While there has been some
debate about this title, with the suggestion that it might just be the Scandinavian equivalent of a landowning
man (see Hooper, ‘Housecarls’, pp. 172–5), the majority of the sources for this view come from the late
eleventh century. We are in different territory when dealing with men who most probably came with Cnut
from Scandinavia, and who knew the term at first hand from its use in Scandinavia, rather than as a
loanword. See Bolton, Empire, pp. 54–5.
90Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, p. 302).
 91Domesday Book, Dorset, B (Morris and Newman). The entry for Dorchester says only ‘ad opus
huscarlium’, the remaining three add ‘regis’.
92See Williams, ‘A Place in the Country’, p. 159, for the most recent comment.
93As I did in my Cnut, pp. 55–9, with emphasis on the hypothetical nature of such an interpretation.
94Bolton, Empire, pp. 57–60, 311.
95Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex’, in particular p. 206, n. 69.
96Ibid., p. 178. Urk and Bovi appear nowhere else. An Agemund appears in the suspect S. 959 and 981
from Christ Church, Canterbury, and Keynes has identified him as the same one who received
Cheselbourne from Cnut (Keynes, ‘Lost Cartulary’, pp. 230–1). However, I have argued elsewhere that he
is probably a separate Kentish individual: see Bolton, Empire, pp. 18–19.
97Bolton, Empire, pp. 47–51, and Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex’, p. 177.
98Vita Ædwardi regis, ch. 1 (Barlow, p. 6). This is the basis of Keynes’ dating of Godwine’s coming to
power there: Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 73.
99Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 53 and 84–7.
100ASE 1020 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104).
101See p. 99 above on this, as well as Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 69–70, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 45–6.
102William of Malmesbury, Antiquitate, ch. 64 (Scott, pp. 132–3), and the same author’s Gesta Regum,
II:184 (Mynors et al., pp. 330–1). Goscelin, Vita S. Edithe, II:13 (Wilmart, pp. 280–1). On this see also
Marafioti, The King’s Body, pp. 195–6.
103ASC 1020 CDEF (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104).
104Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, p. 300). Freeman, Norman Conquest, I, p. 692.
105See pp. 98 and 108.
106John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1020 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 506). See also Keynes, ‘Cnut’s
Earls’, pp. 67–8, Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, p. 219, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 81–2.
107II Cnut, 12, Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, p. 316). This originally noted by Brooks, Early History, p.
290.
108The document edited by Harmer in Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 28, pp. 183 and 449–50.
109See discussion in ibid., pp. 79–82 and 449–50.
110The account survives as in a late eleventh-century copy, now London, British Library, Cotton MS.
Augustus ii. 36. The text has been edited by Douglas, ‘Odo’, pp. 51–2, and for relevant discussion on the
point here see Bolton, Empire, p. 73.
111See Gerchow, Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 195 and 326, Keats-Rohan, ‘The Prosopography’, pp. 223–
4, and my comments here at pp. 135–7.
112Bolton, Empire, pp. 126–32. The sole sources for evidence for his claims to overlordship of these
regions are the Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:19 (Campbell, p. 34), which lists Wales and Scotland
amongst his other rulerships, and a lausavisa (a skaldic verse recorded without a title and hence with more
potential for forgery) attributed to Sigvatr Þórðarson (Whaley, p. 714), which claims that ‘The most
outstanding lords have presented their heads to Cnut from the north out of mid Fife; it was the price of
peace.’ The first may be a rhetorical flourish with the history of English domination of Wales and Scotland
in mind; the second is more confusing and would seem to relate to a specific lost incident. It appears in the
verse as a counterfoil to the next statement, that Óláfr Haraldsson ‘never surrended his skull thus to anyone
in this world’, and whatever the event was it may have been blown out of all proportion here for literary
effect.
113Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 82–4. Cnut’s letter is edited by Liebermann as Die Gesetze, I, pp. 273–5.
114John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1021 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 506).
115See Freeman, Norman Conquest, I, pp. 666–70, and the same material handled more sceptically by
Campbell in his Encomium Emmae Reginae, pp. 87–91.
116Freeman, Norman Conquest, I, p. 670.
 117Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, p. 152.
118I played out and discussed much of Freeman’s theory in Bolton, Empire, pp. 211–12, and for the
reasons stated here in my sources section I believe I was right to do so, rather than strike off the principal
Scandinavian source for this with the line ‘the less said the better’, as Williams does (‘Thorkell the Tall’, p.
152).
119Liber Eliensis, I:85 (Blake, pp. 153–4); S. 958.
120S. 984; dated by Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 49, n. 39, after Thorkell’s expulsion in November 1021
and before Æthelnoth’s departure for Rome in the autumn of 1022.
121See Sharpe, ‘The Use of Writs’, Stafford, Queen Emma, p. 133, and Marten, ‘The Shiring of East
Anglia’, especially p. 22, n. 105, for further references.
122Marten, ‘The Shiring of East Anglia’, pp. 21–7.
123Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis (Macray, p. 129). It is highly unlikely that this was Thorkell the
Tall.
124Ibid., pp. 140, 143 and 135.
125Ibid., pp. 175–6.
126Domesday Book, Huntingdonshire, 2.8 (Morris and Harvey).
127Red Book of Thorney, ed. Caley, Ellis and Bandinel in Monasticon, II, p. 604. Also noted by
Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names’, p. 140, and Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 237.
128Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia (Hart and Lyons, I, pp. 163–4), and see Hart, Early Charters of
Eastern England, pp. 236–8, for the connection.
129Gerchow, Gedenküberlieferung, p. 327, von Feilitzen and Insley, ‘The Onomasticon’, pp. 206–7, and
Keats-Rohan, ‘The Prosopography’, pp. 245–6. See Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names’, p. 140, for
the connection.
130Hugh Candidus, Chronica (Mellows, p. 70). Here his name is recorded as Turkilus Hoche, and he is
recorded as donating several estates and a mint to the house.
131Grierson, ‘Domesday Book’, especially p. 88, argues that it was normal for individuals or
ecclesiastical institutions to own part of the proceeds of a mint in the eleventh century.
132S. 961. He attests this as the fifth of twenty ministri, amongst names otherwise connected to Cnut’s
court.
133Elsewhere Thorsten only witnesses the authentic S. 958 for Ely, and Brothir’s name appears only in
the witness-list appended to the spurious S. 980 for Bury St Edmunds.
134Mack, ‘The Stallers’.
135Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, p. 298).
136Vita Edwardi regis, ch. 1 (Barlow, p. 5). On the dating of this campaign see Bolton, Empire, p. 213.
137ASC 1023 C (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104).
138See below at p. 133.
139Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, p. 298).
140Both Eiríkr Hákonarson’s father, and Knut ‘the Holy’, who ruled Denmark from 1080 to 1086,
certainly died at the hands of a mob, and we might see the death of Óláfr Haraldsson of Norway in battle
with a band of Norwegian nobles in the same light.
 Chapter 4

THE RISE TO DOMINANCE OVER

SCANDINAVIA

The actions of Cnut following the sudden death of his elder brother, Harald,
around 1019, speak volumes about Cnut’s feelings towards his homeland. Many
modern English historians have preferred to see him as a convert to English
culture, and because the wealth of his English realm far exceeded that of
contemporary Denmark it must have seemed a very attractive prize.1 Moreover,
Cnut’s dynasty were only recent arrivals in Denmark and his main opportunities
for advancement until his brother’s death had been in England. However, on the
death of Harald, Cnut readily accepted the hornet’s nest that was rule of a
Scandinavian country, and both defended this realm and used English resources
to extend his grasp over it. It is perhaps worth contemplating that he could have
focused on his acquisition, and left Denmark to its own fate. England may have
been of crucial importance to him, but he seems to have remained at heart a
Scandinavian.
Before moving on to Cnut, we should say a few words about Harald. Like
many members of an important dynasty who die young, Harald is a shadowy
figure of whom few, if any, facts are known with certainty. We are therefore
forced to trace what little is known of his life from a brief range of sources, none
of which gives an impartial picture. We know from the Encomium that he
remained in control of Denmark when Cnut left to reinvade England in 1015.2
Harald was certainly alive in 1017×1019 when his name was entered after
Cnut’s in a note of confraternity in a Christ Church, Canterbury, Gospel Book,
but this does not mean he was in England and Harald may just have been
included as the only other senior living male member of Cnut’s dynasty.3 The
mid-thirteenth-century Danish Annales Ryenses relates a complex story which
claims that Harald was deposed for being ‘effeminate’ (effeminatus) and
completely dedicated to lusts or pleasures in favour of Cnut, then Cnut was
rejected due to his absence in England, and finally restored after Harald’s death.4
Campbell calls this ‘absurd’.5 However, it is our only source, and it is not so
incredible that Harald suffered a period of unpopularity during Cnut’s time in
England (either in 1013–14 or more credibly 1015–20).6 Here the term
effeminacy may not indicate anything about Harald’s gender orientation or
sexual persuasion. It is used in the sense of a homosexual in the Vulgate Bible,
but appears in other contexts in the Middle Ages, most commonly to describe a
failure to hold oneself in check, or to maintain control.7
It has long been surmised, probably quite rightly, that when the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle notes that in 1019 Cnut went to Denmark ‘with nine ships and dwelt
there all winter’, it was to receive the royal title there following his brother’s
recent death.8 Cnut’s letter to the English of 1019–20 states that he had travelled
to Denmark ‘from where the most harm came to you; and then with God’s help
have taken a stand, so that from now on, no hostility shall ever come to you from
there, as long as you are justly ruled by me, and as long as my life lasts’, without
mentioning the kingship. However, the record of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that
Cnut took only nine ships of followers and troops (significantly fewer than the
forty-five ships retained by Thorkell the Tall when he remained in England in
the service of Æthelred in 1013) strongly suggests that Cnut did not feel
threatened on this voyage. His lack of significant force may indicate that he had
been invited by the ruling part of the Danish elites to take up the crown.
Harald’s death must have had a profound effect on Cnut. In England in 1018
he cannot have expected that Harald would be dead within a few months, and
indeed as his brother must have been in his twenties or very early thirties, it was
unlikely.9 The emotional toll may have been great. The brothers seem to have
been close, and the record of the Encomium that after their father’s death the two
brothers went together into Slavia, most probably Poland, to fetch their mother,
is suggestive of a strong bond between them.10 If, as seems likely, Harald’s
name was added to the confraternity entry in the Christ Church, Canterbury,
Gospel Book without his presence in England, then it was most probably Cnut
who ordered his name to be placed here at the end of a short paragraph noting
the worldly guardianship and heavenly ‘brother’ status that the role of king of
England brought. Their father had died only about six years earlier, and so in
1019 Cnut had only his sister Estrith and perhaps their mother (if she was still
alive) as immediate family. He was only in his twenties himself. Doubtless he
had male associates and retinue members whom he had known since childhood,
but the loss of his father and elder brother, perhaps his strongest male influences,
so close together must have been an isolating experience at an early and crucial
point in his life.11
Unfortunately, the lack of evidence for the composition of the court in
Denmark, as well as the fact that Cnut’s father had already begun to build up
urban centres and secular and ecclesiastical infrastructure to centralize authority
in his hands and draw it away from local elites, ensures that we can only
speculate about how this affected Cnut. Most probably the youth who knew he
had to make his own successes now evolved into a young man who knew he had
to make further gains on his own. In a society as unstable as eleventh-century
Denmark, threats doubtless lurked everywhere, and if we can believe the
Annales Ryenses, Cnut’s brother had been briefly deposed only months before.
Thus, we perhaps see a suspicious and even mistrustful Cnut ascending the
throne in Denmark, and placing close family members or perhaps members of
his court into positions of power. Moreover, his father’s centralization of power
was to be reinvigorated.
Above all other practical problems Harald’s death robbed Cnut of a trusted
Danish ally who might rule that country while Cnut was in England, forcing him
to search for an alternative figurehead to run the administration in Denmark. The
Annales Ryenses claim that when Cnut was considered for the kingship there, he
was rejected for being too long in England, and there may be a kernel of truth in
this narrative.12 Denmark was not politically stable enough to cope with long
absences of its ruler, and England would demand much of Cnut’s time in the
next decade.13 He could hope, perhaps, to be little more than an occasional
visitor to Denmark in the immediate years to come. Harald had served as regent
for their father, but Cnut appears to have had no surviving adult male relative to
whom he could now entrust this role.
We know nothing of arrangements to fill this political vacuum from his
departure for England in the spring of 1020 until 1023, when Cnut was forced to
settle his grievances with Thorkell and recognize that figure’s partial authority
there.14 Most probably he had to rely on a series of royal advisors, very likely
drawn from his own retinue or from supporters of his father and brother. As
noted earlier, the C text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 1023 Cnut
and Thorkell were reconciled, exchanged sons, and Cnut ‘entrusted Denmark’ to
his own son and Thorkell.15 That Harthacnut was only a small child (no more
than five years old) at the time, and that he can be shown to have been in
England in 1023, are two facts that have spawned numerous theories as to which
child of Cnut was involved in this exchange of hostages.16 However, later
sources agree that Harthacnut arrived in Denmark in the 1020s, and was firmly
in control of that country at the point of his father’s death, so the simplest
explanation by far is that soon after this agreement was made Harthacnut was
sent to accept rule there at the head of a faction of nobles loyal to Cnut. We are
left to choose between the view that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has slightly
misrepresented this (and perhaps Cnut’s taking of hostages from Thorkell’s
family) as an exchange of hostages between equals; or that Harthacnut was
initially amongst such hostages while having a crucial role in Denmark, but was
released from this arrangement when Thorkell was killed soon afterwards. I
should probably append here a few words for any reader who might be startled at
this notion of sending away a young child to be the nominal head of a foreign
government. The debate on the nature of medieval childhood has raged back and
forth in the past half century, but what is certain is that rulers of the Middle Ages
commonly employed their children in this way.17
The late Scandinavian sources, with two centuries of hindsight, pass over
this short period of joint rule that ended with Thorkell’s death to the joint rule of
Harthacnut and a Danish nobleman named Jarl Ulf.18 Jarl Ulf and Thorkell were
most probably closely associated, and Ulf may have been Thorkell’s
replacement in the region.19 Immediately after Cnut’s military campaign into the
Baltic and perhaps also eastern Denmark in 1023, Cnut initiated a complicated
knot of political marriages, which would bind Jarl Ulf to him, and place his sister
Estrith at the heart of Ulf’s court, while drawing Ulf’s own sister into the
English court of Cnut’s principal earl, Godwine. Thus, Jarl Ulf was tied to
Cnut’s dynasty by a marriage to Cnut’s sister Estrith, while Ulf’s sister Gytha
was married to Cnut’s loyal English supporter, Earl Godwine. This arrangement
both stabilized the political balance of Denmark, and tipped the scales in Cnut
and Harthacnut’s favour. They were all now, in medieval eyes at least, members
of the immediate royal family. While this brought prestige to Ulf as well as the
reassurance that his sister would be at the centre of Cnut’s court through her
husband Godwine, it also stationed Cnut sister as a watchful pair of eyes in Ulf’s
court, and added another member of Cnut’s immediate family to the ruling elite
in Denmark.
Jarl Ulf would turn up sporadically in English records in one short period in
c. 1022, perhaps as part of a single diplomatic visit to Cnut’s court there to
attempt to settle the problems between Cnut and Thorkell, or to cement the new
alliances and undertake these marriage ceremonies. Ulf attested a royal charter
for St Benet of Holme, issued c. 1022 (crucially not including Thorkell and so
most probably after his outlawry in November 1021), and is mentioned in a
spurious charter from Christ Church, Canterbury, showing that tradition at least
connected him with that site in the mid-eleventh century.20 He also appears at
the end of a group of earls in the lists of names in the Thorney Liber Vitae. Such
lists contain the names of men and woman who appear to have entered
confraternity with the monastery, and were to be remembered by its inmates.21
Such lists were added to on numerous occasions, with pages often containing
regular columns, which when full were encased within later names added in the
margins and interlineally. Such was clearly the case with the Thorney Liber
Vitae, in which a block of names added across the late tenth and eleventh
centuries was copied up by a single hand around 1100. Within those names
fossilized in its columns is a substantial list of Scandinavian names, which since
Dorothy Whitelock’s study have been associated with those of Cnut and a
number of his earls found in the previous column.22
The inclusion of Thorkell the Tall amongst the earls has been taken to mean
that the royal meeting at Thorney during which these names seem to have been
recorded was before his exile in November 1021. This dating has been accepted
by the most recent monograph on this source, but I think it unlikely that Ulf
made two trips to England, one before and one after Thorkell’s outlawry and
departure for Denmark, or that he remained in England for the whole period of
1021–2. On closer inspection the relevant entries in the Thorney Liber Vitae
look to be more complex than previously supposed. While I do not dispute that
some of the names here are most probably those of a Scandinavian retinue of
either Cnut, his Scandinavian earls based in England, or Ulf himself, the whole
list of names survives in a single copy from c. 1100 (between 1093/4 and
1112/13) which has suffered some rearrangement and apparent ‘flattening’ into a
single and almost uniform list.23 The placement of the names of Earl Waltheof
(earl of Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire and perhaps also Cambridgeshire
and Bedfordshire c. 1065–76), his unnamed wife (in fact, Judith, a niece of
William the Conqueror) and Earl Siward (earl of Northumbria 1032/3–55) above
the head of the column of secular officials that begins with the earls is crucial.
This strongly suggests that the document which stands behind this later clean
copy added their names in the mid-or late eleventh century to a pre-existing
column of officials, or as Richard Gameson suggests in the recent monograph,
that they were added to the list soon after the main document was written by the
original copyist.24 It would also have been possible to add names interlineally to
the original list and these would most probably then have been copied within the
main sequence by the later scribe. In fact, Dorothy Whitelock suggested that this
might have happened with the name ‘Ælfgifu’ which follows ‘Emma regina’,
with the second name once being potentially an interlinear gloss on Emma’s
English name.25 Further chronological problems are hinted at by the fact that
Cnut and his sons, if they all attended a meeting together in 1020–1, would not
all have been given the title ‘rex’ as they are here. Harold Harefoot’s inclusion
here may well relate to another visit to Thorney, ‘flattened’ by the later copyist
into the document we now see.26 For our purposes here, what is most worrying
is the fact that the names Osgot clapa and Tovi (pruða) occur nine entries down
the column of secular officials, but crucially at the head of the secular ministers.
These men do not otherwise definitively appear in our records until 1026.27 The
earlier exemplar of this list may well have had a separate column for these
officials, to which the names of these two men were added at its top, just as
those of Waltheof, his wife and father were added to the top of the list of earls.
The subsequent conflation of these columns would then have brought Osgot
clapa and Tovi pruða into the earlier group of Scandinavian names. While this
probably changes little about our conclusions drawn from this source, it does
mean that we cannot be so precise as to use it to show Ulf was in East Anglia in
1020–1. His name may have been a later addition to the list, perhaps made c.
1022 when we know he was in England, and in East Anglia.
Harthacnut’s youth must have ensured that Cnut remained firmly in control
of policy decisions throughout the 1020s, and the building up of social
infrastructure and new urban sites continued apace. Cnut had clearly known and
probably participated in his father’s forced abandonment of the German-
influenced urban centres and their bishoprics for the newly founded sites under
direct royal control, and the access to the wealth and resources of England
brought a renewed vigour to the task.
Cnut’s ecclesiastical appointments were men loyal to him rather than to the
German ecclesiastical missions, and now to definitely fixed urban sees. Adam of
Bremen records the appointment of a clergyman named Gerbrand to a see based
at Roskilde, another named Reginbert to a see based on Funen, and yet another
named Bernhard to a see based in Skåne.28 Gerbrand’s appointment can be dated
to before 1022 as he appears amongst the witnesses to an English charter of that
year.29 All apart from the appointment based on the island of Funen were fixed
to urban sites, and on Funen, in the absence of an urban site, the bishop may
have been based on royal estates instead.30 Despite attempts by modern
historians to read an implicit power structure into Gerbrand’s consecration by
Archbishop Æthelnoth, it is most likely that Cnut continued his father’s practice
of not appointing an archbishop above these bishops.31 Thus, they were royal
officers, whose power was dependent on him.
Adam states that these new bishops were English, but this is hard to make
agree with the fact that none has a name of English origin, or even a
Scandinavian name that could indicate a Danelaw origin.32 In fact, all have
names with a continental German origin, and thus despite Adam’s statement they
appear to have been ethnically closer to him than any inhabitant of England. It
seems likely to me that these bishops were from areas on the fringes of the
Empire, but not formally within its borders, such as Frisia, or were Danes who
also had German names. The presence of Danes with what are presumably
baptismal Germanized names as well as their original names amongst the Danish
clergy is known from the later eleventh century in the figure of Bishop Tymmo
Thietmar of Hildesheim.33 This individual had served Cnut’s family and
accompanied his daughter to Germany in the 1030s, and had accepted the
bishopric of Hildesheim after her death. Adam records that he was first named
Tymmo, a Danish name, and he presumably adopted ‘Thietmar’ once in
Germany for its similar elements.34 Clearly, they were not Englishmen, but
Adam detected something English in them, and his use of this term here may rest
partly on his reluctance to mention any missionary activity or clergy in
Scandinavia who were not sanctioned by his see of Hamburg-Bremen. They may
have been partly educated in England. Adam could not have admitted that
Cnut’s dynasty equipped themselves with court ecclesiastics drawn from centres
other than Hamburg-Bremen, as to do so would have opened up many questions
about his see’s failings in this area in a work intended to glorify its successes. A
spell of education in England after 1016 perhaps allowed him to point the finger
at that country for their origin.
Whether these men were ethnically English or not, it is obvious from the
archaeological evidence that there was an English population introduced onto
some Danish elite sites. At Viborg, Roskilde and Lund excavations have
unearthed sherds of pottery from domestic vessels of great importance for our
purpose. Two sherds of this ware were discovered in the lakeside Søndersø site
at Viborg, which was prepared and built on in the first decades of the eleventh
century, with these sherds datable to the winter of 1018–19×1025.35
Approximately thirty further sherds have been found in the large rural estate of
Lejre, near Roskilde, specifically in a group of pit-houses close to the main hall,
in a context imprecisely dated to the late tenth or early eleventh centuries. The
numbers of these finds are dwarfed by the 130 sherds of this material uncovered
by successive excavations in Lund.36 All are from domestic vessels and all are
scattered throughout the archaeological layers dating to the late tenth and early
eleventh centuries, but perhaps tellingly they are not known from layers datable
to the second half of the eleventh century or later. Before the twelfth century,
pottery production was extremely rare in Scandinavia, and the use of a potter’s
wheel is almost unknown until the thirteenth century. Thus, where pottery is
found from this period it is almost always imported. These sherds are from
wheel-thrown pots identical in style to those produced in late Anglo-Saxon
England in the pottery industries of the north-eastern English coast at Stamford
and Torksey, and were first assumed to be imports from there. However,
petrological analysis shows that their clay is local to the region around Viborg.37
Rather than argue the somewhat preposterous notion that potters in the
established industries of eastern England suddenly decided to import Danish clay
to make wares for export back to the site of the material’s origin, it is far easier
to conclude that the potters, not their material, were foreign to Denmark; having
arrived there, they continued to make the pots they needed in the form they
knew, but from local materials. Viborg and Lund we have discussed above. It
should be noted that Lejre is likely to have been an important royal estate during
Cnut’s reign, and was named by Thietmar of Merseburg, in connection with
events in 934, as the ‘head of the kingdom’. It was used by a skaldic poet a few
decades after Cnut’s death when he described the king of Denmark as ‘furious
resident of Lejre’.38
Further probable traces of an English population and skilled English builders
and artisans can also be detected in church architecture, namely in the influence
on construction techniques and materials employed. Excavations in the
Kongemarken at Roskilde, in the region of St Jørgensbjerg in the north-west of
the present city, have revealed a churchyard with the remains of a wooden
church, loosely datable by grave-goods to the late tenth and early eleventh
century.39 The name of the site, while not recorded until the modern period,
suggests royal ownership. The church at St Jørgensbjerg (originally dedicated to
St Clement) was excavated in the 1950s, revealing trenches left by the
foundations of part of an earlier stone-built church (a chancel and nave) beneath
the early twelfth-century fabric of the present church, foundations that could be
dated by a coin hoard found in one of the trenches to c. 1029.40 All that appears
to remain of this earlier church now is the northern doorway of the present
building, probably reused from the earlier structure. What is utterly remarkable
here is the fact that the construction is in stone, and Scandinavia at this time had
almost no history of construction in this material. It was, however, common in
England, and the surviving doorway, while carved from local stone, finds its
closest parallels in late Anglo-Saxon models, particularly that of Barholme in
Lincolnshire.41 As for Lund, Maria Cinthio has deduced that the crypt of the
church dedicated to the Holy Trinity there was modelled on the example at Old
Minster, Winchester.42
Another approach, by Barbara Crawford, has looked at the dedications of
churches to St Clement in this region.43 This protective maritime and missionary
saint was very popular in England (with fifty known dedications there), but
almost unheard of in Scandinavia outside of eleventh-century Denmark (at least
twenty-six dedications in Denmark, six in Norway and none in medieval
Sweden). There are crucial dedications in Roskilde and at Lund, where in the
case of the latter the construction of the earliest building was recently redated to
the early eleventh century.44
Traces of English influence or contact are also detectable northwards and
southwards from Lund around the coastline, probably indicating that Cnut, and
perhaps his father and brother before him, extended their authority there as well
through the use of English officials. A stone church excavated in 1958–60 in
Helsingborg, northwards up the coastline from Lund and at the eastern side of
the shortest crossing point of the Øresund, has been identified as an ‘Anglo-
Saxon pre-1074 stage’, and of notably similar construction to that of St
Clement’s in Lund.45 An earlier excavation at Helsingborg uncovered a small
wooden church with about twenty associated graves immediately beneath other
graves with coin finds dating the graves to the mid-eleventh century.46 Similarly,
a hoard of coins at Stora Slågarp, south from Lund and present-day Malmö,
stands out from the others in the region as having a high percentage of English
coins (all but five of fifty-three). They are mainly from the reign of Cnut the
Great (concentrating in the last issue, Short Cross), but with the latest being a
single coin of Harold Harefoot’s Jewel Cross type (struck c. 1035–7).47 Almost
all other such hoards in Scandinavia are composed mainly of German and
English coins, with the German part forming the lion’s share, and a composition
such as this is not otherwise recorded outside the British Isles.48 The undamaged
quality of the coins indicates that they did not circulate much, and were most
probably brought directly from England before being hidden in the deposit.
 A single artefact stands out from the Lund excavations as worthy of special
note in this context. In 1961 a wooden pencase lid was excavated near a well in a
position indicating it had been deposited on the slope leading to the well while
that structure was still in use, in the period c. 1025–50.49 The lid is 34
centimetres in length and is made of sycamore wood. One end widens into a
carved snarling animal mask, once used as the grip for opening the case, and the
rest of the top is carved with acanthus-leaf foliage. Both of these parts are fine
examples of English Winchester-style carving, but the object has further links to
England on its reverse.50 The principal part of the main body has a shallow
carved-out area once filled with wax and used to take notes with a stylus. The
head has a large inscription with the English name ‘LEOFǷINE . . .’, while a
damaged second line that might read ‘MY . . . ER’ has been interpreted as ‘me
fecit’ (‘made me’) or the title moneyer.51 The pencase may have been produced
in England and exported, or produced on site in Lund by an experienced English
carver, but what is certain is that it was a fine practical object produced for
record-keeping or note-taking by a literate immigrant, doubtless one of Cnut’s
Englishmen at the site. As Cinthio notes, a moneyer named Leofwine is recorded
for Lund during the reigns of Cnut and then Swen Estrithsson, and it is tempting
to connect the object directly with him.52
Cnut appears to have used English die-cutters for his earliest Lund coinage,
which may date to 1014–15, and his jump-starting of the Danish coinage relied
heavily on English influence and personnel.53 In 1019 a mint at Viborg was
producing coins in Cnut’s name along with a royal title, a named moneyer and
mint-signature. This mint had an impressive output, being linked to eight out of
the sixty published die-impressions.54 Roskilde’s mint activity is not easy to
date, but was established there before c. 1025.55 There were also two smaller
non-urban mint sites on Sjælland, at Ringsted and Slagelse, which were probably
based on royal estates, but are still understudied and imperfectly understood.56
Lund’s mint went from strength to strength after its first issues, and from 1019
onwards had the largest output of any Danish mint during Cnut’s reign, with a
claim to twenty-three of the sixty published die-impressions.57 The English
influence on these mints is clear. Moneyers with the distinctively English names
of Godwine, Ælfwine and Leofwine are found at Lund, and another with the
English name Brihtred (for Beorhtred) is recorded on coins produced for Cnut at
Slagelse.58 Rather than local men, the Scandinavian names on these coins may in
fact be those of men from the Anglo-Scandinavian Danelaw, and it may have
been easier to convince these officials with some understanding of the language
and culture of Denmark to leave England for a period of service there.
The proximity of England to Denmark probably allowed Cnut to take a
hands-on role in the affairs of the latter, even when away. The distances were not
so great between Jutland and the eastern coastline of England (an addition to
Adam of Bremen’s text states that it was three days’ sail with favourable winds),
and there was also substantial trade between England and the coastal Low
Countries.59 Bishop Gerbrand of Roskilde was most probably pursuing a route
involving this merchant travel along the coastline of what is now the
Netherlands, followed by an overland route past Hamburg and Bremen to the
Danish border, when he was detained by Archbishop Unwan of Hamburg-
Bremen in the 1020s.60 The movement of merchants probably ensured a
relatively constant flow of information between England and Denmark, and if
faster or more secure embassies were needed, they could be dispatched from the
naval garrison at London.
We now return to our narrative. Cnut may have hoped that with the death of
Thorkell and the recognition of Ulf alongside Harthacnut his problems in
Denmark had petered out. However, he could not have been more wrong. His
steadily increasing power and influence there in the urban sites and English-
influenced infrastructure, as well as fear of a Danish overlordship of
Scandinavia, appear to have forged a common purpose amongst his enemies. In
1026 Cnut faced the greatest military threat to his rule, and it appears to have
come from an alliance of Danish elites with the rulers of Norway and parts of
Sweden. This threat, and his response, was the defining moment of his political
career. Again the contemporary English and later Scandinavian sources tell
different versions of the story. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle names ‘Ulf and
Eilaf’ as Cnut’s opponents in this, while the saga sources state that this was a
joint invasion by King Óláfr Haraldsson of Norway and King Anund Jakob of
Sweden.61 In increasingly more inventive attempts to resolve this apparent
disagreement, it has been argued by various modern scholars that Ulf and Eilaf
were the sons of a powerful Swedish jarl, Ragnvald, or that Eilaf was a scribal
error for Olaf/Óláfr.62 However, it is far more likely that this Ulf and Eilaf were
the earl named Eilaf who had been placed by Cnut into an area of Mercia and his
brother Jarl Ulf, who held some form of overlordship over Denmark.63 The
chronicler’s brevity is a mark of his expectation that his readers were already
familiar with these men, and an identification with the ‘Eglaf duke and his
brother Ulf’ in the Thorney Liber Vitae is most compelling.64 Simon Keynes
observes that this Eglaf/Eilaf frequently witnessed Cnut’s royal charters from
1018 onwards, but his attestations cease abruptly in 1024, consistent with his
leaving the country to return to Denmark.65 John of Worcester states that this Ulf
was ‘the Danish Earl Ulf, son of Spracling, son of Urse’ and he identifies him as
the father of King Swen Estrithsson of Denmark (Cnut’s nephew).66 ‘Spracling’
here is easily identified as the byname of a Danish lord named as Thorgisl
Sprakalegg in the Danish twelfth-century history written by Saxo
Grammaticus.67 A single late saga source, the ‘Supplement to Jómsvíkinga
saga’, states that Ulf and Eilaf were brothers and notes their father as one
Thorgisl.68 The different perspectives of the other types of source most easily
explain the various versions of the story. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s focus
was primarily that of English events and figures, whereas, conversely, the saga
sources mostly concern themselves with Norwegian and Swedish affairs.
Eilaf appears to have withdrawn from Cnut’s service in England soon after
1024 and returned to Denmark, where he and Ulf made common cause with the
Norwegians and Swedes, who seem to have been in an alliance with each other
from c. 1019 onwards when Anund Jakob’s sister married Óláfr Haraldsson.69
The Swedes appear to have already opened up diplomatic relations with the see
of Hamburg-Bremen under Archbishop Unwan, and Sigvatr Þórðarson’s
Austrfararvísur records that its author was sent on a diplomatic mission to Jarl
Ragnvald of Sweden c. 1019.70 Cnut’s external enemies look to have been trying
to form collective bonds since his accession to the Danish throne, and now
Cnut’s internal enemies seem to have joined this power-bloc.
Some brief comment must be made here on King Óláfr Haraldsson of
Norway and King Anund Jakob of Sweden and their reasons for entering this
conflict. Far too much has been made of attempts by later saga traditions to link
Óláfr Haraldsson and Cnut as allies or relatives, and these are evident literary
fabrications.71 What they do reflect, which is most probably real, is that even in
the thirteenth century it was clear that Óláfr Haraldsson had set Norway on a
similar course to that on which Cnut’s dynasty set Denmark, and that he was
Cnut’s great rival for overlordship of the whole of Scandinavia.72 Much here is
based solely on late Scandinavian sources, but I think we can agree on the basic
elements of Óláfr’s life. He appears to have been the descendant of King Haraldr
Hárfagr, through Haraldr Grenske, king of Vestfold. After being baptized in
Rouen, Óláfr returned to Norway and ousted the Jarls of Hlaðir, with the support
of five petty-kings of the Uppland region. He went on to subjugate the petty-
rulers of much of southern Norway, and looks to have begun to centralize
authority in his own hands and introduce missionary bishops. This extension of
power, however, was not performed as efficiently as in Denmark and does not
see in to have included large-scale urban building projects, or the introduction of
more than token examples of coinage. Moreover, Óláfr had much to fear from a
more organized Denmark with vast reserves of English wealth and military
forces.
Anund Jakob likewise was involved in the centralization of power in the
region he ruled, most probably that of the area around Lake Mälar in eastern
Sweden and its overlordships.73 He was the son of the reforming Christian king,
Olof skotkonung, who had claims to nominal overlordship of large parts of
Sweden, a significant military presence in the east of Scandinavia, and some
form of alliance with Swen ‘Forkbeard’ and Cnut before the latter’s accession to
the Danish throne. During Swen’s reign this alliance was probably formed to
control the ambitions of the Norwegian king, Óláfr Tryggvason, with the two
weaker parties in the Scandinavian triumvirate allying together in order to try to
limit the power of the stronger.74 A subsequent alliance of Sweden with Norway
against Cnut once he rose to prominence was probably part of the same pattern,
with Cnut in ascendance, and the other two parties seeking to limit his power
and actions.
To return to the conflict in Denmark: Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Knútsdrápa
records the first attack made on Sjælland by Norwegian and Swedish fleets, and
that one of these forces then ravaged Skåne.75 The late saga source,
Heimskringla, claims that it was a Swedish land army that attacked Skåne during
the initial parts of the conflict, while marching towards Sjælland.76 The plan of
the rebels and invaders seems to have hung on the notion that Cnut could not
react quickly, and that a lightning-fast attack by them would be followed by
months in which they could dig in and fortify their defences. We can date the
conflict in Denmark from the death of the exiled Bishop Ekkihard of Hedeby-
Schleswig on 2 August 1026. On that day he is recorded as dying during a
military campaign in Denmark. As he had been in exile in Germany since 988 at
least and seems to have made no previous attempts to re-enter his see, this was
most probably an endeavour to seize back the see at the head of an army.77 It
beggars belief that after thirty-eight years in exile his attack should happen to
fall by chance in the same year as a major insurrection in Denmark. The bishop
most probably gathered his forces and set off for Hedeby-Schleswig after he had
heard that the uprising/invasion had begun. As I shall discuss later, Cnut had
been invited to attend the coronation of the new Holy Roman Emperor at Easter
1027, and in late 1026 he must have been almost consumed by preparations for
this long and arduous journey for himself and his entourage. His Scandinavian
enemies must have assumed that these preparations would pin him down in
England, and prevent him from striking back immediately. They appear to have
supposed, quite reasonably, that if they struck in sufficient numbers and
occupied major sites, then Cnut would be forced to watch from afar before
leaving for Rome early in 1027, allowing them many months and perhaps even a
year to entrench themselves before his return.
They were wrong. Cnut was a gifted strategist, and he saw that one move
remained which his opponents had assumed was impossible and thus were
unprepared for. He immediately led his fleet, presumably hastily assembled from
English and loyal Danish forces, to the Limfjord – a vast inland sea in the north
of Jutland, open at its westernmost and easternmost points, and at the time at its
northernmost point.78 This unexpected challenge seems to have startled his
opponents, and the Norwegian and Swedish forces appear to have withdrawn
eastwards without conflict, around the tip of Skåne and into the southernmost
part of the Baltic Sea. Cnut gave chase, and the single battle they fought was a
naval one. Both English and Scandinavian sources give it as taking place in a
river named Helgeå (‘Holy River’), identified variously as in Skåne or in
Uppland within modern Sweden.79 The conflict may also have spilled out onto
the surrounding land, and Saxo Grammaticus records a land battle between a
force led by Anund Jakob and some Danish troops at an unidentified site he
names Stångeberg, close to Helgeå.80 Neither side gained a decisive victory,
with one branch of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recording ‘heavy losses’ amongst
Cnut’s forces, and that ‘the Swedes had control of the battlefield’, and similarly
skaldic verse recording the battle but without explicitly stating that Cnut was
victorious.81 Sigvatr Þórðarson in his Knútsdrápa only describes
Cnut’spreparations for the conflict and his magnanimity in the aftermath, and the
one extant stanza of Þórðr Sáreksson’s Roðudrápa is as vague as can be, lauding
the bravery of both Cnut and Óláfr Haraldsson.82 Similarly, Óttarr svarti in his
Knutsdrápa notes Cnut’s success in a muted way, claiming only that he ‘held the
territory against two princes, where the raven did not at all go hungry’.83
A decisive victory may not have been Cnut’s aim, but instead he may just
have wanted to push the invaders eastwards away from open water. Here we
must turn to the more suspect of our Scandinavian sources, but the events they
narrate are plausible and in accordance with what else we know of the conflict.
One of the extant fragments of the so-called ‘Oldest Saga of St Olaf’, which was
written c. 1200, states that as Cnut retreated from the battle at Helgeå he used his
fleet to block the Øresund, sealing in the Norwegians and Swedes in the Baltic.
This is supported in saga narratives by a skaldic verse attributed to a Norwegian
eyewitness, Hárekr of Þiótta, which has been thought to be correct.84 However,
as it survives in the narrative introduced as free speech, not as a pre-existing
source with a separate title, we cannot be sure.85 That done, Cnut appears to
have left his blockading fleet in place, and returned to his earlier travel plans,
moving with his entourage to Rome. The fact that no subsequent skaldic verse
for Cnut includes any record of another naval engagement after Helgeå, when
almost all other known battles are recorded there – including some in the English
campaign not noted by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – may suggest that some
truth lies behind the account of the ‘Oldest Saga’ and the verse attributed to
Hárekr of Þiótta.
The effects of this refusal to engage with the Swedish and Norwegian forces
were great. The Swedes were free to return home, but the gravity of the situation
for the Norwegians may have only just dawned on them. They were trapped in a
vast enclosed sea, and had doubtless come prepared only for a late summer or
early autumn campaign, with plans to take winter supplies from their new
Danish subjects. If they now raided the Swedish coastline for such things, the
Norwegians would draw out their former Swedish allies against them, and with
every day that passed supplies must have dwindled lower and lower, as the
weather became more punishing. Finally, the Norwegians were forced to make
the decision to abandon their ships and travel home overland. Winter may have
already begun. Few medieval armies went overland during winter, and in
Scandinavia it almost never occurred. Whether they aimed for the Oslofjord in
the south or for the region around Trondheim in mid-Norway, this was a
devastating trek through thick forest and mountainous terrain where there were
few roads or trails, and it was probably made by men still in clothing intended
for a late summer or early autumn sea voyage. Only one comparable situation
presents itself. In the early eighteenth century a poorly equipped and exhausted
Swedish army under the command of Carl Gustaf Armfeldt decided to engage on
a four-day march back to Sweden from Norway over the Tydal mountain range
in Trøndelag.86 When a blizzard sprang up unexpectedly they unwisely pushed
on, losing approximately 3,000 men of a roughly 5,000-strong company on the
mountainside, with a further 1,500 dying later from frostbite and another 450
men crippled for life and invalided out of the army. The situation cannot have
been very different in 1026–7. However many men stumbled out of the forests in
Norway, half frozen and starving, they were unlikely to mount further resistance
to Cnut.
Cnut’s letter to the English of 1027, sent back from his return voyage from
Rome, makes it clear that he was returning to Denmark to ‘arrange peace and a
firm treaty, with the counsel of all the Danes, with those races and peoples who
would have deprived us of life and rule if they could’. It informed the English
that when peace was concluded Cnut would return to England ‘as early this
summer as I can attend to the equipping of a fleet’.87 The mid-twelfth-century
Roskilde Chronicle states that Ulf was executed in the church in that city, and
the assembly may well have been there.88 Eilaf disappears from the record at this
time.89 Many other members of the Danish aristocracy who had aided the
rebellion were probably purged at or after this assembly, but the statement of
Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Knútsdrápa, that Cnut ‘would allow little plundering of the
land’, might suggest that any punitive measures were localized and targeted at
treacherous individuals.90 He remained in Denmark some months, doubtless
mopping up opposition and shoring up Harthacnut’s government.
Norway had demonstrated the substantial threat it could pose to Cnut, and
the matter could not be left at that. In the months after his return to England,
Cnut either reached out to senior members of the Norwegian nobility in exile
from Óláfr Haraldsson’s authority, or began to receive embassies from these
men.91 Many of them were old allies of the Jarls of Hlaðir and presumably still
had contact with Hákon, the son of Eiríkr, Cnut’s trusted ally, and the last scion
of this dynasty. The subject of the discussions must have been Cnut’s possible
ejection of Óláfr from Norway, and his replacement of the latter’s regime with
one more friendly to Cnut and the Norwegian exiles.
At the same time, Óláfr’s popularity in Norway seems to have taken a
nosedive, perhaps as a result of the decimation of the forces returning from
Helgeå and the lack of any booty. Surviving verses from a poem composed by
Bjarni Gullbrárskáld for the Norwegian magnate Kálfr Árnason record that Kálfr
travelled to Cnut as Óláfr fled into exile in Russia.92 The two possible rulers are
set up in opposition to each other, with Cnut offering Kálfr substantial gifts,
including apparent promises of ‘land’. This most probably consisted of vast
estates in Norway or a promise of some petty-overlordship there if Cnut’s rule
there could be achieved. Important skalds operated as senior court figures and
diplomats as well as poets. Judith Jesch’s recent and convincing reading of
Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Vestrfaravísur, as a skaldic apology and explanation of the
poet’s taking service with Cnut briefly in this period, suggests that even close
advisors may have deserted Óláfr in 1027–8.93 Sigvatr’s poem was apparently
offered to Óláfr once Sigvatr had re-entered his service, and we might even see
these parts of it as a public apology made on behalf of entire sections of Óláfr’s
court.
In 1028, Cnut took the fleet that was mentioned in his letter of 1027 to
Norway. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester claim that it
numbered ‘fifty ships’.94 Þórarinn loftunga’s Tøgdrápa records that they first
mustered in the Limfjord, before sailing to southern Norway and then westwards
around the coastline, with Cnut’s ship decked out in gold.95 The surviving verses
of Þórarinn’s poem show that the original work traced the various stages of this
route for its listener (from Lista off the coast of Vest Agder, past Tjernagel in
southern Hordaland and a mountain on the border of Nordmøre and Romsdalen
named Stemmet, to Nið, the river on which Trondheim stands), with a focus on
the visual impact of this fleet and the reactions of the various peoples along their
route. When they arrived in southern Norway, Cnut played a trump card in the
person of Hákon Eiríksson. His father Eiríkr Hákonarson had last witnessed a
royal charter in England in 1023, and most probably died in that year or soon
after.96 His uncle Sveinn had died c. 1016 while in exile in Sweden, and thus
Hákon inherited the claims of the Jarls of Hlaðir to rule over large parts of
Norway. Hákon, like his father, appears to have been a trusted ally of Cnut as
well as close family (being the son of Cnut’s elder half-sister), and he could
offer Cnut a legitimate conquest of Norway, which could be presented as a
return to the political order before Óláfr Haraldsson. Thus, Cnut and Hákon
travelled together with the fleet, and as Þórarinn states: ‘Then the bold enjoyer of
the glory-Jótar [i.e. Cnut] gave his nephew the whole of Norway.’97
Cnut and Hákon appear to have taken control of the region without much
resistance and concentrated their efforts on presenting themselves as alternative
candidates for overlordship to Óláfr Haraldsson, generously distributing wealth
and conceding to demands. Óláfr had either stayed in exile or fled again.98 A
verse of Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Vestrfaravísur indicates that Óláfr refused to
engage Cnut and Hákon’s forces, and kept ‘himself in the mountains’ (perhaps
used to denote a real geographical place, or as an expression for an inaccessible
place).99 Cnut and Hákon’s propaganda campaign can be discerned in a
fragment of skaldic verse composed by Hallvarðr Hárekblesi for Cnut after the
conquest of Norway, which employs imagery for Cnut’s control there that
echoes a pagan motif previously used by the poets of the Jarls of Hlaðir.100 Cnut
and Hákon were being placed together, as part of the same family and as a
solution to Norway’s problems. Similarly, the later narrative sources show Cnut
and Hákon securing the support of the Norwegian aristocracy through lavish
gift-giving and by making good on any earlier promises. These acts framed them
in Scandinavian traditions as good and proper overlords, but also implicitly put
them at the head of a client-relationship with these men. John of Worcester
records that Cnut ‘sent to them [the Norwegians] much gold and silver
beseeching them . . . to surrender to him, and permit him to reign over them’,
and similar traditions are documented in the anonymous Passio Olaui,
Theodericus’ Historia, and the later saga accounts.101
Exiled Norwegian magnates now began to return to Norway, and many must
previously have been followers of Sveinn and Eiríkr Hákonarson, who could
begin to rekindle dynastic alliances with Hákon. The mighty Norwegian lords
Einarr Þambarskelfir and Erlingr Skjálgsson had fled Óláfr Haraldsson’s wrath
in the aftermath of the Battle of Nesjar c. 1015 in which they supported the Jarls
of Hlaðir. The late sources Heimskringla and the Legendary Saga state that
Einarr went to Sweden and then to Denmark, where he may have lived under
Cnut’s protection for some time.102 Heimskringla states that eventually Einarr
negotiated a reconciliation between himself and Óláfr, and returned to his
estates; however, he does not appear to have taken up a governing office again
until after 1028.103 The same source claims that Erlingr Skjálgsson got into a
disagreement with one of Óláfr’s officials after the Battle of Nesjar and fled the
country, eventually ending up in England.104 In addition, Hárekr of Þiótta was an
influential nobleman in Hålogaland who is reported to have entered into a
disagreement over jurisdiction with one of Óláfr’s officials, exacting violent
revenge on the official and transferring his allegiance to Cnut.105 Lastly, Þórir
hundr is stated to have become involved in a feud with one of Óláfr’s officials,
and having been forced to accept Óláfr’s justice he fled to Finnmark and
eventually to Cnut.106
We must pause briefly here to note that no similar actions were taken in
Sweden after Helgeå. A small number of coins were minted in Sigtuna in the late
1020s and 1030s with an inscription ‘CNUT REX SV’ (perhaps intending rex
Swevorum or Swenorum, or ‘king of the Swedes’), and were taken to
demonstrate Cnut’s authority there. However, these inscriptions are the sole
piece of evidence to suggest this, and as they are all from a single die, they have
now been discounted as probably crude and clumsy adaptations of English coins
by Swedish moneyers.107 Other scholars have discussed the appearance of the
English titles thegn or dreng on runestones and in place names, and tentatively
suggested that followers of Cnut were implanted into the Swedish landscape.108
However, the overwhelming majority of this material is concentrated in a single
region, Västergötland (thirty-four inscriptions from a total of fifty-six) and the
adjacent coastline up to south-eastern Norway, suggesting instead a localized use
of these terms.109 The reasons behind Cnut’s inactivity in Sweden perhaps lie in
the nature of contemporary Swedish society. By the 1020s Norway was well on
the way to becoming a centralized society, with political and religious power
concentrated in the hands of a single monarch and his ecclesiastics. Sweden had
experienced something similar in the region around Lake Mälar, but on a lesser
scale, and it may well have gone into reverse after the apparent ejection of the
rulers there by the local aristocracy in 1030–5.110 Sweden appears to have
remained a conglomerate of small sub-kingdoms and regional chieftaincies in
the first half of the eleventh century. As I noted above, when talking about the
similar situation in which Denmark found itself in the tenth century and before,
this was an inherently unstable social model, most probably characterized by
feuding between petty-rulers. Such a society would have required an enormous
amount of effort to seize and subdue, and in the long run probably presented
little future threat to Cnut. It could therefore be ignored.
By the end of the 1020s, Cnut was at the head of a political ‘family business’
that sat proudly atop much of Scandinavia. His young son Harthacnut was in
control of Denmark, and his enemies in this region had exposed themselves and
been dealt with. Norway was under the control of his nephew Hákon, with the
former king there exiled. Cnut could afford to ignore Sweden. He was now the
most powerful ruler that Scandinavia had ever known. He had realized the
pretensions to rule of his father and grandfather, and extended them. It thus
comes as no surprise that when he sent his letter to the English in the wake of
Helgeå he styled himself ‘king of all England and Denmark and Norway and
part of the Swedes’.111 Certainly, this was not a geographic fact in 1027, and in
the case of ‘part of the Swedes’ would never be, but the wording may be
original. Cnut had withstood and turned to his advantage an invasion by
precisely the Norwegians and part of the Swedes. The end result saw their
downfall – not his.
 1See my comments on this above, at pp. 3–4.
2Encomium Emmae Reginae, I:3 (Campbell, p. 12); Thietmar of Merseburg places him at the siege of
London in 1016 alongside Cnut (Chronicon, VII:40 [Holtzmann, p. 446]), but this goes against the grain of
all other sources, and is probably a mistake by Thietmar.
3London, British Library, Royal MS. I. D. ix, fol. 43v. A reproduction of the inscription is given in this
volume.
4See Annales Ryenses, ch. 91, ed. Kroman in Danmarks Middelalderlige Annaler, p. 161.
5Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, pp. lv–lviii, at lvii, n. 5.
6In discussing this period Lawson (Cnut, pp. 90–1) tentatively attempted to connect the Scandinavian
immigrant Halfdan/Haldan with a Haldanus in a garbled story in the Roskilde Chronicle, an individual who
was killed by one of Swen’s sons (unfortunately identified as Gorm and Harthacnut in the narrative). This is
too garbled for me to make sense of, and is probably a false identification.
7See Herter, ‘Effeminatus’.
8ASC 1019 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104).
9No source records Harald’s age, but he is unlikely to have been many years older than Cnut, who at
this stage must have been in his twenties.
10Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:2 (Campbell, p. 18).
11On the predominantly male retinue or hirð that surrounded Scandinavian rulers in this period, see
below at pp. 179–82.
12Annales Ryenses, ch. 91, ed. Kroman in Danmarks Middelalderlige Annaler, p. 161.
13Much the same dilemma was faced by Harthacnut in the early 1040s, when he could not effectively
compete with his half-brother for the English crown for fear of losing his Danish rule even during a brief
absence. See below at p. 198 for details.
14On this episode involving Thorkell, his expulsion from England and return to Denmark, see pp. 127–8
above.
15ASC 1023 C (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 104).
16Harthacnut’s birth cannot have preceded his parents’ marriage in 1017. For examples of theories that
these sparse facts have created see Williams, ‘Thorkell the Tall’, p. 155, n. 52, and the highly inventive
Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 143, n. 101, which proposes that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
conflated the details of Cnut and Thorkell’s peace settlement with Ulf’s later appointment as the governor
of Denmark.
17See the articles in Classen, Childhood in the Middle Ages, for a survey of this debate.
18Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, ch. 134 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, p. 235). On this Jarl Ulf, see Balle,
‘Ulf Jarl’, Gallén, ‘Vem var Ulf Jarl’, and Arup, ‘Kong Svend 2.s Biografi’. However, none of these is free
from errors, some glaring.
19Bolton, Empire, pp. 232–7.
20Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 63, and S. 980 and 981.
21On this type of source see Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, Keynes, Liber Vitae of the New
Minster, and Rollason, Thorney Liber Vitae.
22See Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names’, but note that her decision not to edit the text there,
and her discussion of all the Scandinavian names in that section of the manuscript, over-represents the
number of Scandinavian names that appear in a single block. Editions of the text can be found in Gerchow,
Gedenküberlieferung, item c., and Rollason, Thorney Liber Vitae; the latter with photographs of the
relevant pages of the manuscript.
23For most recent dating of the document see Gameson, ‘Planning, Production and Paleography’, p.
116.
24Ibid., p. 117
25Whitelock, ‘Dealings’, p. 131.
 26Bolton, ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’, pp. 262–3. I have attempted there to explain this potentially
fraught meeting of Cnut, his first and second wives and their offspring who went on to rule England, as
forced by the need to bring together as many of the elites of England and Denmark as possible, but on
reflection we might just as well conclude that multiple visits augmented the main Thorney list.
27First occuring in S. 962. See Bolton, Empire, pp. 20–1, where I shed doubt on the identification of a
‘Tobi minister’ with Tovi pruða.
28Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:55 (Schmeidler, p. 115).
29S. 958.
30See Jeppesen, Middelalder-Landsbyens Opståen, pp. 24–6, for the evidence of a pre-urban settlement
at Odense (predominantly ceramic evidence). During Harthacnut’s rule this site seems to have developed
into an urban one, with a mint from the 1040s, and late in the century Adam of Bremen would call it a
‘great city’ (Gesta, IV:4 [Schmeidler, p. 232]).
31Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:55 (Schmeidler, p. 116). Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, p. 177, suggests that
Cnut sought to organize his Danish Church dependent on Canterbury, while Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish
Kingdom’, p. 42, would see instead that Cnut intended to make Roskilde an archiepiscopal see.
32Note that von Felitizen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names, pp. 191, 260, 274 and 348, records an
exclusively continental German origin for the name-elements: Ger- Got-, Regin- and -brand. See Larson,
Canute, p. 190, and Abrams, ‘Anglo-Saxons’, p. 228, on this same point.
33On this figure see pp. 36–7.
34Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:79 (Schmeidler, p. 136). Interestingly, this name does not appear in the
runic corpus, unless it is a garbled version of To¯mi/Tu¯mi/Tummi (see Peterson, Nordiskt
Runnamnslexikon, p. 222).
35Christensen et al., ‘Early Glazed Ware’. See also Roesdahl, ‘English Connections’ for evidence of
these immigrants to Viborg.
36Christensen et al., ‘Early Glazed Ware’.
37Hjermind, ‘Keramik’ and ‘Bestemmelse af Proveniens’.
38Thietmar, Chronicon, I:17 (Holtzmann, pp. 23–4). Steinn Herdísarson, Nizurvísur, verse 2 (Gade, p.
361). See also Christensen, ‘Lejre Beyond Legend’.
39Christensen and Lynnerup, ‘Kirkegården i Kongemarken’.
40See Olsen, ‘St Jørgensbjærg Kirke’. The most recent dating of this hoard is that of Jensen,
‘Møntskatten’.
41Olsen, ‘St Jørgensbjærg Kirke’, pp. 22–8.
42Cinthio, ‘Trinitatiskyrkan i Lund’, p. 113.
43Crawford, ‘The Cult of Clement’.
44Cinthio, ‘Trinitatiskyrkan, Gravarna och de förste Lundboarna’.
45Weidhagen-Hallerdt, ‘St Clemens Kyrka i Helsingborg’, p. 143.
46Ibid. and Crawford, ‘The Cult of Clement’, pp. 266–9.
47von Heijne, ‘Viking-Age Hoards’.
48Ibid., and Jonsson, ‘Coinage’, pp. 214–15, where he notes that the most likely reason for these high
percentages of German coins in such hoards is that most coins in them (including English ones) came in
from Germany. The English coins thus attest to their use in trade by the English with Germany, rather than
to contact with Scandinavia.
49For a good discussion of it in English see Okasha, ‘An Inscribed Anglo-Saxon Lid’. Reproductions of
both its upper and lower faces are given here in this volume.
50Roesdahl et al., The Vikings in England, p. 180.
51The name is sometimes given with the ‘f’ in square brackets, but it is quite clear on the object itself.
What is curious about it is the change of script after ‘Leof’ so that ‘wine . . .’ is in display capitals. I have no
answer for this.
 52Cinthio, ‘Myntverk’
53For the early Lund coins see Blackburn, ‘Do Cnut the Great’s First Coins’.
54Hauberg, Myntforhold, p. 45.
55Jonsson, ‘Coinage’, p. 226.
56See Grinder-Hansen, ‘Ringsted’, and Arnskov, Bogen om Slagelse, pp. 60–3, for the little comment
that exists in print.
57Hauberg, Myntforhold, p. 45.
58See Cinthio, ‘Myntverk’, for some discussion of the names of moneyers from Lund.
59Adam of Bremen, Gesta, scholion 100(97) (Schmeidler, p. 229), and in the earliest extant manuscript
of c. 1100. On the evidence for trade see P. H. Sawyer, The Wealth of Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 99–100
and 104–5.
60Adam of Bremen, Gesta, ii, 55 (Schmeidler, p. 116).
61ASC 1026 EF (Irvine, p. 75), and Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, chs. 132, 134 and 145–52 (Bjarni
Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 226–7, 234–5 and 269–84).
62Moberg, ‘Battle of Helgeå’, p. 11; Freeman, Norman Conquest, I, p. 765, and Campbell, Encomium
Emmae Reginae, p. 86.
63See Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 58–60 and 62–4.
64Gerchow, Gedenküberlieferung, p. 327, and Rollason, Thorney Liber Vitae, p. 102.
65See Keynes, Atlas of Attestations, table lxix.
66John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1049 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 548).
67In modern literature he elsewhere commonly appears with his name in a West Norse form as
Þórgils/Thorgils Sprakalegg. See my discussion of these family traditions in ‘Was the Family’.
68Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, p. 92.
69This marriage alliance is recorded by a fragment of a poem of Sigvatr Þórðarson (ed. Finnur Jonsson,
Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning, A I, p. 248; B I, p. 231), and in the historical narratives of
Theodericus Monachus, Historia, ch. 16 (Storm, p. 29), and Ágrip, ch. 25 (Driscoll, pp. 36–8).
70Austrfararvísur (Whaley, pp. 578–614).
71On this ruler see Sigvatr Þórðarson, Víkingarvísur, Nesjavísur, Austrfararvísur, Óláfsdrápa,
Vestrfararvísur and Erfidrápa Óláfs helga (Whaley, pp. 532–615 and 663–98), as well as Astås, ‘Óláfr,
St.’, and Henriksson, St. Olav of Norway.
72See Astås, ‘Óláfr, St.’, and Andersen, Samlingen av Norge, pp. 109–42, and references there.
73On Anund Jakob, and his father, Olof skotkonung, see P. H. Sawyer, The Making of Sweden, and the
same author’s ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, pp. 14–15 and 18, as well as Ros, Sigtuna, pp. 15–32, and
Lindqvist, ‘Social and Political Power’. His military prowess in the east is attested by Óttarr svarti’s verses
composed on him, the Óláfsdrápa sænska (this not yet published by the Skaldic editing project, and
available in Finnur Jónsson, Skjaldedigtning, A1, pp. 289–90, and B1, p. 267); and his alliance with Swen,
while recorded only in late saga sources, is implied by Cnut’s sending of the sons of Edmund Ironside to
him (see p. 98 above).
74At least Olof’s part in a collective military attack on Óláfr Tryggvason is attested by the verse of
Óttarr svarti (see previous note for reference).
75Knútsdrápa, verses 3–6 (Whaley, pp. 653–9).
76Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, ch. 145 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, p. 269). The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle records that a land force from Sweden was present at the Battle of Helgeå, and these may have
been the same troops.
77See Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, p. 179.
78Sigvatr Þórðarson, Tøgdrápa, verse 8, records the presence of the fleet in the Limfjord.
79See Moberg, ‘The Battle of Helgeå’, pp. 4–7, and Gräslund, ‘Knut den Store’, pp. 217–28, for varying
identifications of the site.
 80Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, X:16 (Christiansen, p. 33). See also Christiansen’s comments on
pp. 195–6, n. 118, and the discussion of the site by Gräslund, ‘Knut den Store’, pp. 226–7.
81The placename of the battle is recorded in ASC EF 1025 (Irvine, p. 75) in the adapted form ‘þam
holme æt ea þære halgan’. Moberg, ‘The Battle of Helgeå’, pp. 12–14, tried to interpret the wording of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to indicate a victory not a defeat, but this strains the evidence too far (see P. H.
Sawyer, ‘Knut, Sweden and Sigtuna’, p. 89, for a similar conclusion).
82Sigvatr Þórðarson, Knútsdrápa, verses 3–9 (Whaley, pp. 653–61); Þórðr Sáreksson, Roðudrápa
(Whaley, p. 243).
83Óttarr svarti, Knútsdrápa, verse 11 (Whaley, p. 781).
84The details can be found on fragments 4 and 5 of the so-called Oldest Saga of St. Óláfr. These are
Norway, Oslo, Norsk Riksarkivet, MS. 52 (ed. Storm, pp. 9–10).
85Edited by Whaley, Poetry from the King’s Sagas, p. 808. Finnur Jónsson, Den Oldnorske og
Oldislandske Litteraturs, I, p. 460, thought them authentic.
86Much has been written about this. For an easily accessible account in English, see Lindqvist, History
of Sweden, pp. 327–8.
87Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, pp. 276–7).
88Chronicon Roskildense, ch. 7, ed. Gertz in Scriptores Historiae Danicae Minores, I, pp. 20–1, Saxo
Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum, X, p. 17 (Christiansen, pp. 36–7), and Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, ch.
153 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, p. 285).
89It should be noted that the Brut y Tywysogyon, s.a. 1035 (Jones, pp. 22–3) states that Eilaf left
England after Cnut’s death for Germania (either Germany or perhaps Norway), while the ‘Supplement to
Jómsvíkinga saga’ (Campbell, p. 93) states that he went to Constantinople at some stage during Cnut’s
early career, where he died. Both are probably in error.
90Sigvatr Þórðarson, Knútsdrápa, verse 9 (Whaley, p. 660). Here I have changed the word ‘little’ for the
‘minimal’ given by the new edition. The variant ‘little’ is offered by the textual appendix and makes better
sense in this use.
91See Bolton, Cnut, pp. 250–9.
92Bjarni Gullbrárskáld, Kálfsflokkr, verses 3–4 (Whaley, pp. 882–4).
93Sigvatr Þórðarson, Vestrfaravísur (Whaley, pp. 615–27; note in particular verse 7 in which the skald
is asked by Cnut whether he wishes to serve him as he did Óláfr, and responds in a way intended to please
the latter: ‘one lord at a time was fitting for me’, as well as verse 6 in which the poet asks where a seat
might be found for him now in Óláfr’s hall. Sigvatr had acted on behalf of Óláfr before (see Austrfaravísur
[Whaley, pp. 578–614], which records his undertaking a diplomatic mission into Sweden), and was clearly
a senior court figure as well as a poet.
94ASC 1028 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 105), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1028 (Darlington
and McGurk, p. 510).
95Þórarinn loftunga, Tøgdrápa (Whaley, pp. 851–63).
96S. 959.
97Þórarinn loftunga, Tøgdrápa, verse 6 (Whaley, pp. 860–1).
98Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, chs. 177–80 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 319–27). This source
claims he fled to Sweden and then Novgorod.
99Sigvatr Þórðarson, Vestrfaravísur, verse 3 (Whaley, pp. 619–21).
100Bolton, Cnut, pp. 265–9. See also Ström, ‘Poetry as an Instrument’, for its use by the Jarls of Hlaðir.
101John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1027 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 510), Passio Olaui, ch. 9
(Storm, p. 131), Theodericus Monachus, Historia, ch. 16 (Storm, p. 31), and Snorri Sturluson,
Heimskringla, ch. 130 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, p. 222).
102Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, chs. 39, 41, 46 and 51 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 50, 52–3, 58
and 67). The Legendary Saga, ch. 25 (Heinrichs, p. 78), also notes that he was in Helsingland for some
time, as well as Denmark.
103Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, chs. 115 and 171 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 191–2 and 306–7).
104Ibid., chs. 116, 120–1 and 131 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 192–3, 203–6 and 226). See also
Fagrskinna, ch. 25 (Bjarni Einarsson, p. 27) for some confirmation of his flight to England.
105Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, chs. 123, 140 and 169 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 211, 253–5
and 305).
106Ibid., chs. 123, 133 and 139 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 211–13, 227–34 and 250–3). Note that
the Legendary Saga, chs. 46 and 62 (Heinrichs, pp. 108 and 152) narrates the same story except that it has
Þórir flee northwards to Finnmark, not England, for two years.
107Jonsson, ‘Coinage’, pp. 228–30, responding to P. H. Sawyer, ‘Knut’ (but note his change of position
in his addendum on p. 92 there) and perhaps also Löfving, ‘Who Ruled’. Note Sawyer’s own recanting of
his former interpretation in his ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, p. 20.
108See B. Sawyer, ‘Appendix’, for the most recent proposal of this argument. Both she and Löfving,
‘Who Ruled’, p. 154, make cases for this.
109Figures taken from B. Sawyer, ‘Appendix’, pp. 24, n. 2, and 25.
110Rasmusson, ‘Overlooked Type’, p. 380.
111Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, p. 276).
 Chapter 5

CNUT AND THE FIELD OF EUROPEAN

POLITICS

It is in the field of international politics, perhaps more than any other, where we
can see that Cnut did not model himself on any of his Anglo-Saxon or
Scandinavian forebears, but instead ploughed a novel and quite opportunistic
furrow. English kings before Cnut had maintained occasional and sporadic links
with continental rulers, while King Athelstan established connections through
the marriage of his half-sisters with the French court and the Empire, and these
links appear to have been responsible for many of the European influences in his
court and in English society in general.1 Similarly, Æthelred took the sister of
Duke Richard II of Normandy as his second wife in 1002, probably as part of an
alliance against viking attacks. This alliance had originated through the
intercession of Bishop Leo of Trevi, who had been sent in 990 by Pope John XV
to secure friendship between the English and Normans.2 However, this contact
was far from common, and this marriage was the first of an English king to a
continental bride in a century and a half.3 Cnut’s Scandinavian experience with
continental Europe probably amounted to little more than a memory of mid-
tenth-century hostility that lingered around the court, as well as the tussle for
control over Denmark between his dynasty and the archbishops of Hamburg-
Bremen.
It is clear that Cnut embraced Europe, and while most existing discussion of
this topic does include accounts of his attendance of Conrad II’s imperial
coronation at Easter 1027 in Rome, there is often little else said about this area
of his life. Let us begin with the facts of the imperial coronation. Cnut’s
attendance there accorded him great honour, with Conrad’s contemporary
biographer recording that Cnut was one of two rulers chosen to act as witness to
the imperial benediction by the Pope, the naming of Conrad as ‘Caesar and
Augustus by name’ and the coronation of the Empress, before leading the new
Emperor to ‘his chamber in the place of honour between the two kings’.4 Cnut’s
letter of 1027 to his English subjects seems to radiate with pride at his
participation in the event. It offers the information that he had ‘vowed to God to
make this journey [presumably as a pilgrimage] long ago’, and gives thanks to
God who has enabled him to visit ‘his holy apostles, Peter and Paul, and every
sanctuary which I could find within the city of Rome or outside of it’. The letter
describes the ceremony and its legions of nobles from throughout Europe, ‘who
all received me with honour and honoured me with precious gifts’, none more so
than the Emperor. Cnut had discussed with both the Emperor and the Pope ‘the
needs of all the people of my entire realm, both English and Danes’, securing
concessions on their safety and toll-exactions while on the road to Rome, as well
as on the expenses incurred by archbishops travelling from England to Rome to
collect their pallium.5 Conrad arrived in Rome on 21 March and remained there
for at least two and a half weeks, and Cnut may have been with him for much of
this time.6
It is apparent that the majority of references placing Cnut in contact with any
site in mainland Europe focus on two principal areas: one around Cologne and
another in western France. The former references most probably relate to his
voyage to or from Rome to attend the coronation ceremony.7 As Michael Hare
has noted, there is a cluster of records about Cnut and his munificence around
Cologne.8 Lantbert of Liège was born around 1000 and became a monk initially
of St Lawrence’s in Liège and then in the abbey at Deutz on the opposite bank of
the Rhine to Cologne. He appears to have returned to Liège in 1060–1, before
dying in 1069, and while at Deutz he wrote the Miracula Heriberti, a series
describing the miraculous visions and healings performed at the abbey. A
chapter describing the that text gives the account of a cripple of Trier who went
to the shrine after a vision, and was healed. Lantbert states that ‘Cnut, king of the
English, was present at this amazing spectacle, and let it be counted true that on
this account the Lord had directed him, so that Heribert might also be
proclaimed by kings . . . [Cnut] sent him prodigious and honourable royal gifts
on his return [home]’.9 Cnut can hardly have been a well-known figure in
Rhineland hagiography, and the anomaly of his inclusion here suggests this
account accurately places him there. William of Malmesbury in his Vita
Wulfstani records other gifts from Cnut to Cologne.10 He states that while the
subject of his text, Wulfstan, was studying in the abbey of Peterborough,
Ervenius, his master there, produced an illuminated sacramentary and a psalter.
These passed to Cnut and his wife Emma, and were given by them to an
unspecified benefactor or religious community in Cologne. Some years later the
same books were presented to Bishop Ealdred of Worcester during his visit to
Cologne in 1054–5. He presumably recognized them or the workmanship, and
eventually returned them to Wulfstan, then prior of Worcester.11
However, even allowing for the fragmentary nature of our records of travel
routes in Europe in the eleventh century, it is hard to place Cologne on the way
from Denmark to Rome or vice versa. We can probably set aside the trip to
Rome, as the eyewitness nature of the account of Cnut’s visit to the northern
coastline of France or the Low Countries in the Encomium indicates that he
visited a monastery in which the author was an inmate (either St Bertin or St
Omer), most probably on the way to Rome. The same account goes on to specify
that Cnut then travelled through Flanders, Gaul and Italy on his way to the
imperial coronation.12 Records of overland trade and pilgrimage routes in
mainland Europe in the eleventh century survive only sporadically, but enough
can be deduced to show that Cologne is far off any route Cnut might have taken
if he was heading directly to Rome.13 All travel itineraries narrated or mapped in
this period or the centuries immediately before or after took travellers
southwards from various points along the northern coastline of Europe to either
Beaune in south-central France or Vevey in Switzerland, and from there to a
small number of passes through the Alps. No road passes close to Cologne from
the Norman-Flemish coastline (see, for example, the routes indicated by the
chronicler Matthew Paris in the thirteenth century) or from southern Denmark
(as taken by the Icelander Nikolás of Munkaþvera in the twelfth century).
Moreover, Cnut’s trips both to and from Rome were made under some
considerable time pressure, most probably delayed by the military manoeuvres
in Denmark leading up to the Battle of Helgeå on the journey out, and, as Cnut’s
letter of 1027 makes clear, hurrying back on the return journey to settle matters
in Denmark. Thus, we are left to conclude that his presence in Cologne was
intentional, rather than the casual act of a passing pilgrim.
Cologne and Liège were important imperial and cultural centres in eleventh-
century Germany, and were the key towns for learning in the Rhineland.14
Cologne was a hive of ecclesiastical activity, and Liège housed an early
cathedral school as well as five separate church schools that supplied a
disproportionately high number of leading ecclesiastics throughout the eleventh
century.15 John of Worcester records that a royal priest of Cnut named Duduc,
who witnessed English royal charters in a position of great prominence from
1033 onwards, and received the see of Wells in the same year, was from
Lotharingia, the region around Cologne.16 Thus, we might conclude that Cnut
went there to collect such scholars for his court. However, the dates of Duduc’s
appearance in the English records are against this. Even allowing for Cnut’s
journey to Denmark in 1027 and his rapid departure from England for Norway in
1028, it is hard to see how Duduc could avoid being recorded by English sources
until 1033, and instead he most probably arrived in England around that time.17
There was one pressing political need that could have drawn Cnut to
Cologne in 1027. After the violent death of Bishop Ekkihard of Schleswig-
Hedeby on the Danish border, his successor was one Rudolf, a member of the
Cologne clergy.18 Control over the see of Schleswig-Hedeby appears to have
been on Cnut’s mind in Rome, and seems to have formed a crucial part of his
negotiations with the Emperor, with Adam of Bremen recording that the
Emperor gave up control of the region north of the River Eider to Cnut.19 The
numismatic evidence supports this, in that the first coins minted in Cnut’s name
from Schleswig-Hedeby derive from the period 1026–8.20 Bishop Rudolf of
Schleswig held office from 1026 to 1047, but only nominally, and he does not
appear to have asserted any claim to his bishopric. He seems to have remained
with the Cologne clergy, periodically appears in the records for that city, and
was buried there in the church of St Kunibert.21 Ekkihard’s invasion in 1026 was
a warning shot that Cnut could not afford to ignore, and he appears to have
negotiated significant territorial concessions from the new Emperor in Rome
concerning this region. It probably seemed wise to call in on his successor,
Rudolf, on the return journey from the imperial coronation, with appropriately
lavish gifts and pomp and circumstance, to win over the new incumbent, sound
out his future intentions, and underline the fact that despite his appointment,
Rudolf’s see now lay firmly inside the Danish border.
It should be noted at this juncture that the background to Cnut’s invitation to
the imperial coronation has often been ignored in modern scholarship, beyond
the observation that in 1027 Cnut was approaching the height of his military and
economic power, and was an attractive ally for Conrad. Modern historians
(including myself) have usually approached the subject of Cnut’s attendance at
this event in near isolation, without consideration of any further factors that led
up to his special role in these proceedings. The result is that Cnut is usually
portrayed as a passive figure, whom Conrad sought out as a potential ally, with
Cnut only taking an active role in negotiations after he had arrived. I suspect this
is wrong, and Cnut’s interactions with western France point to a different
dynamic between Cnut and Conrad.
The evidence for contact between Cnut and western France is quite different
from that in the region of Cologne. There is no indication that Cnut ever went
there, the places concerned were not sites of such special religious significance
that he may have wished to be remembered by them, or sites to which other
Scandinavians travelled for any reason; and yet evidence survives of lavish gift-
giving to the region without any record of contact with any other part of France.
We can probably set aside the rhetorical question of the Encomium that ‘what
church does not still rejoice in his gifts? . . . Italy blesses his soul every day,
Gaul begs that it may enjoy benefits, and Flanders above all, prays that it may
rejoice in heaven with Christ.’22 These are laudatory hyperbole composed by an
author writing some years after Cnut’s death to glorify his heirs, and no further
traces survive to back up these statements.
In the late 1020s the Aquitanian chronicler Adémar of Chabannes wrote his
history of his time at the abbey of Saint-Cybard of Angoulême in central
Aquitaine. When he discusses the Council of Limoges he notes England in
passing, and states in an aside that ‘the king of this people recently sent Duke
William V of Aquitaine a codex written in golden letters which contains Martial
listed along with the blessed Peter and the other apostles’, adding that he had
seen it himself amongst other volumes from this people.23 Elsewhere, the same
author makes it clear that he means Cnut, claiming that Duke William bound
firmly to himself Alphonse, king of Spain, Sancho, king of Navarre, and the king
of the English and the Danes named Cnut with the greatest of favours, so that
each year when their emissaries brought the most costly of gifts, he reciprocated
with more costly ones sent to them.24 I am not sure how much trust we can place
in this last statement about annual gift-giving between Cnut and Duke William,
as repeated exchanges across many years would be odd, to say the least,
considering the absence of any indications that Cnut made similar gifts to other
French nobles. In addition, Cnut is in peculiar company alongside Alphonse of
Spain and Sancho of Navarre, both rulers of south-western Europe, and it may
well be that his inclusion here is a mistake, extrapolated from some record of
multiple gifts. However, the note of Cnut’s gift of a book written in golden
letters is much more specific and entirely in keeping with what has been deduced
elsewhere of his and Emma’s diplomatic gift-giving.25 In the eleventh century
such a book was rare and amongst the very finest products of Anglo-Saxon
scriptoria, but was not unheard of. One might compare it to the Benedictional of
St Æthelwold, made in 963–84 (formerly owned by the Duke of Devonshire but
sold in 1957 to the British Library, now their Additional MS. 49598), and the
Gospel Book of the first half of the eleventh century (now Cambridge, Jesus
College, MS. C.23, which has titles, headings and lections in gold script).26
In addition, there may be a link here between this gift and a substantial
donation sent by Cnut to Bishop Fulbert of Chartres, implied in the bishop’s
letter of response to Cnut.27 Fulbert was a close associate and amicus of Duke
William, acting as the intellectual advisor and guide to his court.28 Famously,
Fulbert’s letter to Cnut thanks the king warmly for his offering, addressing him
as king of Denmark and expressing surprise at his ‘astonishing wisdom and
religious spirit’ since ‘we had heard tell [of you] as a pagan king’ and yet ‘[you]
show yourself a very Christian and generous benefactor of the churches and
servants of God’. A number of possible dates have been assigned to Fulbert’s
letter, but none is based in any secure facts.29 We should probably therefore
accept the widest possible limits of 8 September 1020, when the cathedral of
Chartres burnt down, to 10 April 1028, when Fulbert died.
George Beech has tried to explain these points of contact as evidence for a
pre-Norman Conquest interest of Englishmen in the region, but his evidence is
stretched so thin that it fails to convince.30 There is another, perhaps more
compelling solution, which suggests that the significance of the region to Cnut
was its ruler and his role in the politics of Europe in the mid-1020s. Only at a
single point known to me did Duke William’s affairs bring him into Cnut’s
spheres of political influence. After the death of Emperor Henry II on 13 July
1024 there was no clear succession plan. The Empire was thrown into great
upheaval, and some feared for its survival.31 An assembly to elect the new
candidate was convened on 4 September 1024 at Kamba, and the cases of two
Conrads were heard: the man who would later be Emperor and a younger
relative and namesake, who were both the offspring of collateral lines.
Ultimately the matter had to be decided by vote. Dissent continued, and
Archbishop Pilgrim of Cologne and Duke Frederick of Lotharingia left the
assembly belligerent, without bidding farewell and without participating in the
election. Conrad II was subsequently crowned king on 8 September 1024 and
began a royal progress throughout his new German lands, stopping at strategic
sites to negotiate for the support of key elite individuals and groups. This was
not completed until June 1025, and he did not set out for Italy until February
1026. It was this period between the death of the old Emperor and Conrad’s
arrival in Italy that saw Duke William play a crucial role in proceedings. A
flurry of correspondence between the various parties reveals that Ulric Manfred
II of Turin, with the support of a group of Lombard magnates, sent an embassy
from Italy, firstly to King Robert of France and then to Duke William, asking
them to accept the kingship of Italy, and thus implicitly a claim to the imperial
office.32 Robert declined the offer on behalf of himself and his son and co-king,
Hugh Magnus, but Duke William was more receptive, and set out for Italy to
consider the proposal. He withdrew only when the Italian political situation and
Conrad II’s growing support base there convinced him that it was an untenable
office, begging Ulric in a letter to drop the matter or first secure the support of
Archbishop Aribert and Bishop Leo of Vercelli if he was to proceed.
Cnut’s dynastic origins ensured that he had a great deal to lose from Conrad
II’s election, and the election of a French Emperor whose territorial base was at
nearly the opposite end of Europe from his own may have had significant appeal.
Since the mid-tenth century the Piast dynasty of Mieszko I (d. 992) of Poland
had been engaged in near-constant squabbling with the German king over border
regions.33 These conflicts reached a peak during the reigns of the aggressive and
antagonistic Polish kings, Bolesław I ‘Chrobry’ and his son, Mieszko II. Even a
temporary peace accord settled between Emperor Otto III and Bolesław in 1000
at Gniezno ultimately added to the problems of the Emperor, in giving Bolesław
the status of a quasi-royal suzerain who, in theory at least, outranked the German
dukes along his border. Bolesław may even have claimed a royal title for himself
either at Gniezno or after the death of Emperor Henry II in 1024.34 Bolesław had
annexed Slovakia and Moravia by 999, and temporarily seized Bohemia in 1003.
The Emperor attempted to have Bolesław assassinated at Magdeburg in 1002,
and border regions were fought over repeatedly until 1018 when a peace was
negotiated at Bauzen, during which Henry II was forced to concede Polish
sovereignty over several territories. Conrad II may have rejoiced in 1025 when
Bolesław died, but the political headache of the Polish question endured (and
perhaps even increased) with the accession of Bolesław’s son, Mieszko II.
Conrad initially appears to have tried to placate Mieszko, allowing (or perhaps
arranging) his marriage in 1013 to Rycheza (the niece of Emperor Otto III), the
daughter of one of Conrad’s allies, Ezzo, the count palatinate of Lotharingia.35
He was perhaps also behind a gift made by Matilda (Conrad’s aunt) to Mieszko
of an illuminated manuscript prayer book including a letter addressing him as the
‘king of the Poles’ and with a miniature depicting him enthroned and receiving
the volume.36 However, Mieszko was not to be controlled or bought off so
easily, and he struck immediately at western Pomerania, regaining control of it
by 1028 (creating a valuable buffer zone between him and the Germans, and
placing all of the Baltic coast from the Oder to the Vistula under his direct
control).37 In 1028–9 he invaded Saxony, and in 1030 he led a second campaign
westward towards the Elbe. Conrad’s attempts to push back these offensives in
1029 and 1030 failed, and he incurred such substantial losses that the Obodrites
and Veletians abandoned their support of him and defected to the Polish side.38
As I noted in an earlier chapter, Cnut was also a close member of the ruling
Piast dynasty of Poland through his mother, and may have been Bolesław’s
nephew and Mieszko II’s first cousin.39 Cnut and Mieszko even shared a
common family baptismal name of Lambert, a name that was prominent in the
Piast dynasty in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.40 These family ties brought
with them obligations and probably some weight in the Piast court. Cnut, or
perhaps his elder brother Harald, appears to have interceded in Bolesław’s
interactions with his neighbours in order to calm down the situation and prevent
their relative from entering into open conflict with a powerful opponent. An
addition to Adam of Bremen’s main text, which is not attested until the
thirteenth century, notes that Cnut’s sister Estrith was given by him ‘to the son
of the king of Russia’.41 Western European historians have been very unsure
what to do with this fragment of information, but some of those of Central and
Eastern Europe have set it within the context of a conflict between Bolesław and
his immediate eastern neighbour, the Russian Grand Prince, Jaroslav the Wise
(d. 1054).42 Jaroslav’s rival for power over the Rus’ was his own stepbrother
Sviatopolk (d. 1019), who was married to one of Bolesław’s daughters, leading
Bolesław to attack Jaroslav’s territory twice on his stepson’s behalf, and
managing to occupy Kiev for a short time in 1018. To counterbalance this state
of affairs, Jaroslav seems to have sought out a marriage alliance with Cnut’s
family, and it has been concluded that Estrith was most likely to have been
promised to Jaroslav’s son, Ilja, the prince of Novgorod.43 However, Ilja died
late in 1019 or early in 1020, and as with Estrith’s marriage to a Norman duke,
this may have been only a nominal union for diplomatic purposes, dissolved
when the crisis was over and perhaps without the parties having even met.44
What does this context add to our interpretation of this gift-giving in western
France? The evidence of this is only a small scrap, but the fact that Cnut made
substantial gifts to another candidate for the imperial throne, probably around the
time that Conrad’s own campaign was far from certain of success, is suggestive
of Cnut’s political position and weight during Conrad’s rise to power. If this
interpretation is correct, then Cnut was far from a passive figure in the run-up to
the imperial coronation, and appears to have thrown his weight against Conrad’s
campaign in favour of a candidate who had not been at daggers drawn with his
mother’s family for many years. If the Russian who married Cnut’s sister was
indeed Ilja of Novgorod, then Cnut or his brother Harald had already
demonstrated their willingness to enter into direct conflict with the Piasts in
order to calm down potential disputes, and Conrad may have reasonably looked
to Cnut to do the same in the mid-to late 1020s. Cnut was stuck between the
devil and the deep blue sea, and must have seen that Conrad’s election would
drag him into the Polish question on one side or another, either as a direct
supporter of his Polish relatives or again in the role of a stabilizing influence on
the side of the Empire.
Ironically, this position, which he appears to have tried to avoid, was the
very thing that gave Cnut leverage over Conrad and brought him influence
within mainland Europe, once Conrad’s election to imperial office became a
certainty. It presumably formed part of his discussions with Conrad and perhaps
the Pope in Rome in 1027, during which the new Emperor made substantial
territorial concessions to Cnut. The timing of the marriage of Cnut’s daughter
Gunhild to Conrad’s son Henry (later, and after her death, Emperor Henry III)
shows that this question would remain relevant and important for the Germans at
least in the following years and after Cnut’s death in 1035. The negotiations
leading up to this marriage are often assumed to have been part of the discussion
of 1027, but as noted separately by M. K. Lawson and Herwig Wolfram this
cannot be correct.45 Conrad dispatched a delegation to Constantinople some six
months after his coronation to seek the hand of a Byzantine princess (a daughter
of Emperor Constantine VIII, who was without a male heir) as wife for his son
Henry, and such an agreement must have stood until the death of her father in
November 1028 at least, with the imperial title subsequently shifting away from
her line.46 The marriage between Gunhild and Henry was not announced until 18
May 1035 at Bamberg as part of a pact of friendship between their fathers, and
the discussions leading up to this most probably belong to the period 1029–34,
rather than 1027.47 The couple married at Nijmegen at Pentecost 1036, and
Gunhild died of pestilence during Conrad’s second expedition to Italy two years
later, leaving a daughter named Beatrix, who later held office as the abbess of
Quedlinburg (from 1045/6 to 1062). Thus the ongoing political headache of the
Poles for Conrad ensured that Cnut would remain in his privileged position as a
courted ally throughout his life.
 No previous English or Scandinavian king had tried to influence the imperial
succession, and this background to the imperial election completely changes
how we see Cnut’s role in that ceremony. If this is correct, then rather than being
a passive individual who was courted by Conrad due to Cnut’s growing might
and influence in northern Europe, he instead emerges as a ruler prepared to
negotiate and steer European politics at its highest levels to get what he wanted
and avoid future problems, while Conrad is cast as a figure eager to placate and
please this dangerously powerful potential ally.

1Foot, Athelstan, pp. 99–110.

2See Keynes’ introduction to the reprint of the Encomium Emmae Reginae, p. [xvi], and Stafford,
Queen Emma, pp. 215–17.
3Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 209–24. At page 209 she notes that the nearest preceding marriage of an
English king to a non-English bride was that of Æthelred’s ‘great-great-great-grandfather, almost a hundred
and fifty years before . . . Æthelwulf’s marriage to Judith, the daughter of Charles the Bald’.
4Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi, ch. 16 (Bresslau, pp. 36–7).
5Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, pp. 276–7).
6Wolfram, Conrad II, p. 104.
7Despite the less-than-solid suggestion of the Translatio Beata Mildrethe, as Barlow states in ‘Two
Notes’, pp. 650–1, there is ‘no reputable evidence that Cnut undertook a second pilgrimage to Rome’. See
the discussion there for the arguments for this.
8Hare, ‘Cnut and Lotharingia’, pp. 269–77.
9Miracula Heriberti, ch. 16 (Holder-Egger, p. 1253). A reproduction of the relevant page of the oldest
manuscript of the text (British Library, Additional MS. 26788, fol. 64v), which may have been produced at
Deutz under the author’s supervision, is given in this volume.
10William of Malmesbury, Vita Wulfstani, I:1 and 9 (Darlington, pp. 5 and 15–16).
11See Heslop, ‘The Production of de luxe Manuscripts’, pp. 151–60 and 182–8, as well as Pratt, ‘Kings
and Books’, Hare, ‘Cnut and Lotharingia’, p. 275, and Lawson, Cnut, pp. 133–8 and 150–60, for further
discussion.
12Note that Gransden (Historical Writing, p. 49) doubts that this is an eyewitness account, and prefers to
see it as a literary topos.
13See Birch, Pilgrimage to Rome, pp. 43–9.
14Ortenberg, The English Church, pp. 43–4 and 46–7.
15Renardy, ‘Les Écoles ligeoises’, p. 313.
16John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1060 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 586). See also Keynes, ‘Giso,
Bishop of Wells’, pp. 207–8.
17Note that in Bolton, Empire, p. 103, I put forward a quite different view, namely that Duduc
accompanied Cnut from 1027 onwards. I was probably in error there, and the evidence does not support that
view.
18See Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, pp. 180–1, and n. 48 there.
19Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:56 (Schmeidler, pp. 116–17).
20Jonsson, ‘Coinage’, p. 226.
21Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops’, pp. 180–1.
22Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:19 (Campbell, p. 36).
 23Adémar of Chabannes, Sermones Tres, ed. Migne in Patrologia Latina III, col. 122. These gifts are
also briefly noted by Lawson in his book, Cnut, p. 159, and his article, ‘Archbishop Wulfstan’, pp. 160–1,
in the wider context of Cnut’s gift-giving.
24Adémar of Chabannes, Chronicon aquitanicum et francicum (Chavanon, p. 163).
25See Heslop, ‘Patronage of de luxe Manuscripts’, and Pratt, ‘Kings and Books’, pp. 355–71.
26For the Benedictional of St Æthelwold, see F. Wormald, Benedictional of St. Ethelwold, as well as the
digitized manuscript on the British Library’s website, at: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?
ref=add_ms_49598.
27For the text of this see Letters and Poems of Fulberht of Chartres, no. 37 (Behrends, pp. 66–9), and
for discussion see Gelting, ‘Un Évêque danois’.
28See Letters and Poems of Fulberht of Chartres, nos. 114 and 117 (Behrends, pp. 204 and 209).
29See discussion in Gelting, ‘Un Évêque danois’, pp. 64–6.
30Beech, ‘England and Aquitaine’.
31For this and what follows see Wolfram, Conrad II, pp. 41–67.
32The main narrative here is established by Bresslau, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs, pp. 72–81 and
106–9, with frequent citation from the relevant letters. There is a short discussion in English in Previté-
Orton, The Early History, pp. 174–5, and comment in German in Trillmich, Kaiser Konrad II, pp. 178–80.
Some of the crucial correspondence is edited and translated in Letters and Poems of Fulberht of Chartres,
nos. 104 and 111–13 (Behrends, pp. 188 and 196–203). Wolfram, Conrad II, notes this on pp. 96–7, but
plays down the actual going to Italy so as to make it invisible.
33See Wolfram, Conrad II, pp. 210–16, and Lang, ‘The Fall of the Monarchy’, for English-language
overviews of this.
34See Wolfram, Conrad II, p. 212, and Lang, ‘The Fall of the Monarchy’, p. 629.
35Wolfram, Conrad II, p. 215.
36The manuscript in question was once the property of the church of St Hedwig in Berlin, and was
transferred to Düsseldorf University Library in 1842 (their Cod. C 91). The majority of it is still there, but
its crucial miniature has been abstracted, presumably before entering the university library, and is known
only from later copies. Kürbis, ‘Die Epistola Mathildis’, presents a comprehensive study of the manuscript
with an edition of the letter.
37Lang, ‘The Fall of the Monarchy’, p. 633.
38Ibid., p. 634.
39See above at pp. 8 and 32.
40Gerchow, ‘Prayers’, pp. 235–6, and Hare, ‘Cnut and Lotharingia’, pp. 263–8.
41Adam of Bremen, Gesta, scholion 39(40) (Schmeidler, p. 114).
42For the views of Western European historians see Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, pp. 85–6,
Lawson, Cnut, pp. 109–110, and Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 62–3 and 73, n. 166. For the Eastern view, see
Melinikova, ‘The Baltic Policy’, p. 75.
43On Estrith’s series of political marriages, see p. 33.
44See my work on such political marriages amongst Scandinavian elites in ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton’,
pp. 253–8.
45Lawson, Cnut, p. 109 (citing Bresslau, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis von Konrads II’, as his source), and
Wolfram, Conrad II, p. 104.
46Wolfram, Conrad II, p. 104.
47Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Konrad II, no. 225c (Appelt, p. 109); noted by Keynes, ‘Giso,
Bishop of Wells’, p. 206.
 Chapter 6

THE PERIOD OF MATURE RULE IN

ENGLAND AND SCANDINAVIA

When Cnut returned to England from Norway in 1029 he came back to the first
period of peace, prosperity and stability he had known in his adult life. He was
most probably in his thirties, and had lived through a little over a decade of near-
constant activity. He had security in power in both England and Scandinavia that
he had never enjoyed before, and had extended the boundaries of rule
considerably further than any Scandinavian or English predecessor. Cnut had
survived over a decade of rule in England and had apparently suppressed two
rebellions there, one from the ranks of the English nobility and another from his
most overmighty Scandinavian ally. Moreover, he was approaching a decade of
peaceful rule in Denmark, and appears to have soundly emerged the victor from
a co-ordinated civil war and invasion by the Norwegians and Swedes, leaving
those last two either crippled or unwilling to engage in further conflict. He had
rebuilt his grandfather’s somewhat nominal dominion over much of Scandinavia,
and controlled it much more effectively. To this clutch he had added England as
the jewel in the crown. Cnut had begun to operate on the international stage
alongside other European nobles, and had his authority and importance in
northern European politics recognized by the new Emperor and the Pope. This
peace brought prosperity in the form of renewed trade and commerce, and his
consolidation of power across his realms continued without check or hindrance.1
There are no reports of any dissenting voices or groups in either England or
Denmark in this period; in England, Cnut ensured the rule of law while placating
the population, and in Denmark his towns, bishops and English officials
continued to centralize his authority and make his presence felt. In England, the
officers he implanted into the governing structures stayed in place and grew in
importance, and in Denmark, Harthacnut’s government endured.
As Cnut did not leave England in this period and its sources are much fuller,
our attention must focus there. At the heart of the ruling elites of England, the
royal court, Cnut had successfully created a newly emergent culture – an entirely
new Anglo-Scandinavian identity, which was firmly in power. This was the end
result of his arrival in England in 1013 intent on conquest and forging something
for himself there. The charter witness-lists present us with a glimpse of a less
cluttered royal court, with no sudden changes or falls from favour amongst
senior political figures.2 Many of the participants were Anglo-Scandinavian in
either their ethnicity or probable outlook, and most owed their careers and
wealth directly to Cnut. Where we can find prominent Englishmen in these
records, their aims were often entwined with the new Anglo-Scandinavian rule.
Paramount amongst these courtiers was Cnut’s queen, Emma. As the former
wife of King Æthelred she represented continuity for the English, and as the
daughter of a Danish noblewoman she could be expected to uphold Danish
interests in the court. As noted above, she had asserted herself after her marriage
to Cnut as an important court figure, and as he entered his period of mature rule,
so did she. In 1018–19 she was listed after or between the archbishops in Cnut’s
charters, and twice as his wife, but after that she rose in status to being second
only to the king.3 Winchester charters of 1033 saw her reach a zenith of this
acclamation of her power, jointly at the head of the declaration with Cnut: ‘I
Cnut king of the English with my Queen Ælfgyfu confirm my own gift with
royal confirmation.’4
The highest eschelons of secular power were dominated by two wealthy and
influential earls, Godwine and Leofric.5 They represent the two main types of
Englishman to thrive under Cnut: the new man raised up by Cnut to an earldom
and quite dependent on him for power; and the son of an ealdorman who had
served under Æthelred and who most probably survived Cnut’s early years of
rule by compliance. In addition, Godwine had been married into the Danish
nobility, and through his wife Gytha became a member of Cnut’s own family.
Godwine appears to have taken this bond seriously, and in Danish elite fashion
he named his first two sons after Cnut’s father and grandfather, breaking the
pattern only when to do so would result in the naming of a child by a variant of
Cnut’s own name. While twenty men are given the title ‘earl’ in Cnut’s charters
overall, by 1032 only these two of this group were common witnesses to the
documents: Godwine appeared first and Leofric second in all charters thereafter
for Cnut’s reign.6 Godwine appears to have been the backbone of the English
court during this period. It is here that I would place the claim of the Vita
Ædwardi regis that he was appointed ‘dux et baiulus [earl and office-bearer] of
almost all of the kingdom’.7 Doubtless they jostled with each other for power,
and this rivalry may have been by Cnut’s design. Stephen Baxter has noted in his
study of Leofric and his family how powerful yet precarious an earldom was,
and Cnut perhaps sought to balance the power of these two rivals by allowing
them, or even encouraging them, to pit themselves against each other.8 The
memories of the scandal of having had to outlaw two earls in his early years
must have stayed with Cnut, and he may have tried his best to avoid being forced
to do so again.
Earl Siward of Northumbria is the sole other attestation of an earl in the
witness-lists from Cnut’s mature years, appearing in a single York charter of
1033 immediately after Godwine and Leofric, and probably as a local witness.9
Siward had arrived from somewhere in Scandinavia, most probably Denmark, in
the 1030s, and may have been a member of Cnut’s own family through a
collateral line.10 He was implanted into Eiríkr’s old earldom, which appears to
have been without a single easily recognizable leader since his death in 1023 or
soon after. A further English figure named Ælfwine attests as an earl after
Godwine and Leofric in three documents of the 1030s, but he is of uncertain
status and may just have been a noble honoured with a title reflecting his local
importance rather than a stable earldom of a region.11
The small number of Scandinavians implanted at the head of the court, but
beneath the level of earl, were still present, with Thored Azor’s father witnessing
at the head of the list of ministers in charters of 1033 and 1035.12 In 1026 he was
joined by two further figures with Scandinavian names: Osgot clapa and Tovi
pruða, who were close associates, and later connected by marriage.13 Tovi pruða
was Danish, while Osgot clapa was probably of Danelaw descent.14 They appear
to have held roles in the local administration of East Anglia, Essex and London,
but also had crucial roles at court, with later sources naming Osgot clapa as
‘master of the palace’, and Tovi pruða as a royal standard-bearer, adding that he
‘was guiding the monarch’ and ‘closest to the king in his counsels’.15 In
addition, the two groups of Englishmen who had thrown in their lot with Cnut in
1016 were thriving at the head of the royal ministers. Both the group around
Odda and that around Ælfgar mæw were attesting charters at the head of their
peers throughout the 1030s.16
This was not entirely Cnut’s doing. He had raised these men up, but their
own ambitions caused many of them, such as Earl Godwine, Earl Siward, Earl
Leofric, Odda and Ælfgar mæw and their respective associates, to use their
influence to consolidate their positions, and they had become paramount within
their social class to the exclusion of newcomers and rivals. Indeed, away from
court, two of them, Thored Azor’s father, and Beorhtric mæw, the son of Ælfgar
mæw, used this influence to build up staggering amounts of landed wealth.17 Yet
their vested interests were tied up with Cnut’s, and together they formed a strong
power bloc at the head of society.
However, the charter witness-lists cannot give us the whole picture. There
are some indications that a substantial body of Scandinavian elite men remained
in attendance at Cnut’s court in England throughout this period. It is, perhaps,
not surprising that there is virtually no trace of this group in the charter witness-
lists. Pauline Stafford has already noted that charter witness-lists do not provide
a comprehensive snapshot of the royal court, but merely of those groups selected
by the court that were thought appropriate to stand as witnesses to such
transactions.18 Some groups float in and out of these records. In the tenth
century, abbots were not always included, but they become a firm fixture from
the last years of that century onwards, and abbesses, while of equal social
standing to their male counterparts, appear only briefly as witnesses in the tenth
century and then not again. Royal priests appear sporadically on witness-lists in
the period, peaking in their recorded presence in Cnut’s reign and in those of his
immediate successors. The queen and royal children also appear there
sporadically, apparently only when their elevated status was relevant to an
individual transaction.
Potential absences from the records are drawn into sharp relief when we turn
to consider who the audience for skaldic poetry may have been. We have a large
surviving corpus of skaldic verse produced for Cnut by Scandinavian praise
poets, with extant fragments of works by five separate poets, and another three
lost poems recorded in the Skáldatal.19 These numbers set Cnut alongside ‘the
most prominent of patrons for extant skaldic verse, and without question he is
the most important non-Norwegian according to such terms’.20 In addition, his
fame in this circle is heavily weighted towards the period after Helgeå, when he
became the most powerful ruler in Scandinavia and attracted poets in search of a
grand and benevolent patron. The poems themselves make clear that skalds
would usually seek out a patron, and recite a composition in his person in the
hope of receiving rewards for this. This is clearly the implication of Sigvatr
Þórðarson’s Vestrfararvísur, in which the poet shifts to the first person and
states, ‘I had to make enquiries from outside the main door before I got an
audience with the ruler of the Jótar [i.e. Cnut],’ noting that ‘Cnut, highly
renowned for deeds, has adorned both our arms splendidly, Húnn [‘bear-cub’,
i.e. the poet Bersi Torfuson], when we met the ruler. To you he, wise in many
ways, gave a mark or more of gold and a sharp sword, and to me half [a
mark].’21 The same relationship can be detected in Þórarinn loftunga’s
Hǫfuðlausn and Tøgdrápa.22 The first of these survives only as a single
fragmentary refrain of a poem, which the saga narratives state was composed as
a thirty-stanza poem in a single night to replace an inferior composition which
had insulted Cnut.23 There is support for this story in verse seven of the second
poem, which notes that for the Hǫfuðlausn Þórarinn was given a ‘repayment of
fifty marks’, an enormous sum that Bjarni Fidjestøl calculated to be the
equivalent of 25 lb of high-quality silver or about 200 cows.24 The dates of these
compositions are important here, and two of the surviving poems for Cnut can be
shown to date to after Helgeå (Óttarr svarti’s Knútsdrápa; Sigvatr Þórðarson’s
Knútsdrápa), and a further four to after the conquest of Norway (Þórarinn
loftunga’s Hǫfuðlausn and Tøgdrápa; Hallvarðr Hárekblesi’s Knútsdrápa; and
perhaps a fragment of a verse by Arnórr jarlaskáld). The implication of Sigvatr’s
claim that he and Bersi met Cnut together and were both rewarded for verses
seems to be that the lost verse of Bersi Torfuson should also be dated to after
Helgeå and perhaps following the conquest of Norway. However, Cnut went to
England immediately after the conquest of Norway in 1028 and did not return to
Scandinavia. As Matthew Townend notes, this ensures that these verses were
recited before him in England.25 Who, then, was the intended audience for these
verses beyond Cnut? While the marked influence of Old English on the language
of some of the poems is often noted, such complex and intricate puzzle-like
verses and cryptic wordplays were probably beyond the comprehension of any
listener not fully fluent in Old Norse and the skaldic arts. Thus, are we to believe
that Cnut, one or two earls, and a handful of Scandinavian royal officers formed
the entire audience for such a poem?
The garrison at London might have formed one setting for such recitals, but
another appears in Winchester, the main urban centre of Cnut’s Wessex.26 A
large concentration of archaeological finds there – including burials in the New
Minster cemetery identified as ‘essentially Scandinavian’, a fragment of a
runestone inscribed in Old Norse which most probably comes from the same
cemetery, the hogback-shaped gravestone from east of the Old Minster with the
Old English inscription ‘HER L[I]Þ G[VN]N[I:] EORLES FEOLAGA’ (‘Here
lies Gunni, the earl’s [or Eorl’s] comrade’), and the small gilt bronze mount
decorated in the Ringerike style with two snakes intertwined, discovered in 1910
beneath the south transept of the present cathedral – all testify to a
predominantly male and elite Scandinavian presence there.27 To these should be
added the sculptured block most probably from a narrative frieze, recovered
from the demolition of the eastern apse of the cathedral. It shows a mailed
warrior walking to the left while a bound man lies on the floor behind him, as a
large wolf-or dog-like animal holds down his jaw with its front paw and inserts
its tongue into his mouth, most probably showing part of the legend of Sigmund
and the wolf, otherwise known from the late Vǫlsunga saga.28 These men were
most probably Cnut’s hirð, his personal retinue of warriors sometimes known as
huscarls, who in Scandinavia at least acted as his bodyguards and advisors, and
with whom he is likely to have formed his strongest social bonds.29 There is no
source giving even a feasible number for this retinue, but I think we may assume
that when Cnut became the mightiest ruler in Scandinavia he is unlikely to have
reduced the number of these men, and in fact his hirð probably grew
substantially.30 It is likely to have consisted of many tens of men in the 1030s.
What is perhaps most startling here is that while archaeology and literary
sources clearly indicate these men existed, they are all but invisible in our
historical sources, beyond the note of their existence in the Translatio Sancti
Ælfegi, where they are explained as ‘the soldiers of his [Cnut’s] household, who
are called huscarles in the language of the Danes’.31 There are some
Scandinavian names in our charter witness-lists beyond those discussed here as
members of the royal court or settled on English estates and thus not
permanently in Cnut’s attendance. They include a Hastin, Toga and Healden in
two charters of 1019; a Thurstan and Thrumm in a charter of 1022; a Thorkell
Hoga who also appears as an East Anglian landowner in the Thorkell Liber Vitae
and the chronicle of Hugh Candidus; a Kartoca who is named in the
confraternity entry of Cnut and his brother with Canterbury; a Thurgod and a
Thurstan in a charter of 1024; two men named Tokig, one a ‘minister’ the other a
‘miles’; and a Totyg who may be a man with a variant of the same name, as well
as an Ulf ‘miles’, in a charter of 1033. However, none of these present
themselves in sufficient numbers to convince us that they were members of this
large Scandinavian group.32 A few records contain clusters of Scandinavian
names in contexts suggesting they may have been members of Cnut’s hirð. The
Thorney Liber Vitae is the best known, and as Dorothy Whitelock noted it does
contain a large block of consecutive Scandinavian names that most probably
date back to a visit to the abbey by Cnut and a number of his followers in the
early 1020s.33 Whitelock identified the thirty-one names that follow those of
Osgot clapa and his associate Tovi pruða as potentially those of ‘the following of
one or more of the Danish magnates who head the column’.34 She also notes that
‘the less common names in it do not occur amongst the signatures to eleventh-
century charters, suggesting that at any rate we have not the more important
landowners’. She points to the marked East Scandinavian (Danish or Swedish)
character of the list, noting that the name ‘Einder’ here is most probably an East
Scandinavian form of the West Norse Eyvindr, which is recorded in later forms
as دnder, and that the names Manni and Epi are recorded only in East Norse
sources, while Tovi and Toki are overwhelmingly so.35 To these we should add
two charters with similar lists of Scandinavian names. Cnut’s charter of 1019 for
Agemund has a large number of Scandinavians amongst the ministers of its
witness-list (the first seven ministers out of a total of thirteen, and including the
huscarl Bovi).36 Another group of seven such names appears at the end of a
garbled witness-list attached to a re-endorsement of grants by Cnut to Fécamp
Abbey, made by Harthacnut in 1040–42.37 In this document these names appear
after that of Harthacnut and other witnesses recognizably from his court, and
they are most probably his huscarls. They include in the order followed there:
‘Aizor’ (Azor); ‘Turchil’ (Thorkell); Swen (Swen/Sveinn); ‘Theustul’ (the
extremely rare name Þióstólfr in an apparent East Norse form, and unrecorded in
any East Norse form in Petersen, Nordiskt Runnamnslexicon, and not recorded at
all by Björkmann, Nordische Personennamen in England); ‘Eusten’
(Iosten/Iosteinn); Tovi and ‘Turgil’ (probably Thorgisl). Of these, only one or
two can be identified with any certainty in our other sources, and three turn up
nowhere else. On reflection, it is perhaps unsurprising that these men joined the
ranks of those who did not appear in the witness-lists of royal charters. They
may not have held land, and thus had little value as local witnesses to any grant,
and as they followed Cnut whether in England or Scandinavia they may not have
been thought to stand outside English society despite being in his retinue within
the court.
A large body of Scandinavian nobles and warriors at the centre of the royal
court may seem incongruous, but we must make room for it. We must also
concede that the court was bilingual, in part at least, as Old Norse poems and
inscriptions infer that there was an audience who could understand and read
them, all within walking distance of the enclosures of the Old Minster and New
Minster in Winchester. We might add to this the occasional Slavic visitor or
ambassador from the Polish or imperial courts, and we end up with a quite
different image of Cnut’s royal court from that of his English predecessors – as a
culturally diverse and bustling marketplace for northern European cultures and
ideas. Within the context of the very many Englishmen at court, these foreigners
would only ever form a minority, but it is a minority that radically changes our
impression of the court during Cnut’s reign.
It is interesting that the only tangible acts which this period of quiet
prosperity produced in England were an outpouring of gift-giving to the Church.
M. K. Lawson suggested in 1993 that many of Cnut’s gifts to the Church may
have been politically motivated, and I later followed that approach myself.38 To
some degree we were both probably correct, but genuine piety sits at the heart of
an array of sources close to him, and Church gift-giving must also have been a
powerful force behind this benevolence.39 Cnut’s letter of 1027 states that he had
long wished to make the journey to Rome and had visited numerous shrines and
churches on this pilgrimage, for which I see no motive of forgery, and they are
more probably those of Cnut himself. Such motives accord perfectly with
Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Tøgdrápa, in which Cnut is portrayed as having experienced
something like a conversion episode whereby he set aside his fixation on
warfare, took up a pilgrim’s staff and made his way to Rome. They also accord
with the Encomium’s description of his visit to the monasteries of St Omer, in
which he prays reverently, eyes fixed on the ground and pouring with rivers of
tears, before pressing kisses on the pavement and beating his breast ‘that the
heavenly mercy might not be displeased with him’.40
The nature of such records scattered amongst ecclesiastical archives means
that few include firm dates or dating features, and some from later witnesses
may be exaggerations or in fact attributable to his wife Emma, perhaps given
after Cnut’s death. However, even with these provisos I think we can place our
trust in New Minster’s (Winchester) records of: a vast golden cross, described by
one of the continuators to John of Worcester’s account as ‘a great and holy
cross, made . . . by the order of King Cnut, and most splendidly enriched by him
with gold and silver, with gems and precious stones’, containing 500 lb of silver,
30 marks of gold, three diadems, and three footrests of pure Arabian gold;41 Old
Minster’s (Winchester) claim that Cnut gave the abbey a decorated reliquary for
its relic of St Birinus and a silver candelabrum;42 a shrine made for the relic of
St Vincent and valued at 60 lb of silver, some relics of St Edward, presented to
Abingdon Abbey before 1030;43 and the relic of an arm of St Bartholomew
presented to Christ Church, Canterbury.44
 Less certain are: Evesham’s claims to have received the relics of St Wigstan
as well as a black causula and other ornaments, in that these relics were actually
translated from nearby Repton, suggesting that this may in fact be only a record
of Cnut acquiescing in Evesham building up its relic collection at the expense of
its neighbours.45 Similarly, St Augustine’s, Canterbury, claimed that Cnut had
given it the relics of St Mildred, when counter-claims to these existed from a
rival Canterbury house, St Gregory’s.46 Finally, we might also doubt the late and
perhaps spurious or embellished account of Crowland Abbey, which recalled
Cnut donating silk vestments, a silver gilt thurible, and twelve white bear skins
in 1032.47 I have suggested that the relics of St Wendreda taken on the
battlefield at Ashingdon/Assandun may have been given to Christ Church,
Canterbury, in 1018, but there are no dates in the sole source to record this.48
Additionally, gifts to Glastonbury, Wilton and Westminster have been explained
elsewhere, and fit into the context of events in those places.49 However, the
record is still impressive, and far from complete.
Only in newly conquered Norway did the situation change dramatically in
this period. Months after having been placed in command of Norway, Hákon
died suddenly. Cnut and his rule there was still in its infancy, and the timing was
disastrous. Having spent the previous months urging the Norwegian aristocracy
to accept the legitimacy of Hákon’s claim as pre-dating Óláfr’s, Cnut was left
without a candidate to stand at the head of such claims. More worryingly, the
marriages of the Jarls of Hlaðir when in power in Norway had intricately tied
them into numerous powerful regional Norwegian dynasties. So Cnut’s former
rhetoric now placed some of these dynasties, such as those of Einarr
Þambarskelfir (married to Bergljót, daughter of Jarl Hákon Sigurðsson) and
Kálfr Árnason (married to Jarl Sveinn Hákonarson’s daughter), closer to the
throne than any of Cnut’s immediate allies. Óláfr appears to have received word
of this sudden shift in Cnut’s grasp on power, and he returned to Norway to
make a bid for power himself.
However, Óláfr’s centralization of power in his own hands seems to have left
a very unpleasant taste in the mouth of some of the Norwegian aristocracy.
Therefore, in 1030 Óláfr was met at Stiklestad, in Verdal to the north-east of
Trondheim, approaching the mountainous border with Sweden, by forces formed
from amongst his own people, who defeated him and his followers and executed
him on the battlefield.50 The poet Sigvatr Þórðarson was probably present and
much survives of a touching erfidrápa (memorial poem) he composed for his
patron Óláfr.51 He confirms the place of the battle and the fact that the opposing
forces were ‘farmers’, ‘the people’ or ‘men from Trøndelag’, and he records that
Þórir hundr (splitting up his first name from his epithet, in order to use the latter
as an insulting term, ‘dog’) was there opposing Óláfr. A single verse from Bjarni
gullbrárskáld’s Kálfsflokkr notes the site of the battle as well.52 It records that
Kálfr Árnason was also present, and that he could claim to have ‘achieved great
deeds at Stiklestad’ as he ‘kept up the attack . . . until the king had fallen’.
Cnut was in England at this point, but doubtless closely monitoring the
troubled situation in Norway. There was probably no male heir left of the
dynasty of Hlaðir who could serve as a trusted figurehead, and it cannot have
seemed wise to Cnut to try his luck on taking a member of the Norwegian
aristocracy under his wing as a replacement. Thus, Cnut’s first son, Swen (given
the epithet Álfífuson in West Norse saga traditions), was dispatched to Norway
along with a retinue including his mother Ælfgifu of Northampton and perhaps
also a son of Thorkell the Tall, Harald Thorkelsson, apparently raised in Cnut’s
court after the death of his father.53 Swen was a young man of only fifteen or
sixteen years of age in 1029, and his government must have arrived with a
sizeable military contingent to enforce his rule.
Swen, his mother and their followers seem to have immediately set out to
placate powerful elements of the Norwegian elites. This can be seen in the
political implications of a lengthy skaldic poem named Glælognskviða,
composed for Swen by one of Cnut’s court skalds, Þórarinn loftunga.54 The
focus of the verses on both Óláfr and Swen together, placing them side by side in
Trondheim, one as spiritual king and the other as temporal king, as well as subtly
obfuscating any suggestion of violence from the references to Óláfr’s death (he
‘departed to the heavenly kingdom’ and had ‘powerfully taken himself to the
heavenly kingdom’), indicates that Swen and his mother began to appropriate the
growing cult of St Óláfr for its political benefits. Similar implications arise from
the late saga traditions. Adam of Bremen notes that Bishop Grimkell came to
Norway under the patronage of Óláfr as a missionary-bishop, and he seems to
have been a valued member of Óláfr’s court, acting as legate to Hamburg-
Bremen.55 Heimskringla states that Grimkell fled Norway alongside Óláfr, and
that Cnut and Hákon placed another court-bishop named Sigurðr in his stead.56
The same source adds that Óláfr then sent Grimkell back to Norway where he
took up residence in Oppland, remaining there until Óláfr’s death. At that point
Grimkell was recalled to the region around Trondheim by the area’s inhabitants,
took part in the exhumation of Óláfr’s relics and became one of the strongest
proponents of the cult.57 If this is correct, then with Swen and his mother in
residence there, we must presume their acquiescence at least in this
reinstatement of a key member of Óláfr’s retinue.
In a country such as medieval Norway, which was large enough to contain
several factions of elites at any one time and had such a shallow history of
centralized power, it was perhaps inevitable that any foreign government would
prove unpopular and be ejected before too long. Ágrip, the Legendary Saga and
Heimskringla all identify a lawcode enforced by Swen and his mother’s regime
in the 1030s as the political flashpoint.58 The series of legal clauses detail royal
rights and demands, restrict the movement of ships out of Norway without royal
permission, specify the forfeiture of the property and inheritance of outlaws to
the crown, the obligations of the landowners to erect buildings on the royal
estates and equip every seventh man for military service, and detail a tax to be
paid to the king every Christmas. Much here may have a basis in fact, and while
there are no extant legal manuscripts that pre-date c. 1200, the Gulathing and
Frostathing regional codes do appear to have been in a written form in the late
eleventh century, and certainly by the early twelfth century. They include
fragmentary witnesses to some of these legal clauses in amendments ascribed to
the Norwegian kings Magnús Óláfsson (1034–47) and his son Hákon (1093–4)
for the Gulathing amendments, Sigurðr (1125–30) and his two brothers Eysteinn
and Óláfr for the Frostathing amendments.59 These exactions should probably be
seen in the context of Cnut’s vast tax on England in 1018, as a one-off
Scandinavian levy taken by a conqueror or an incoming ruler at the beginning of
his reign.60 However, that does not alter the fact that these exactions seem to
have pushed the Norwegian aristocracy towards breaking point, while successive
kings of Norway thereafter felt the need publicly to repeal them, doubtless in the
interests of public opinion.
Nature and bad luck may have carried them past this breaking point. Ágrip
notes the misery of the Norwegian people under their rule and blames ‘their
tyranny and the bad seasons’.61 In support of this, this source cites a skaldic
verse attributed to Sigvatr Þórðarson that records hardship, starvation and the
loss of vital food stocks: ‘A young fellow will long remember the days of
Ælfgifu, when we ate cattle fodder indoors, as goats [eat] peeled bark. It was
otherwise when Óláfr, the battle-gesturer, ruled the country; everyone then had
to praise the rick-dried grain [i.e. had lots of grain stocks].’62 These problems
would appear to have attracted other claimants for the Norwegian throne, and a
skaldic verse from a poem named Tryggvaflokkr, connected to Sigvatr
Þórðarson, as well as another from an anonymous and thus less reliable flokkr on
Swen, record a sea battle between him and a royal pretender, whom the
surrounding saga prose identifies as a son of Óláfr Tryggvason. By 1034 the
situation had clearly become too volatile, and an array of skaldic poets who
composed for Magnús, the son of St Óláfr, record that Swen and his mother fled
Norway with their government, probably to Denmark.63 We can speculate that
Cnut planned to reinvade, but his death in the following year cut any such plans
short.
It is in the skaldic verses produced during Cnut’s mature years, while he was
in England, that we can most easily trace important shifts in Cnut’s own
understanding of his kingship and the ideology which stood behind his rule.
Skaldic verse was composed for recital before the patron and his retinue, and
those verses that survive usually contain representations of the ruler which were
approved by him and his entourage. These innovations thus must reflect changes
in the way that Cnut and his Scandinavian followers at least thought about the
nature of his rule, or wished it to be portrayed. As Roberta Frank noted in 1994,
three poems composed after Helgeå contain variants of an ideological motif that
involves a direct alignment of Cnut and God, and in two cases of their roles. A
further fragment of verse clearly preserves another example of the same. The
relevant sections are arranged chronologically here:

Sigvatr Þórðarson, Knútsdrápa (c. 1027): ‘Cnut was under the heavens
. . . the eminent prince.’64
Þórarinn loftunga’s Hǫfuðlausn (c. 1027–8): ‘Cnut defends the land as
the guardian of Greece [God] [defends] the heavenly kingdom.’65
Þórarinn loftunga, Tøgdrápa (c. 1029): ‘Cnut is under the sun’s . . .’66
Hallvarðr Hárekblesi’s Knútsdrápa (c. 1029): ‘Cnut defends the earth as
the lord of all [i.e. God] [defends] the splendid hall of the mountains
[i.e. heaven].’67

It is clear that Þórarinn loftunga in the fragmentary surviving refrain from his
Tøgdrápa is echoing that of Sigvatr Þórðarson in his Tøgdrápa, and that
Þórarinn loftunga’s Hǫfuðlausn contains a near-identical and probably closely
related concept to Hallvarðr Hárekblesi’s Knútsdrápa.
 This idea of celebrating the power of a ruler through his alignment with the
Christian God is almost entirely novel in skaldic verse. Usually the ruler is
distinguished from other men by the fact that the gods grant him divine favour.
This is demonstrated by his continuing success in warfare, and hence the
extremes of violence and conquest depicted there, often with accounts of
slaughter and bloodshed that read as barbaric exaggeration to a modern reader.
What we see here is surprisingly peaceful and benevolent, and so alien to skaldic
verse that after Cnut’s death this motif is almost absent from the genre until the
twelfth century.68 Here Cnut is directly compared to God, and elevated above all
other men through this comparison. The fragile ideology of power seen in
traditional skaldic verse, in which divine favour can leave a ruler at any time
(indicated by the loss of battles), is replaced by a more stable form of authority
in which just as the Christian God’s power cannot fail him, neither can Cnut’s.
Both D. Hoffmann and Frank assumed that the origin of these new political
ideas lay in Cnut’s lengthy contact with England and English political ideas.69
That is possible, and certainly one skald appears to have used similar imagery
when reportedly composing for Cnut’s English predecessor, Æthelred: ‘All the
host stands in awe of the generous prince of England as of God; the race of the
war-swift King and all the race of men bow to Æthelred.’70 However, what is
striking is that these ideas seem to have emerged in skaldic verse composed in
the period immediately after Cnut’s attendance of the imperial coronation, and
that is a plausible alternative source of such ideas. Robert Deshman has shown
that the image of rulership cultivated by the Ottonians in the late tenth century
was a Christo-centric one, where the image of the Emperor and some of his
public ceremonial acts mirrored contemporary representations of Christ.71
Sigvatr Þórðarson may well have accompanied Cnut to Rome, and his
Knútsdrápa, most probably composed c. 1027 on his return, presents an image
of Cnut as incongruous skaldic verse as the refrains listed above. He describes
how ‘Desire for a journey came upon the ruler bearing a staff, who bore warfare
in his heart. The leader, dear to the Emperor, close to Peter, enjoyed some of the
glory of Rome. Few ring-distributors [i.e. generous rulers] will have thus
measured the route south with their steps.’72 The central couplet of praise here
(kærr keisara, / klúss Pétrúsi, i.e. ‘dear to the Emperor, / close to Peter’) does so
through a peaceful comparison of the Emperor with the Pope rather than an
enumeration of military successes, and this is framed by a form of conversion-
episode in which Cnut undergoes a psychological change from warleader to
penitent pilgrim. Frank’s excellent discussion of this rightly concentrates on
these four words, in which while the alliteration on ‘k’ focuses our attention on
Cnut, the words used are all ones from other European languages, and in two
cases recent loanwords (from Old French and Latin, in one case probably via
Old English).73 That they were strange and jarring in the genre is clear from
Townend’s observation in his commentary to the new edition that these are the
first occurrences in skaldic verse of all four words.74 This couplet is both
traditional in format and startlingly new in its philological content, facts that
must have been evident to its original audience.
Similarly, novel elements can be detected in the famous picture of Cnut and
Emma in the Winchester Liber Vitae.75 This manuscript was produced under the
guidance of Abbot Ælfwine of the New Minster, Winchester, who had served
Cnut as a royal priest and may have been placed in his abbacy directly by him.
As has been discussed many times in modern scholarship, the artist here drew
from the image of King Edgar offering his charter to New Minster to Christ.76
However, where he deviated from this model he did so in ways that echo
portraits of Ottonian and Salian rulers. The inclusion of Emma opposite Cnut
probably reflects her actual increased influence in the court, but it is strongly
reminiscent of the couples found in Ottonian and Salian donation portraits; and
the veil or stola that she receives from an angel is an uncommon feature
elsewhere found in depictions of Agnes of Poitou alongside her husband
Emperor Henry III in two Echternach manuscripts.77 Most importantly, the
crown that Cnut receives from the angel in the Winchester Liber Vitae image is
of a form unparalleled in late Anglo-Saxon art, and while resembling the English
trefoil crown as found in the Quatrefoil coinage of Cnut’s early years amongst
many other examples, it has a bar added over the top of the ruler’s head, which
closely resembles that of a ceremonial imperial crown worn by Conrad II.78 The
lower portion of Conrad’s crown can be dated stylistically to the 990s, and it was
remodelled later adding the decorated bar that bears the legend
‘CHUONRADUS DEIGRATIA ROMANORU[M] IMPERATOR
AUG[USTUS]’ in pearls on gold wire. Other contemporary depictions of
Emperors show that this crown, or others like it, were in use in the early eleventh
century.79
When Cnut went to Rome in 1027 and saw the glory of the Papal Curia and
the imperial court for himself, he was at the height of his power, with England
securely under his grip, Denmark subdued and his external enemies in Norway
and Sweden apparently either fenced in or dispersed. He knew he would return
to northern Europe with the acknowledgement of his peers as the paramount
Scandinavian ruler, and he could claim to be a ‘king of all England and Denmark
and the Norwegians and part of the Swedes’, as his letter of 1027 to the English
phrases it.80 The area he now controlled was based on the ambitions of his
predecessors, but it was greater by far and its size was unprecedented. It was
perhaps natural that he should begin to look for new ideologies of rule to
underpin his new ‘empire’, and he and his followers appear to have drawn
inspiration from both English and imperial sources.
How much further these innovations could have gone, and how much more
they could have changed the course of English and Scandinavian history, we
cannot know, as on Wednesday 12 November 1035 Cnut died while at
Shaftesbury in Dorset. He was doubtless surrounded by his court and hirð, and
as Shaftesbury was one of the towns that rendered a special tax ‘for the use of
the royal huscarls’, perhaps he was also attended by his countrymen and former
retainers who had been settled there: Urk, Bovi and Agemund. Shortly
afterwards his body was taken to the Old Minster, Winchester, and interred
there.81 One mid-fifteenth-century chronicler states that his tomb was buried in
front of the high altar, but other sites have been plausibly proposed by modern
scholars. They include one close to the tomb of St Swithun in the tenth-century
westwork of the building, or at its eastern end in a section perhaps decorated
with a frieze now surviving only in the single block containing a scene
interpreted to be that of the Scandinavian legend of Sigmund and the wolf.82
Pious requests in a royal grant to Sherborne Abbey, which beseech the
monks there to pray for Cnut and to sing psalms and masses daily for his sins,
may indicate that he knew his end was nigh, but he is unlikely to have had much
advance warning.83 His father had died unexpectedly while on campaign in
England, and likewise his brother Harald had disappeared abruptly from the
record c. 1019 without report of foul play. Cnut’s eldest son, Swen, predeceased
him in 1034, while his two other sons died just a few years later: Harold
Harefoot in 1040 and Harthacnut in 1042. None of these men was elderly, and
most of them had likely not even reached middle age: Cnut was most likely in
his late thirties or early forties, while his brother and sons cannot have even been
out of their twenties. Contemporaries may have thought this was God’s
judgement on the members of this dynasty, but with the knowledge provided by
modern medical science we should perhaps speculate instead that the men in this
line shared a congenital defect, perhaps resulting in strokes or cerebral
aneurysms.84 Ultimately, it was this that cut short Cnut’s reign, and within a few
short years his remaining two sons would join him, triggering the collapse of his
Anglo-Scandinavian realm.

1Little can be said with any certainty about this return to prosperity in England in Cnut’s last years, but
it is probable that it did occur. See Hill, ‘Trends in the Development’, for a model of England’s
infrastructure primarily during Æthelred’s reign, and the same author’s ‘An Urban Policy’ on Cnut’s reign.
2See Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 87 and 53, for some comment on the earls in this period, as well as his
Atlas of Attestations, tables lxvi–lxvii and lxix–lxx, for the raw data regarding the ecclesiastical elites and
secular ministers of the court.
3Keynes, Atlas of Attestations, tables lix and lxv. See also Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 231–2.
4S. 970 and 972; Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 231–2. The translation is Stafford’s.
5See Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 53, 70–4, 77–8 and 84–7, and Atlas of Attestations, table lxix. For
Godwine and his family see p. 101 above. For Leofric, see Baxter, The Earls of Mercia. Leofric had
survived Cnut’s early years and the death of his own brother Northmann in Cnut’s purges, holding some
office in western Mercia, while his father retained an ealdormanry there somewhat reduced by Cnut’s
imposition of Scandinavian earls into the region. Leofric’s father most probably died soon after 1023, but
Leofric only emerged as a significant figure in the royal court in the 1030s, following Eilaf’s abandonment
of his Mercian earldom when he returned to Denmark to support the uprising in 1026 and Hákon’s
departure from his earldom in 1028 to return to Norway. A final Scandinavian earl named Hranig seems to
have remained in western Mercia and worked with Leofric, being eclipsed by him in charter witness-lists
until he re-emerged in Harthacnut’s reign. Leofric must have used their departures to consolidate his power
in the region to build a large enough base of wealth and influence to assert himself at the royal court.
6Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 53, 70–4, 77–8 and 84–7, and Atlas of Attestations, table lxix.
7Vita Ædwardi regis, ch. 1 (Barlow, p. 6).
8See Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 77–8, and Baxter, The Earls of Mercia.
9S. 968.
10Bolton, ‘Was the Family of Earl Siward’.
11S. 969, 968 and 975. Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 78.
12Bolton, Empire, pp. 15–18; see also Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex’, pp. 180–2, for the most
up-to-date assessment of his son’s vast landholdings.
13S. 967 and 975. S. 962 (from 1026) shows them in the same pattern.
14S. 962. John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1042 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 532–4), identifies Tovi
pruða as Danish. Williams, ‘The King’s Nephew’, pp. 333–6, has argued that Osgot clapa was descended
from an English East Anglian family.
15Herman, Liber de Miraculis, ch. 21, ed. Arnold in Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, I, p. 54.
Waltham Chronicle, ch. 7 (Watkiss and Chibnall, p. 12).
16Bolton, Empire, pp. 25–35.
17We cannot know Thored’s landholding, but some indication of it must be possible through a
consideration of his son’s vast landholdings. On these see pp. 101–2 above. On Beorhtric’s landholdings,
see pp. 85–6 above.
18Stafford, Queen Emma, pp. 193–9.
19These have been most recently discussed in Townend, ‘Contextualising’. The lost poems are those of
Bersi Torfuson, Steinn Skaptason and one by a strangely named poet, Óðarkeptr/Óðarkeftr/*Óttarr keptr,
perhaps also recorded with the variant name Ljóðarkeptr in an addition to the Þórðarbók witness to
Landnámabók as having composed another lost poem for Guðleifr Arason, an associate of Þangbrandr, the
missionary to Iceland. See Finnur Jónsson, Den Oldnorske og Oldislandske Litteraturs, pp. 564–7, and
Almqvist, Norrön Niddiktning, p. 59.
20Townend, ‘Contextualising’, p. 146.
21Sigvatr Þórðarson, Vestrfararvísur, verses 2 and 5 (Whaley, pp. 618 and 622–3). On this subject see
Fidjestøl, ‘“Have you heard”’.
22Þórarinn loftunga, Hǫfuðlausn and Tøgdrápa (Whaley, pp. 849–63).
23For the saga narratives see p. 849 of the edition cited in the previous note.
24Þórarinn loftunga, Tøgdrápa, verse 7 (Whaley, pp. 861–2). Fidjestøl, ‘“Have you heard”’, pp. 118–19,
provides the calculation and awards Cnut the title of the ‘king most renowned for his open-handedness
towards skalds’.
25Townend, ‘Contextualising’, pp. 164–6.
26Following ibid., pp. 166–73.
27Following ibid., pp. 169–71. The last artefact was catalogued in Fuglesang, Some Aspects, no. 54, pl.
30, and her drawings of it are reproduced in this volume.
28See Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle, ‘Danish Royal Burials’, pp. 215–17, for the most recent discussion
and a colour reproduction of the stone. The legend claims that Sigmund and his nine brothers were
imprisoned in stocks in a forest. For nine nights they were visited by an old and evil-looking she-wolf who
killed and ate each brother in turn. When Sigmund was left alone, his twin sister sent her servant to smear
honey on his face and put some into his mouth. When the wolf arrived, it licked Sigmund’s face and put its
tongue into his mouth, whereupon he bit it, and in the tussle that followed, broke free from his stocks and
tore out the wolf’s tongue.
29Note also that Pedersen, ‘Anglo-Danish Contact’, catalogues numerous finds from early eleventh-
century Denmark that are of uncertain English or Danish manufacture, and some such as cloisonné
brooches that must have been made in England and exported to Denmark. There may have been English
workshops producing material for this resident elite in England as well as for an export market.
30The one source to give a number is the late and woefully inaccurate Lex Castrensis, which is attached
to Sven Aggesen’s twelfth-century Historia Compendiosa. In chapter 2 of that text the author claims the
preposterous number of 3,000 men. Christiansen in his preface to The Works of Sven Aggesen calls it rightly
‘an irritating shadow on the fringes of Anglo-Saxon history’. Interestingly, John of Worcester, Chronicon,
s.a. 1065 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 598), claims that when Tostig Godwinesson was attacked by the
Northumbrians, they slew two of his named huscarls before going on to kill 200 men from his court.
31Translatio Sancti Ælfegi (Rumble, p. 302).
32See S. 955, 956 and 958, as well as Bolton, Empire, pp. 67–8, 17 and 74. Also S. 961 and 967.
33Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names’, and pp. 135–7 above on the date, and the reproduction of
the relevant page of the manuscript (British Library, Additional MS. 40,000) in this volume. There from the
tenth line of the fourth column the list runs: ‘Ulf. Turkyl. Swegn. Toui. Ðolf. Askyl. Illhuge. Toki. Ulf.
Swegn. Eglaf. Manni. Guðmund. Blihswegn. Oþði. Stegn. Scul. Scum. Einder. Arbern. Toky. Barð. Turkyl.
Epi. Ererti’. After this the list uses patronymics, gives spouses’ names and includes English names,
suggesting a break in form. Thus I would cut the list short to twenty-five, of Whitelock’s thirty-one.
34Ibid., pp. 136–7.
35Ibid., pp. 137 and 139.
36S. 955, edited in Kelly, Charters of Shaftesbury, no. 30: the relevant witnesses are ‘Ego [H]acun
minister + Ego Hastin minister + Ego Aslac minister + Ego Toga minister + Ego Boui minister + Ego Toui
minister + Ego Kaerl minister’, followed by six English names.
37S. 982.
38Lawson, Cnut, pp. 117–60, and Bolton, Empire, pp. 77–106.
39A mix of the two motives is perhaps characteristic of almost all medieval donors.
 40Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, p. 277), Sigvatr Þórðarson, Knútsdrápa, verses 10 and 11 (Whaley, pp.
661–3), and Encomium Emmae Reginae, II:20–1 (Campbell, p. 36). Note Treharne’s discussion of the
theatricality of his activities at St Omer as variants of Carolingian accounts (‘Performance of Piety’, pp.
349–50). These are convincing literary sources, but there are also practical accounts of the need of the
penitent in late Anglo-Saxon England to cry (see Roach, Kingship and Consent, pp. 199–200), and such
acts may have been performed by Cnut as a public expression of piety.
41John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1141 (ed. Thorpe, ii, pp. 133–6). See also Keynes, Liber Vitae, p.
35. Many of these gifts have been listed by Heslop at the end of ‘The Patronage of de luxe Manuscripts’. In
my Empire, pp. 77–106, I set these gifts alongside grants of land and privileges to these communities and
records of prominence of their leaders in the royal court where available. However, as we are unable to
perceive the contexts of such land and privilege grants, and some may have been part of property deals or
similar, they are set aside here.
42Annales de Wintonia, s.a. 1016, in Annales Monastici (ed. Luard, ii, p. 16).
43Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, and De Abbatibus Abbendoniae, in Chronicon Monasterii de
Abingdon (ed. Stevenson, i, 433, and ii, 291); ibid. (ed. Stevenson, i, 443, and ii, 157).
44Obituary list in London, British Library, Cotton MS. Galba E iii, 2, ff. 32r–34r, and an early twelfth-
century addition made to the Textus Roffensis, Rochester Cathedral Library MS. A. 3. 5, f. 57v (ed. Hearne,
p. 37). P. H. Sawyer, Textus, p. 16, dismisses this addition to the manuscript, stating that it is a digest of a
copy of a local charter (S. 959); however, the information regarding the relic does not occur in any version
of the charter. Note that Eadmer, in his Historia Nouorum, ii (ed. Rule, pp. 107–8), places this amongst the
gifts of Emma to the community, with Cnut merely assenting to it, contrary to its placement in the obituary
lists.
45Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, iii (ed. Dunn Macray, p. 83). The same source claims that its abbot
at the time, Ælfweard, was related to Cnut, probably through Emma, who is referred to in S. 1423 as
governing the house.
46The details of the dispute can be found in Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, pp. 191–7, and Rollason,
Mildreth Legend, pp. 58–68.
47This is only recorded in the late and questionable Historia Ingulphi (ed. Gale, i, 61).
48See above at pp. 88–9.
49See above at pp. 113 and 120.
50The earliest to mention this are the Passio Olaui, ch. 20 (Storm, p. 144), Theodoricus, Historia, ch. 19
(Storm, pp. 39–42), and Ágrip, ch. 31 (Driscoll, pp. 42–4).
51Erfidrápa Óláfs helga (Whaley, pp. 663–98).
52Bjarni gullbrárskáld, Kálfsflokkr, verse 5 (Whaley, pp. 885–6).
53The first stanza of Glælognskviða mentions an unnamed number of faithful Danes who travelled with
Swen to Norway. Snorri, in the prose account in which this verse survives (Heimskringla, Óláfs Saga helga,
ch. 239 [Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, p. 399]) identified one of these as Harald Thorkelsson. This
identification has recently been endorsed by Townend (‘Knútr and the Cult of St Óláfr’, pp. 261–2), and is
quite plausible. The record of Skáldatal to the existence of poetry about him in the thirteenth century
suggests that he did have a significant Scandinavian career. If so, then Harald’s marriage to Cnut’s niece,
Gunhild (see Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 66 and 62, n. 97) probably took place at this time.
54Glælognskviða (Whaley, pp. 863–76). Bolton, Empire, pp. 271–4, and more recently Townend,
‘Knútr and the Cult of St Óláfr’.
55Townend (‘Knútr and the Cult of St Óláfr’, p. 265) has already commented on Grimkell. The
references in Adam of Bremen’s account are Gesta, II:57 and IV:34 (Schmeidler, pp. 117–18 and 268).
56Heimskringla, Óláfs Saga helga, chs. 243 and 217 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 403 and 370–1).
57Ibid., chs. 243–4 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 403–5). See Haki Antonsson, ‘The Cult’, for further
comment on this.
 58Ágrip, chs. 28–9 (Driscoll, pp. 40–2), Óláfs saga hins helga, ch. 71 (Heinrichs, pp. 172–4),
Heimskringla, Olafs Saga helga, ch. 239 (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, II, pp. 399–401).
59These amendments are edited separately from the main lawcodes in Bagge, Smedsdal and Helle,
Norske Middelalder Dokumenter, pp. 18–23. Some scholarly discussion can be found in Indrebø, ‘Aagrip’,
pp. 43–5, Taranger, ‘De Norske Folkelovbøker (før 1263)’, I and II, as well as Eithun, Rindal and Ulset,
Den Eldre Gulatingslova, p. 10.
60Bolton, Empire, pp. 275–87.
61Ágrip, ch. 32 (Driscoll, p. 44).
62Edited without title in Whaley, Skaldic Verse, pp. 732–3. Note that P. H. Sawyer, ‘Cnut’s
Scandinavian Empire’, p. 21, believes this verse might be a later forgery.
63See Arnórr jarlaskáld, Magnúsdrápa, verses 3–4 (Gade, pp. 211–12), Þjóðólfr Arnórsson,
Magnúsflokkr, verse 3 (Gade, p. 67). Ágrip, ch. 36 (Driscoll, p. 48), claims that Swen died in Denmark.
64Preserved in Knútsdrápa, verses 3, 6, 7, 9 and 11 (Whaley, pp. 653–63).
65Hǫfuðlausn (Whaley, pp. 850–1).
66Tøgdrápa, verse 1 (Whaley, pp. 852–3).
67Knútsdrápa, verse 8, to be published by Gade and Marold in the forthcoming Poetry from Treatises
on Poetics volume in the recent Skaldic Verse project.
68Of the six extant examples of this motif, four are in poems composed for Cnut. Furthermore, the last
is in Arnórr jarlaskáld’s Hrynhenda, verse 19 (ed. Whaley, Poetry of Arnórr, pp. 118 and 179–80), which
was composed for Swen’s successor in Norway, Magnús Óláfsson. It seems likely that it occurs there
through influence from poetry composed for Cnut.
69See Hofmann, Nordisch-Englische Lehnbeziehungen, pp. 96–7, and Frank, ‘Cnut’, p. 117, for
examples.
70Edited by Finnur Jónsson, Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning, A I, p. 194; B I, p. 184.
71Deshman, ‘Kingship and Christology’, pp. 377–96.
72Knútsdrápa, verses 10–11 (Whaley, pp. 661–3). This is also discussed by Frank, ‘Cnut’, p. 118, by
myself (Empire, p. 295), and most recently Treharne, ‘Performance of Piety’.
73Frank, ‘Cnut’, p. 118.
74Townend in Whaley, Skaldic Poetry I, pp. 662–3.
75This is one of the most widely discussed drawings of Anglo-Saxon history, and is reproduced in this
volume. See Karkov, Ruler Portraits, pp. 121–40, Owen-Crocker, ‘Pomp, Piety, and Keeping the Woman’,
and Treharne, ‘Performance of Piety’, pp. 350, 354–5, in which she draws on the work of Angenendt (‘How
Was a Confraternity Made?’, p. 216) to show that Emma does not touch the cross as women were not
permitted to touch the altar in such ceremonies.
76The picture of Edgar is in London, British Library, Cotton MS. Vespasian A. viii, fol. 2v. See also
Gerchow, ‘Prayers’, p. 223.
77Uppsala, MS. C. 93, fol. 1v and Madrid, Escorial, Codex Aureus, fol. 3r (both reproduced together in
Nordenfalk, Codex Caesareus Upsaliensis, p. 119). See also Gerchow, ‘Prayers’, pp. 224–5, Bolton,
Empire, p. 296, and Karkov, Ruler Portraits, pp. 129–31.
78The crown is now in the Vienna Schatzkammer, and published in Staats, Theologie der Reichskrone.
79See Bolton, Empire, pp. 296–7, n. 24, for references.
80Die Gesetze (Liebermann, I, p. 276).
81ASC 1035 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 105), Encomium Emmae Reginae, III:1 (Campbell, p. 38), and
John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1035 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 520). For the history of Cnut’s tomb
see Crook, ‘Cnut’s Bones’, where he discusses the present royal tombs visible on stone screens inserted into
the presbytery arcade in 1525, now within seventeenth-century chests with inscriptions naming their
inhabitants.
 82Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 110, p. 339 (a chronicle of English history from Lucius to
Henry VI, from Winchester, copied amongst other sixteenth-century transcripts), noted by Crook, ‘Cnut’s
Bones’, p. 171, n. 8. Modern architectural and archaeological interpretations of the site of Cnut’s burial can
be found in Crook, ‘“A Worthy Antiquity”’, pp. 173–6, and Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle, ‘Danish Royal
Burials’, pp. 212–17. The original building was demolished and rebuilt in the 1090s.
83S. 975. The suggestion is that of Lawson, Cnut, p. 113.
84The specification of strokes or cerebral aneurysms comes from the accurate accounts of Harthacnut’s
death. See below at pp. 203–3.
 Chapter 7

THE AFTERMATH OF CNUT’S DEATH

Cnut’s sudden death left no clear plan of succession, and two heirs by different
mothers, both of whom had spent considerably more time in Denmark than in
England. Initial events were framed by circumstance, in that Harthacnut appears
to have had no deputy he could trust to hold Denmark in his stead, and so was
forced to remain there after his father’s death. This left the way open for Harold
Harefoot and his mother, Ælfgifu of Northampton, to return from obscurity to
English politics. Following the expulsion of Ælfgifu and her eldest son, Swen,
from Norway c. 1034, and Swen’s subsequent death some months later, she and
her second son may even have been in England when Cnut died. Harthacnut’s
mother, Emma, was also in England, but without a resident royal heir to promote
amongst the English elites she was powerless.
At this time, Harold Harefoot was in his prime at twenty to twenty-two years
old, and his mother had lost none of her political acumen in her dotage.1 In either
July or August 1036 one Immo, a priest in the retinue of Conrad II, wrote to
Bishop Azeko of Worms relating events he had heard from English messengers
who had just arrived at the German court.2 He records that an unnamed
‘wretched and wicked step-mother’ of Cnut’s daughter Gunhild, who must be
Ælfgifu of Northampton, was endeavouring to deprive Harthacnut of the throne
in England, and had arranged a great party for the leading men of England at
which she attempted to secure their support by entreaties and bribes. The
political structures of England during Cnut’s last years were dependent on the
alliances built by two great politicians, Earl Godwine of Wessex and Earl
Leofric of western Mercia, and under this pressure the country split again along
the fault line of the Thames, with their followers either side of this natural
boundary offering their patronage to one or other of the two potential heirs. As
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports immediately after Cnut’s death, ‘Earl Leofric
and almost all the thegns north of the Thames and the shipmen in London chose
Harold to the regency of all England . . . And then Earl Godwine and all the
chief men in Wessex opposed it as long as they could, but they could not
contrive anything against it.’3 Emma seems to have remained the principal thorn
in their side, and Harold quickly moved to reduce her influence, sending what
John of Worcester calls his ‘personal attendants’ (most probably huscarls) to
Winchester to seize from her ‘all the best treasures which King Cnut had
possessed’.4
The Encomium notes that Archbishop Æthelnoth of Canterbury refused to
surrender the royal sceptre and crown to Harold Harefoot, or to consecrate him
as king, and forbade any other English bishop from doing so.5 In retaliation, the
same text states, Harold Harefoot kept away from services, and when others
entered the church to hear mass he filled the surrounding glades with hunting
dogs to drown out the service with their noise. This is a one-sided source,
weighted entirely towards Harthacnut’s case. Moreover, it crosses the line into
slander, as it repeats, or perhaps starts, a rumour that Harold was the son of a
servant rather than of Cnut, and suggests that he turned away from Christianity
as a whole as well as from Æthelnoth.6 We must bear in mind that if accounts
had survived from the supporters of Harold Harefoot’s side they would probably
tell a different story, perhaps focusing on his being older than Harthacnut, not
preoccupied with Denmark, and foregrounding his strong familial ties to the
English aristocracy. The evidence of coin-minting shows a more equal split in
support, with most mints on the northern side of the Thames minting in the name
of Harold Harefoot immediately after Cnut’s death, and those south of the
Thames doing so for Harthacnut.7 London, Oxford, Southwark and Wallingford
appear to have sat between the two, and struck coins for both candidates.8
However, this relatively neat division collapsed quickly, and within a year or so
Harold Harefoot’s name can be found on the majority of coins produced
throughout England. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle explains this sea change in its
entry for 1037: ‘in this year Harold was chosen as king everywhere, and
Harthacnut was deserted because he was too long in Denmark; and his mother
. . . was driven out without any mercy to face the raging winter [i.e. exiled]’.9
Earl Godwine was now left exposed, having backed the losing side, and
quickly did his best to demonstrate his new-found loyalty to Harold. He met
Alfred, one of Emma’s sons by Æthelred, while the prince and potential heir was
on course to visit his mother, and gave him a military escort and guided him to
Guildford.10 There Godwine was arrested and handed over to Harold and
Ælfgifu, and subsequently blinded and incarcerated at Ely. Likewise, the English
aristocracy appear to have accepted the new royal candidate and his mother, and
began to form relationships and court their favour as with any royal succession.
She is most probably the ‘my lady’ (mire hlefdigen, a term normally employed
for royal wives or mothers) who received a mark of gold alongside Harold (also
described there as mine cynelaforde, ‘my royal lord’, and given two marks of
gold) in the will of Bishop Ælfric of Elmham, who died in 1038.11 Emma took
up residence in Bruges, at the heart of neutral Flanders, and awaited her moment.
She did not have to wait very long. On 17 March 1040 Harold died suddenly.
A document from the archive of Christ Church, Canterbury, which was either
written or copied during the early Anglo-Norman years and intended to play
some part in the bitter dispute over the ownership of the port of Sandwich, gives
an apparently accurate record of a visit by a monk of that house named Ælfgar to
the royal court, then at Oxford.12 He arrived as Harold lay ‘very ill, so that he lay
despairing of his life’ with Bishop Lyfing of Devon in attendance, presumably
preparing for the end. Harold was buried in Westminster next to his father, but
his body was later exhumed, desecrated and cast into the Thames, probably on
Harthacnut’s orders.13 There is some evidence which suggests that his mother
fled into exile alongside a son of his named Ælfwine, in an early twelfth-century
cartulary from the monastery of Sainte Foi at Conques in Aquitaine.14 That
account notes that an Englishman named Alboynus (Old English cognate:
Ælfwine), who was born in London and was the son of a King Heroldus (a
Latinized version of Harold) and of Alveva (a Latinized version of Ælfgifu),
came to the region before 1060, during a pilgrimage, and persuaded the local
authorities to rebuild the church and grant him the office of prior there. The
‘Alveva’ here may be an unknown consort of Harold, or his own mother, with a
southern French scribe slightly garbling the finer details of the interrelationships
of this part of the Anglo-Danish dynasty.
Within weeks of Harold Harefoot’s death, Harthacnut was with his mother in
Bruges, where the English aristocracy contacted him, inviting him to take up the
vacant throne.15 He arrived in June 1040, two and a half months after the death
of his half-brother. Harthacnut is chiefly remembered for high levels of taxation
on his arrival, and in the case of Worcester the use of violence to ensure his will
was enforced after two of his huscarls were murdered while trying to collect the
tax. Once again parts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle become a litany of wrongful
and shameful acts, with the C text even noting that Harthacnut had Earl Eadwulf
of Northumbria killed while under his safe conduct, making himself ‘a pledge
breaker’.16 However, Harthacnut did have some supporters and began to key
himself into the English elites, and he made grants of land to monastic houses in
Winchester and perhaps Abingdon, and an apparent restitution to Ramsey Abbey
of rights and privileges they had had during Cnut’s day.17
Despite Harthacnut’s apparent loathing of his half-brother, there are unlikely
to have been major personnel changes at the head of the administration, and he
seems to have been forced to accept many of his half-brother’s followers as if
they were his own. Sources are few, but John of Worcester’s record of who took
part in the exhumation of Harold’s body, and its desecration, reveals much. He
lists Archbishop Ælfric of York, Earl Godwine, Styr, who is given the high-
ranking title of ‘master of his household’, Eadric his steward and Thrond/Þróndr
his executioner, as well as many other unnamed dignitaries. The political
affiliations of several of these men are not now known, and the last two survive
in no other record, but Earl Godwine had only recently turned from his support
of Harthacnut and thrown in his lot with Harold, and Styr is elsewhere recorded
as ‘a royal councillor’ who held a position of local prominence in Kent during
Harold’s reign.18 Godwine and his family were clearly too powerful to punish in
1040, and even other less well known figures, such as Styr, appear to have
remained at the centre of political life rather than retiring to their estates. Perhaps
they were offered a chance to demonstrate their new loyalty to Harthacnut in the
exhumation of his half-brother.
The same impression is given by the confirmation in Harthacnut’s name of a
grant of land at Brede and Rammesleah, with ‘two parts’ of the tolls at
Winchelsea, Sussex, for Fécamp Abbey in Normandy.19 The text survives only
in an eighteenth-century copy and may be suspect, but it most probably dates to
the eleventh century, and the confirmation in Harthacnut’s name which is
attached to it has a witness-list that perfectly accords with others from the 1040s.
Here Harthacnut attests alongside his mother (‘Aeleva regis mater’), Earls
Godwine and Siward, two names (‘Ansgoth, Clapp’) that are clearly a copyist’s
error for Osgot clapa, and five names (‘Stigan capellanus, Etwolth, Herman,
Alwinesmelt, Spiritus’) that are again obvious errors for six royal priests who
also witness Cnut and Edward the Confessor’s charters: Stigand, Eadwold,
Hermann, Ælfwine and Smelt (here joined to form a single composite name),
and Spiritus.20 Four very garbled names follow (‘Osbert, Acchiersum, Bricsih,
Geron’), only the third of which is even identifiable (as Bryxsige, a minister who
attests another charter from 1042: S. 994). The list ends with seven Scandinavian
names (‘Aizor, Turchil, Swen, Theustul, Eusten, Tovi, Turgil’), some of whom
are not attested anywhere else in English sources and must be Scandinavians
who arrived with Harthacnut.21 ‘Aizor’ is probably Azor Thoredsson, who held
estates in Wiltshire and whose father consistently attested Cnut’s charters in a
position suggesting great importance at court.22 Azor appears in two other
charters for 1042 (alongside a Thored in the first, who must be his ageing
father), as well as with the grand title ‘regis dapifer’ (royal seneschal) in one
from 1062.23 Thus, Harthacnut appears to have used the priests attached to the
court who had worked for his father and most probably also his half-brother, and
key figures such as Earl Godwine, Earl Siward, Osgot clapa and Azor
Thoredsson appear to have remained close to the king. A handful of new men
with Scandinavian names are probably those who accompanied Harthacnut from
Denmark and may have been members of his personal retinue or trusted figures
drawn from his government there.
Like his grandfather, father and half-brother before him, Harthacnut died
suddenly, on 8 June 1042, only two years after his arrival in England, in the
words of the C text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: ‘as he stood at his drink, and
he suddenly fell to the earth with an awful convulsion . . . and he spoke no word
afterwards’.24 John of Worcester is more explicit and informs us that Harthacnut
was at the wedding-feast of one of his father’s most prominent Anglo-
Scandinavian ministers, Tovi pruða, in Lambeth.25 His half-brother Edward
(later ‘the Confessor’), one of Emma’s sons by Æthelred, had returned to
England in 1041, and appears to have been welcomed back by Harthacnut into
the court. This Edward seamlessly took up the reins of command after the burial
of Harthacnut in the Old Minster, Winchester, next to Cnut.26
Thus the line of the Anglo-Danish kings ended as it had begun, with an
apparently exasperated aristocracy – pushed to their limits either through
constant raiding and warfare, or a quick succession of royal deaths and political
about-turns – accepting the only candidate who could offer peace and stability.
The prevalence of sudden deaths amongst the men in this family has been noted
above, as well as the likelihood that they shared an inherited genetic defect.27 It
is ironic that had the rumours circulating in Emma’s court – namely, that Harold
Harefoot was the son of a lowly man other than Cnut – been true, then Anglo-
Scandinavian rule in England might well have endured, and the subsequent
history, culture and languages of both England and Denmark been very different.
That said, the legacy of Cnut’s rule extended beyond his own life and those
of his sons. An Anglo-Scandinavian elite had been formed or implanted, and had
had some decades to develop as a powerful bloc within English politics, and
presumably also within Denmark. In England at least, these men would remain
in positions of power and influence far into the reign of Edward the Confessor,
and in a handful of cases up until the Norman Conquest. The most influential
family amongst these new elites was that of Earl Godwine. As noted above,
Godwine had married the sister of a Danish nobleman, Jarl Ulf, and the first two
sons from this union were named after Cnut’s father and grandfather in a clear
statement of their claim to kinship with Cnut’s line and their mark of allegiance
to him. They commanded great power as a kin group throughout the reigns of
Harold Harefoot, Harthacnut and Edward the Confessor, and they exercised
sufficient authority to return from exile in the 1050s and force their own
reinstatement. Their final end came only after briefly seizing the crown for
themselves in 1066. Despite living in England, their Scandinavian connections
remained strong up to the Norman Conquest. Sweyn, Godwine’s eldest son, was
sent to Denmark (via Bruges) in 1047 to escape the wrath of Edward the
Confessor, and the surviving members of this family fled there in the aftermath
of 1066.28
Other high-ranking Scandinavian émigrés also stayed on in England after the
downfall of the Anglo-Danish dynasty, and Gunhild, Cnut’s niece and wife of
Earl Hákon Eiríksson, remained on her English estates until her exile in 1044.29
Biorn, Swen Estrithsson’s younger brother, held an earldom in the region of
Huntingdonshire between c. 1045 and his death in 1049/50, and if Adam of
Bremen is not mistaken he may have been joined in England by another brother,
Esbiorn.30 I have argued elsewhere that Earl Siward of Northumbria (held office
1032/3–55) was also a prominent member of this family, and he and his son Earl
Waltheof (d. 1076) should probably be added to this group.31
Cnut’s ministers also continued in office, or at least in positions of power
and influence. Osgot clapa retained power until he was suddenly exiled before
Christmas 1046.32 He went to Flanders with a fleet of thirty-nine ships, which he
used to raid along the Sussex coastline.33 He appears to have been restored to his
English estates, and is reported as dying in his bed in 1054.34 His daughter had
married his associate, Tovi pruða, in the ceremony at which Harthacnut
collapsed and died, and his grandson, Esgar, remained in control of London until
the Norman Conquest.35 Cnut’s royal court minister Thored held office until the
mid-1040s, with Edward the Confessor making him a grant in 1045, and the
witness of his son Azor must be amongst the attestations of the same name in the
witness-lists of Edward the Confessor’s charters.36 Azor appears with his full
name in a document dated 28 February 1072, in which he transferred ownership
of his estates to Bishop Giso of Wells, presumably under duress from the new
Norman lords.37 In the localities, the men Cnut may have implanted into the
‘Western Provinces’ and East Anglia survived long into the eleventh century,
with Urk recorded into the 1050s, only being certainly dead when Edward the
Confessor issued a writ in favour of his widow ‘Tole’ (Tola) sometime in 1058–
66.38 Thorkell of Harringworth remained on his estates until sometime in 1069–
71, when he is recorded as revolting against the Normans.39
These vestiges of Cnut’s administration also continued to act in the interests
of a united England and Denmark. In 1047 and again in 1048, Cnut’s nephew
and Harthacnut’s successor on the Danish throne, Swen Estrithsson, called on
England to send military aid to Denmark to repel the invasions of King Magnús
of Norway and his successor, King Haraldr Hardráði. England had apparently
also feared attack from Norway, and had collected a large defensive fleet that
stood anchored at Sandwich.40 John of Worcester adds to the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle’s account that on both occasions Earl Godwine advised that fifty ships
be sent, but he was opposed by Earl Leofric and the people.41 Edward the
Confessor’s own views are not recorded here, but having spent his childhood in
the Norman court due to Cnut’s invasion and his eventual hostility to the power
of the Godwine family, it was unlikely that he would have regarded the Anglo-
Scandinavian lords as trusted supporters.42
We cannot know the fate of the English elites and royal servants sent to
Denmark, but again it seems unlikely that the events of 1035–42 caused them to
return home en masse.43 Presumably, having made careers as skilled royal
servants in Denmark, they continued in those roles under Swen Estrithsson and
his heirs. Certainly, moneyers with the distinctly English names Godwine,
Leofwine, Ælfnoth and Ælfweard minted coins for Cnut. All these except
Godwine continued to do so for Harthacnut and Magnús ‘the Good’. All four
minted for Swen Estrithsson, and two or three of them did so for Swen’s sons,
Harald Hein, Knut ‘the Holy’ and Erik ‘the Good’.44
Moreover, amongst these elites, the idea of England and Denmark as linked
political entities endured throughout much of the eleventh century. Cnut’s
successors in Denmark clearly maintained claims to rule in England after
1042.45 Both Adam of Bremen and the Vita Ædwardi regis indicate that Swen
Estrithsson made some form of claim to England in the initial years of Edward
the Confessor’s rule: Adam recorded that immediately after Harthacnut’s death
Swen travelled to England to petition Edward for the throne, and accepted a
promise that the kingdom would revert to him in the event of Edward’s death
without heirs; the Vita Ædwardi places the Danish king amongst the
ambassadors who travelled to England to pay their respects to Edward after his
coronation.46 With its focus on Edward and praise of him, this account makes
Swen choose Edward as a father, and submit himself to him. However, the text
is forced to concede that what was agreed between them was settled by oath and
the exchange of hostages, suggesting a tense political settlement rather than the
relationship of a king and a willing vassal.
In the later eleventh century, the Danish kings tried on three occasions to
make good these claims. The first saw the launching of a fleet in 1069 under the
command of Swen’s brother Esbiorn, three of Swen’s sons, an otherwise
unknown Jarl Thorkell, and Bishop Kristian of Århus.47 John of Worcester
records that this invasion was brought to a standstill by its commander Esbiorn,
who accepted payment from William the Conqueror to desist.48 The attack was
joined in 1070 by Swen himself, but the momentum had been lost and the fleet
returned to Denmark. Crucially, John of Worcester notes that Swen immediately
exiled his brother on their return to Denmark, ‘because he had received money
from King William against the wishes of the Danes’.49 Clearly the aim was not
raiding and tribute, but conquest, and the loss of this was insult enough for Swen
to exile his own brother. The second attempt on England was launched under the
command of two of Swen’s sons in 1075, and was intended to add military
might to the so-called ‘revolt of the three earls’ there. The offensive may have
been ill-judged, and the revolt collapsed before they arrived, leaving the Danish
forces to raid St Peter’s minster at York before returning home. The third and
final offensive came in 1083, and was under the command of one of the two
brothers, King Knut ‘the Holy’, who had led the expedition of 1075. The Danes
assembled a fleet and secured promises of military support from Norway and
Flanders. They posed a significant enough threat for William the Conqueror to
return from his own campaign in Maine, northern France, bringing hordes of
continental mercenaries with him, and causing him to lay waste large areas of
the eastern coastline to slow the invaders’ progress.50 However, luck was not on
the Danish side. Pope Gregory VII suddenly died as the Scandinavian forces
were beginning to gather, and Emperor Henry IV invaded Saxony, driving his
rival for power, Henry of Salm, and his supporters, the archbishop of Magdeburg
and the bishop of Halberstadt, across the southern Danish border to seek refuge.
Knut was left holding a political hot potato that could incite the Emperor to lead
the imperial forces across his border days before Knut was due to sail for
England.51 He was delayed at Hedeby-Schleswig, whereupon the various fleets
tired of waiting and disbanded before he arrived.
The rapid succession of deaths in the period 1034–42 removed Cnut and his
three sons from the political stage, and began the collapse of the Anglo-
Scandinavian rule that Cnut had established. However, that collapse was gradual
and took another fifty years to happen, falling away incrementally as each major
Anglo-Scandinavian figure in the government or landscape of England and
Denmark died or was exiled. Only by the last years of the eleventh century were
they all a thing of the past.

1The presumed age of Harold in 1037 is based on the fact that if he was born as Cnut’s second son, this
cannot have been before April 1015 (c. August 1013 + 9 months + 1 month + another 9 months). Thus, in
1037 he was twenty-two (+2?).
2See Stevenson, ‘An Alleged Son’, p. 116, and Keynes’ introduction to the reprint of the edition of the
Encomium Emmae Reginae, p. xxxii, for an easily accessible edition and translation of the relevant section
of the letter, with some discussion.
3ASC 1036 E (Irvine, p. 76).
4ASC 1035 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 105), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1035 (Darlington
and McGurk, p. 520).
5Campbell, Encomium Emmae Reginae, III:1 (Campbell, p. 40).
6A similar statement about Harold Harefoot, ‘who said he was the son of Cnut and the other Æthelgifu –
although it was not true’, is given by the C and D texts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1035 (O’Brien
O’Keeffe, p. 105, Cubbin, p. 65). John of Worcester (Chronicon, s.a. 1035 [Darlington and McGurk, p.
520]) is uncharacteristically adamant about this, declaring Harold Harefoot’s claims as ‘quite untrue, for
some say he was the son of a certain cobbler’ smuggled to Ælfgifu as a newborn baby.
7Talvio, ‘Harold I and Harthacnut’s Jewel Cross’.
8Ibid., p. 283.
9ASC 1037 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 106).
10Encomium Emmae Reginae, III:2–6 (Campbell, pp. 40–6). William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii,
188 (p. 334), and John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1036 (p. 522). Note I have not entered into discussion
of the difficult problem of the supposedly forged letter that invited Alfred to England from Normandy. See
Keynes, ‘Introduction’, pp. xxxiii–xxxiv, for discussion of this.
11S. 1489; edited in Whitelock, Wills, pp. 181–4.
12S. 1467. A reproduction of the single-sheet manuscript (British Library, Cotton MS. Augustus ii, 90)
is given in this volume.
13John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1040 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 530), reports that Harthacnut
had his half-brother’s body exhumed, thrown into a marsh, and then dumped into the Thames. William of
Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, II:188.4 (Mynors, Thomson and Winterbottom, p. 336), reports a variant of this
story, in which Harthacnut has Harold’s body exhumed, decapitated, and the head cast into the Thames.
14See Stevenson, ‘An Alleged Son’, p. 113, for an edition of the text.
15ASC 1040 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 107); Encomium Emmae Reginae, III:10–11 (Campbell, p. 50).
16ASC 1041 C (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 107).
17S. 994, 993 and 996.
 18He is recorded as such in S. 1467, where he is said to have held the ‘third penny of the toll of
Sandwich’ for some time, presumably in the same fashion that Earl Godwine held the third penny of the
shire of Kent during part of the eleventh century. The name is of extreme rarity in Anglo-Saxon England,
appearing elsewhere only for the Yorkshire landowner, Styr Ulfsson, noted above on pp. 69–70 and in
Domesday Book for Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Hampshire. I think we can be certain that these two
occurrences in John of Worcester and S. 1467 are of the same man, and his sudden appearance in the 1040s
at such a high level argues that he had come from Scandinavia with Harold Harefoot. He may have returned
there late in the eleventh century, or he may be identifiable with the ‘Sterre’ who held the manor of
Lockerley in Hampshire from King Edward the Confessor (DB, Hampshire, 23.40). It should be noted that
the English form Sterre is commonly associated with the separate Old Norse name Stóri (see Björkmann,
Nordische Personenamen in England, pp. 131–2, for the two names), but the ambiguous spelling of English
scribes often muddies the clear distinction. We find an unambiguous ‘Styr maiorem domus’ in John of
Worcester, but a form ‘Steorran . . . þæs kings rædesmann’ in S. 1467.
19S. 982, surviving only in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Moreau MS. 21, pp. 18–19, which was copied
before the French Revolution by Dom Jacques Lenoir from the now lost twelfth-century cartulary of the
house.
20For their attestations see Keynes, Atlas of Attestations, table lxix.
21On these Scandinavians see p. 182 above.
22See above, pp. 101–2 and 175–6.
23S. 994, 1396 and 1036.
24ASC 1042 C (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 107).
25John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1042 (Darlington and McGurk, pp. 532–4). In this Tovi pruða
married the daughter of Osgot clapa, his long-time associate.
26See Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle, ‘Danish Royal Burials in Winchester’.
27See above at p. 195.
28John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1049 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 548); and on the family’s later
flight to Denmark see my ‘English Political Refugees’.
29John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1044 (Darlington and McGurk, p. 540). She may also have later
been the wife of Harald Thorkelsson, on whom see Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, p. 66, but note also Williams,
‘Thorkell the Tall’, p. 157, n. 82.
30ASC 1049 CDE (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 110); Adam of Bremen, Gesta, III:9 (Schmeidler, p. 155).
31See Bolton, ‘Was the Family’.
32ASC 1046 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 109); John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1046 (Schmeidler, p.
542).
33ASC 1049 C (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 110). Note John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1049 (Schmeidler,
p. 550), gives the number as twenty-nine not thirty-nine, perhaps from a misreading or bad note-taking.
34See ASC 1054 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 115) for his death. If he was exiled for aiding Sweyn
Godwinesson he may have shared in Sweyn’s reinstatement in 1050.
35See pp. 110–11 above, and Lewis, ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex’, pp. 185–6.
36Keynes, Atlas of Attestations, table lxxv.
37Pelteret, Catalogue, no. 56, p. 83.
38See Williams, ‘A Place in the Country’.
39See p. 125 above.
40ASC 1045 CD (O’Brien O’Keeffe, p. 108). ASC D records that the fleet was collected because of a
threat from Magnús.
41ASC 1048–9 D (Cubbin, pp. 67–8); John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1047–1048 (Darlington and
McGurk, p. 544).
 42For comprehensive discussion of this period of Edward’s life see Keynes, ‘The Æthelings in
Normandy’.
43One potential future avenue of research would be to use isotope testing on the teeth of the skeletons
excavated at Lund and other Danish sites to see whether these people spent their childhoods in Scandinavia
or England.
44Hauberg, Myntforhold, and Becker, ‘Coinages of Harthacnut’.
45See Larson, ‘The Efforts of the Danish Kings’.
46Adam of Bremen, Gesta, II:78 (Schmeidler, p. 136). There are numerous other examples of such
arrangements in the period, especially where Scandinavians are concerned. On this see A. Williams, ‘Some
Notes and Considerations on Problems’, for some discussion. Vita Ædwardi regis, I:1 (Barlow, pp. 16–17);
and as Barlow (ibid., p. 17, n. 37) notes, ‘[t]his statement has caused endless trouble’. Freeman, A History
of the Norman Conquest, 2, p. 18, interpreted it to be a mistaken reference to King Magnús of Norway. I
concur here with Barlow that the king intended is Swen Estrithsson.
47ASC 1068 D (Cubbin, p. 84) and 1070 E (Irvine, p. 88). This last name, Kristian, is unattested in
Petersen, Nordiskt Runnamenslexikon, but is attested in West Norse saga narratives as ‘Kristiann’. Clearly
the man here was Danish and so I have used the name ‘Kristina’ in the Nordiskt Runnamenslexikon as a
guide to produce the form here.
48John of Worcester, Chronicon, s.a. 1069–1070 (McGurk, pp. 10–15).
49Ibid.
50ASC 1085 E (Irvine, pp. 93–4).
51As argued by Larson, ‘The Efforts of the Danish Kings’, p. 80.
 CONCLUSION

In the chapters above, Cnut emerges in several complementary roles. He was an

intelligent and pragmatic diplomacist, an energetic and active ruler, a cunning
and resourceful military leader, and most probably a devout Christian.
His life falls into three main phases. His early life appears to have been
shaped by the instabilities of his family and its hold on Denmark, namely his
position as second son to Swen ‘Forkbeard’, and the scandalous
regicide/patricide that had brought the latter to power there. These probably
caused Cnut to seek his own kingdom in the conquest of England, and sharpened
his resolve to succeed there. However, luck also played its part in his seizure of
power in England, and he could not have predicted or caused the disastrously
timed feud that would break out between Æthelred and his son Edmund
‘Ironside’, or the former’s untimely illness and death. Cnut’s skill here was,
perhaps, in realizing that these situations could be turned to his advantage.
The middle years of his life, those between the invasion of 1016 and the
conquest of Norway in 1028, reveal a period of rapid activity characterized by
Cnut’s responses to various threats. This period is so densely packed with
actions and decisions that it is exhausting just to read about. He began by
balancing the interests of the most important of the English against the demands
of his Scandinavian mercenary armies, paradoxically succeeding in reassuring
the one that this was no viking raid while supplying the other with booty. This
was immediately followed by apparent challenges to Cnut’s authority by an
English ealdorman and then an overmighty Danish warlord, both of which were
dealt with in quick succession either side of his going to Denmark to receive the
crown there. While in Denmark he must have taken steps to ensure the
continuation of government, as well as pushing forward the building of
governmental and ecclesiastical infrastructure using English wealth and English
men at a previously unseen pace. The ongoing problem of Thorkell the Tall in
Denmark seems to have led to a military show of force in the region c. 1023, and
once Thorkell had apparently died and arrangements there were settled, the
region descended into chaos again with the local uprising and invasion by
Norway and Sweden, leading to the decisive Battle of Helgeå in 1026. Against
this backdrop, Cnut seems to have been meddling in the imperial succession,
attempting to get a candidate elected whose interests were least in conflict with
his own, and this resulted in his invitation to Conrad II’s imperial coronation in
Rome at Easter 1027. Finally, on Cnut’s return from Rome, Norway’s level of
political centralization and organization ensured that the attack on Denmark of
some months before could not pass without reaction, so he took a fleet to settle
matters there, before placing Norway under his rule in 1028.
The years of his mature life, those after 1028, saw the fruits of this labour in
the development of a stable court around Cnut, which appears to have fostered a
distinct and new Anglo-Danish identity. This period saw the greatest outpouring
of his piety in gift-giving to the Church. We might wish that the years of his
mature life had been longer, if only to see what such an energetic ruler could
produce when not pinned down by threats to his authority, but he died only
seven years later in 1035, some months after his control over Norway had
collapsed.
A key question, in my mind at least, concerns the partisan nature of our two
sets of sources and the man who stood behind them. Often in the English sources
Cnut is a model king of late Anglo-Saxon England, producing in his Letter of
1019–20 statements so ideal that they could evidently be used for preaching by
Archbishop Wulfstan.1 Conversely, our best sources from the Scandinavian
material reflect a very different image of him. While there are adaptations of
ideology and outlook in skaldic verse that must reflect those of his English-or
imperial-influenced court, overwhelmingly he is the ideal Viking-Age ruler,
demonstrating his success and continuing divine support through battles and
excesses of bloodshed. We appear on first inspection to have two Cnuts, and so
are forced to ask ourselves whether one or more of these representations was the
creation of the composers of our sources, each working in highly conservative
genres and with their own expectations of what the ruler should be; or whether
instead these are accurate reflections of aspects of his persona that Cnut revealed
to different groups of his followers and subjects at different times. Whichever
conclusion we prefer, the man himself stands some distance behind both
representations, and we must accept that our sources obscure as much as they
reveal.
There seems to be an important similarity in the way that two of the key
sources, one from each side of this ethnic divide and both apparently as close to
Cnut’s own wishes as we can possibly get, appear to affect ignorance of certain
of his actions. I have already referred to the controversy caused by the statement
of Cnut’s Letter of 1019–20 that he had spent his wealth freely to avert hostility
to the English, and had then gone to Denmark to ensure that future hostility from
there would not trouble the English again.2 As Niels Lund notes, ‘[i]t seems a bit
rich on Cnut’s part to claim he had spent his money averting the dangers that he
himself had brought in’, and more so since this wealth is very likely to have been
part of that extracted from the English only months before.3 The same apparent
ignorance of Cnut’s motives can be found in an extant verse from Sigvatr
Þórðarson’s Knútsdrápa, which describes his visit to Rome as that of a pilgrim.4
The only passing allusion to the presence of Conrad II there is the four-word
distillation of Cnut’s new alliances in the final statement that he was ‘dear to the
Emperor, close to [St] Peter [ie. the Pope]’, without any mention of the
coronation ceremony. We are certainly missing verses from this poem, and the
ones in question here survive only in a single text (Fagrskinna, with another
related verse which notes that ‘few ring-distributors [i.e. generous rulers] will
have measured the route south with their steps’, following there, and also
recorded in Knytlinga saga). Thus, we might infer that other unrecorded verses
discussed the coronation ceremony.5 However, this is unlikely, as the whole
poem was almost certainly known to the writers of the saga accounts in which
the relevant parts of it survive, and their narratives are demonstrably based on it,
yet neither mentions the coronation. Fagrskinna has Cnut set off on his
pilgrimage to Rome with staff and scrip (satchel) and walk south, in words
loosely echoing the content of the verse, with the Emperor coming to meet him
en route and escorting him to the city, and Cnut taking what he needed from the
Emperor’s money in addition to the treasure he brought with him. Knytlinga
saga has him set off on a journey southward to Rome, walking from Flanders to
the Holy City, in which the role of the Emperor is reduced to one of a patron, in
that Cnut was free to use the Emperor’s money.6
I am struck in the case of Cnut’s letter by an impression of spin-doctoring, in
which the English are given a version of events that would be most acceptable to
them and one centred on them and their needs. Perhaps the same is true for
Sigvatr, who while creating notable breaks with skaldic tradition, presents Cnut
as the friend of the Pope and the Emperor rather than subordinate to them in a
ceremony. These are only slight indications, but these sources are some of the
closest to Cnut himself. If my suspicions are correct, then these separate attempts
to portray events in the best possible light for the English and the Scandinavians
accord well with Cnut’s pragmatism and diplomacy, and they suggest that his
direct agency may have lain behind these different representations of him.
This is not to say that Cnut did not strongly feel himself to be Scandinavian
or that he did not really wish to embrace Englishness, but it suggests a fluidity of
identity on his part. The events of his life placed him in a nearly unique position
to question some of the overlapping and clashing edges of the cultures in which
he lived. He came from a society that did not entirely share his own religious
views, and one which had seen his dynasty change that society dramatically. In
addition, much of his life was spent in another culture, learning about it in order
to succeed, while apparently still engaging with some aspects of a more
traditional Scandinavian way of life transplanted on occasion into that host
culture. This may have been influenced by the lack of strong social anchors in
the form of Scandinavian male familial influences after 1019. Moreover, his
wife Emma in the same period may have been almost equally fluid in her ethnic
outlook, being of Danish-Norman stock and having spent much of her life in
England. An apparent freedom from some of the social norms of English and
Scandinavian elite behaviour would explain Cnut’s actions in western France, if
I have interpreted those correctly, as well as his adoption and development of a
new ideology of rule after 1027.7 He began life as the second son of a Danish
king, but appears to have ended it as culturally neither Scandinavian nor English,
but something in between, constructed according to what suited him best on each
occasion. In that respect, if I am correct, Cnut was surprisingly modern.

1See pp. 15–16.

2Lund, ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’, p. 31.
3Ibid.
4It is edited by Whaley, p. 661, and given in translation above at pp. 191–2.
5For these verses see Whaley, pp. 661–3. On Fagrskinna in general see the excellent introduction to the
new translation by Finlay, Fagrskinna. The remaining extant verses survive in six narrative sources (see
Whaley, p. 649).
6Fagrskinna, ch. 40 (Bjarni Einarsson, pp. 204–5) and Knytlinga saga, ch. 17 (Bjarni Guðnason, p.
123).
7On these see pp. 163–71 and 189–92 above.
 Appendix I

THE STORY OF CNUT AND THE WAVES

Sharp-eyed readers will note that I have avoided any mention beyond the few
words in the introduction of the story of Cnut and the tide, and yet it is perhaps
unavoidable. I beg my reader’s forgiveness for irascibility on this front, but
when one spends the better part of one’s adult life researching Cnut, it is the first
thing anybody asks you about, and it can become as irritating as a stuck record.
The famous story about Cnut, that he sat enthroned on a beach and
commanded the waves to go back, thus receiving wet feet for his trouble, is
slightly misunderstood and cut short by most modern retellings.1 It was first told
in the second quarter of the twelfth century by the Anglo-Norman chronicler
Henry of Huntingdon in his Historia Anglorum, and it must be read in its full
version and understood within the context of contemporary tales of Anglo-Saxon
saints who could control nature. What most modern readings lop off the end is a
flourish that has Cnut reveal himself as the wise man of the story rather than the
buffoon, as he declares that this stunt reveals his power to be nothing before that
of the Lord of all creation.2 Thus, he is piously demonstrating through this act
that he cannot control nature, and that God and his immediate representatives in
the saints will always be more powerful than him. The story ends with Cnut
surrendering his crown to an effigy of Christ in a nearby church. The events are
not localized any more than ‘by the sea’.3
However, these passages were written sometime after the events of Cnut’s
life, by a writer not afraid to change details where they did not fit with his
agenda, and as an example for the correct behaviour of the princes whom his
work addresses. Yet this is not to say that some form of public devotional
ceremony does not stand behind the writer’s artistic licence and exaggeration.
The hagiographer Goscelin, in his Translatio Sancte Mildrethe, has Cnut give a
crown to a church in Winchester. He similarly recorded that the king laid a
crown on the altar of Christ Church, Canterbury, but a later record from c. 1400
mentions that the crown was laid on a cross in the nave.4 Cnut’s servant, Tovi
pruða, is also recorded as giving a crown and other ornaments to Waltham
Priory.5
The story of Cnut and the waves was certainly popular in the twelfth century,
and, as C. E. Wright noted, another version was told by Geoffrei Gaimar around
1140.6 Gaimar locates the story in Westminster, and he omits the throne, having
Cnut stand on the shore. Both he and Henry of Huntingdon drew on oral material
from the Eastern Danelaw, and perhaps the common origin should be looked for
there.
As a final observation, it should be noted that the years following the death
of Henry I in 1135 were markedly uncertain ones, which saw the difficult and
contested reign of Stephen. While there may be a kernel of truth in the story, its
capacity to remind a ruler that his power was nothing before that of God and the
Church must have appealed greatly to Henry of Huntingdon and Gaimar. It is
also telling that the part of the story in which Cnut presents his crown to an
effigy of Christ was added to Henry’s account after the initial composition of the
text around 1130 and in a later edition from c. 1140.

1See p. 1 above.
2Historia Anglorum, VI:17 (Greenway, pp. 368–9). From here it passes to the writers Ralph Diceto (d.
1201), Henry Knighton (d. 1396), and the Chronicle of John of Brompton (fl. 1436).
3The location of the episode at Bosham in Sussex is more antiquarian than medieval, and may be due to
the identification of a damaged funerary monument in a local church as containing a daughter of Cnut. The
monument is several centuries later than Cnut or his offspring. See Peckham, ‘The Bosham Myth of
Canute’s Daughter’, and Marwood, Stone Coffins of Bosham.
4Goscelin, Translatio Sancte Mildrethe, ch. 6, ed. Rollason, ‘Translatio Sancte Mildrethe Virginis’, p.
163.
5Waltham Chronicle, ch. 7 (Watkiss and Chibnall, p. 12).
6Wright, Cultivation of Saga, p. 177. Wright also cites a Welsh analogue in a legend about a King
Maelgwn Gwynedd who died in 549. Here this king’s throne is made of waxed bird wings and floats when
the tide comes in. However, this legend is only extant in an addition to a legal tract in one manuscript of the
Laws of Hywel Dda (Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS. Peniarth 32), which dates to c. 1400,
and this may be an obscure descendant of the Cnut legend.
 Appendix II

CONCORDANCE OF CHARTERS CITED

IN THIS VOLUME

The charters are given here with their relevant place of publication in the new
British Academy series of editions or, if not yet published in that series, an
archive is indicated (in parentheses) and an earlier place of publication of an
edition where available.
S. 877: Miller, Charters of the New Minster, Winchester, no. 31, pp. 144–57
S. 896: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 128, pp. 497–503
S. 906: Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, no. 28, pp. 48–53
S. 915: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 134, pp. 522–5
S. 921: (Athelney) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 1306
S. 922: Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, no. 32, pp. 60–4
S. 930: Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, no. 35, pp. 67–9
S. 931: (Thorney) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 1308
S. 931b (Barking); unpublished
S. 933: O’Donovan, Charters of Sherborne, no. 15, pp. 51–4
S. 934: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 137, pp. 535–40
S. 947: Kelly, Charters of Peterborough, no. 19, pp. 284–7
S. 948: (Thorney) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 1153
S. 949: (Fécamp) Haskins, ‘A Charter of Cnut’, p. 344
S. 950: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 144 pp.
1052–7
S. 951: (Exeter, ex. St Germans) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 728
S. 952: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 146,
pp. 1062–4
S. 953: (Exeter, ex. St Germans) reproduced in Sanders, Facsimiles of Anglo-
Saxon Manuscripts, II, Exeter 10
S. 954: (Exeter) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 729
S. 955: Kelly, Charters of Shaftesbury Abbey, no. 30, pp. 122–7
S. 956: Miller, Charters of the New Minster, Winchester, no. 33, pp. 159–64
S. 958: (Ely) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 734
S. 959: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 151,
pp. 1079–93
S. 960: (Winchester, Old Minster) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 739
S. 961: (Abbotsbury) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 741
S. 962: (Winchester, Old Minster) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 743
S. 964: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 138, pp. 540–3
S. 967: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 139, pp. 544–5
S. 968: Woodman, Charters of Northern Houses, no. 8, pp. 148–57
S. 969: O’Donovan, Charters of Sherborne, no. 20, pp. 68–70
S. 970: (Winchester, Old Minster) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 752
S. 972: (Winchester, Old Minster) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 750
S. 973: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 140, p. 546
S. 975: O’Donovan, Charters of Sherborne, no. 16, pp. 55–8
S. 976: (Winchester, Old Minster) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 753
S. 979: (Athelney) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 1324
S. 980: (Bury St Edmunds) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 735
S. 981: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 154,
pp. 1110–16
S. 982: (Fécamp) Haskins, ‘A Charter of Cnut’, pp. 343–4
S. 984: (St Benet of Holme) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 740
S. 989: Kelly, Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, no. 32, pp. 119–21
S. 991: (Evesham) Harmer, Writs, no. 48
S. 992: Kelly, Charters of St Paul’s, London, no. 27, pp. 203–6
S. 993: Kelly, Charters of Abingdon Abbey, II, no. 141, pp. 549–53
S. 994: (Winchester, Old Minster) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 763
S. 996: (Ramsey) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 1331
S. 998: O’Donovan, Charters of Sherborne, no. 21, pp. 74–7
S. 1004: (Abbotsbury) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 772
S. 1010: (Wilton) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 778
S. 1021: (Exeter) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 791
S. 1033: (Rouen, St Mary’s) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 810
S. 1034: (Bath) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 811
S. 1036: (Waltham) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 813
S. 1222: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 159,
pp. 1134–5
S. 1423: (Worcester) Robertson, Charters, no. 81, pp. 156–7
S. 1463: (Peterborough) Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 733
S. 1467: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 164,
pp. 1147–53
S. 1474: O’Donovan, Charters of Sherborne, no. 17, pp. 59–61
S. 1489: (Bury St Edmunds) Whitelock, Brett and Brooke, Councils and Synods,
no. 66, pp. 514–16
S. 1503: Brooks and Kelly, Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, II, no. 142,
pp. 1037–50
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPTS
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS. 201
Cambridge, Jesus College, MS. C.23
London, British Library, Additional MS. 26,788
London, British Library, Additional MS. 49,598
London, British Library, Cotton MS. Galba E iii, 2
London, British Library, Cotton MS. Vespasian A. viii
London, British Library, Royal MS. I. D, ix
Rochester, Cathedral Library MS. A. 3. 5
York, Minster Library, Additional MS. 1

PRIMARY SOURCES
Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, ed. B. Schmeidler, Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum Scholarum Separatim Editi 2, Hanover,
1917
Adémar of Chabannes, Sermones Tres, ed. J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, 141
(1844–64), cols 111–12 and 115–24
Adémar of Chabannes, Chronicon aquitanicum et francicum or Historia Francorum, ed. J. Chavanon,
Collection des textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’histoire 20, Alphonse Picard et Fils,
Paris, 1897
Ágrip af Nóregskonungasŏgum: A Twelfth-Century Synoptic History of the Kings of Norway, ed. and trans.
M. J. Driscoll, Viking Society for Northern Research Text Series, 10, London, 1995
Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. A. J. Robertson, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 1956
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. M. Swanton, Dent, London, 1996
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 1: MS. F: Facsimile Edition, ed. D. Dumville,
Boydell, Cambridge, 1995
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 3: MS. A: A Semi-Diplomatic Edition with
Introduction and Indices, ed. J. M. Bately, Boydell, Cambridge, 1986
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 4: MS. B: A Semi-Diplomatic Edition with
Introduction and Indices, ed. S. Taylor, Boydell, Cambridge, 1983
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 5: MS. C: A Semi-Diplomatic Edition with
Introduction and Indices, ed. K. O’Brien O’Keeffe, Boydell, Cambridge, 2001
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 6: MS. D, ed. G. P. Cubbin, Boydell,
Cambridge, 1996
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition. Vol. 7: MS. E: A Semi-Diplomatic Edition with
Introduction and Indices, ed. S. Irvine, Cambridge University Press, 2004
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation, trans. D. Whitelock, D. C. Douglas and S. I. Tucker,
Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1961
Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. D. Whitelock, Cambridge Studies in English Legal History, Cambridge University
Press, 1930
Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F. E. Harmer, Manchester University Press, 1952
Annales Cambriae, ed. J. Williams (ab Ithel), Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1860
Annales Ryenses, in E. Kroman, et al. (eds.), Danmarks Middelalderlige Annaler, Selskabet for Udgivelse
af Kilder til Dansk Historie, Copenhagen, 1980, pp. 149–253
Brut y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes: Red Book of Hergest Version. Critical Text and
Translation with Introduction and Notes, ed. and trans. T. Jones, Board of Celtic Studies, University of
Wales History and Law Series, 16, Cardiff University Press, 1955
The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy, Bishop of Amiens, ed. and trans. F. Barlow, Oxford Medieval
Texts, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999
Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, ed. W. H. Hart and P. A. Lyons, Rolls Series, Longman, London,
1884–93
Charters of Abingdon Abbey, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 8, published for The British Academy
by Oxford University Press, 2001
Charters of Burton Abbey, ed. P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters 2, published for The British Academy
by Oxford University Press, 1979
Charters of Christ Church Canterbury, ed. N. P. Brooks and S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 17–18,
published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2013
Charters of the New Minster, Winchester, ed. S. Miller, Anglo-Saxon Charters 9, published for The British
Academy by Oxford University Press, 2001
Charters of Northern Houses, ed. D. A. Woodman, Anglo-Saxon Charters 16, published for The British
Academy by Oxford University Press, 2012
Charters of Peterborough Abbey, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 14, published for The British
Academy by Oxford University Press, 2009
Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury, and Minster-in-Thanet, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon
Charters 4, published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1995
Charters of St Paul’s, London, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 10, published for The British
Academy by Oxford University Press, 2004
Charters of Shaftesbury Abbey, ed. S. E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters 5, published for The British
Academy by Oxford University Press, 1996
Charters of Sherborne, ed. M. A. O’Donovan, Anglo-Saxon Charters 3, published for The British Academy
by Oxford University Press, 1988
Chronici Willelmi Thorne, ed. R. Twysden, Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X, Simeon Monachus
Dunelmensis, Johannes Prior Hagustaldensis, Ricardus Prior Hagustaldensis, Ailredus Abbas
Rievallensis, Radulphus de Diceto Londoniensis, Johannes Brompton Jornallensis, Gervasius
Monachus Dorobornensis, Thomas Stubbs Dominicanus, Guilielmus Thorn Cantuariensis, Henricus
Knighton Leicestrensis, ex Vetustis Manuscriptis, Nunc primum in Lucem Editi, London, 1652
The Chronicle Attributed to John of Wallingford, ed. R. Vaughan, Camden Miscellany 21, London, 1958
Chronicle of the Bishops of Ribe, in E. Jørgensen, ‘Ribe Bispekrønike’, Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 6 (1933–
5), pp. 23–33
Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham ad annum 1418, ed. W. D. Macray, Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1863
Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis, ed. W. D. Macray, Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1886
Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1858
Chronicon Roskildense, in M. C. Gertz (ed.), Scriptores Minores Historiae Danicae Medii Aevi, ex
Codicibus Denuo Recensuit, Selskabet for Udgivelse af Kilder til Dansk Historie, Copenhagen, 1917–18
Codex Caesareus Upsaliensis: An Echternach Gospel Book of the Eleventh Century, ed. C. A. J.
Nordenfalk, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1971
Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, ed. J. M. Kemble, 6 vols., London, 1839–48
Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church. Vol. I: A.D. 871–1204, ed. D.
Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981
Danakonunga Sŏgur: Skjŏldunga Saga, Knýtlinga Saga, Ágrip af Sŏgu Danakonunga, ed. Bjarni Guðnason,
Íslenzk Fornrit 35, Híð Íslenska Bókmenntafélag, Reykjavík, 1982
Danmarks Runeindskrifter, ed. L. Jacobsen and E. Moltke, Einar Munksgaard Forlag, Copenhagen, 1941–2
De Obsessione Dunelmi, in T. Arnold (ed.), Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia: Historia Ecclesiae
Dunhelmensis, Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1882–5
Domesday Book, 7, Dorset, ed. and trans. C. Thorn, F. Thorn and M. Newman, History from the Sources,
Phillimore, Chichester, 1983
Domesday Book, 15, Gloucestershire, ed. and trans. J. Morris, History from the Sources, Phillimore,
Chichester, 1975
Domesday Book, 19, Huntingdonshire, ed. and trans. J. Morris and S. Harvey, History from the Sources,
Phillimore, Chichester, 1975
Domesday Book, 32, Essex, ed. and trans. J. Morris, History from the Sources, Phillimore, Chichester, 1983
Egils saga skallagrimsonar, Sigurður Nordal, Íslenzk Fornrit 2, Híð Íslenska Bókmenntafélag, Reykjavík,
1933
Den Eldre Gulatingslova, ed. B. Eithun, M. Rindal and T. Ulset, Riksarkivet Norrøne Tekster 6,
Riksarkivet, Oslo, 1994
Ely Calendar in Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. O. 2, I, in B. Dickins (ed.), ‘The Day of Byrhtnoth’s
Death and Other Obits from a Twelfth-Century Ely Kalender’, Leeds Studies in English, 3 (1937), pp.
14–24
Encomium Emmae Reginae, ed. and trans. A. Campbell, Camden Society 3rd Series, 72, Royal Historical
Society, London, 1949; reprinted with a supplementary introduction by S. Keynes as Camden Classic
Reprints 4, Cambridge, 1998
Facsimiles of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, ed. W. B. Sanders, 3 vols., Ordnance Survey, Southampton, 1878–
84
Fagrskinna, edited as Ágrip af Nóregskonungasogum: Fagrskinna – Nóregs konunga tal, ed. Bjarni
Einarsson, Íslenzk Fornrit 29, Reykjavik, 1984
John Flete, History of Westminster Abbey, in J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), The History of Westminster Abbey
by John Flete, Notes and Documents Relating to Westminster Abbey 2, Cambridge University Press,
1909
Gaimar, Lestorie des Engles, ed. A. Bell, Anglo-Norman Texts Society, Oxford, 1960
Die Gedenküberlieferung der Angelsachsen, ed. J. Gerchow, Arbeiten zur Frühmittelalterforschung 20,
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1988
Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. F. Liebermann, Max Niemeyer, Halle, 1898–1916
The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, ed. and
trans. E. M. C. Van Houts, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995
Goscelin, De Vita Sancti Wlsini, in C. H. Talbot (ed.), ‘The Life of Saint Wulsin of Sherbourne by
Goscelin’, Revue Bénédictine, 69 (1959), pp. 68–85
Goscelin, Liber Confortatorius, ed. C. H. Talbot, Analecta Monastica, 3rd Series, 37 (1955), pp. 1–117
Goscelin, Vita S. Edithe, in A. Wilmart (ed.), ‘La Légende de Ste Édith en Prose et Vers par le Moine
Goscelin’, Analecta Bollandiana, 56 (1938), pp. 5–101 and 265–307
Hemingi Chartularium Ecclesiæ Wigorniensis, ed. T. Hearne, Oxford, 1723
Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People, ed. and trans. D. E.
Greenway, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996
Herman, Liber de Miraculis, in T. Arnold (ed.), Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, Rolls Series, Longman,
London, 1890–6
Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: The History of the Church of Abingdon, ed. J. Hudson, 2 vols., Oxford
University Press, 2002–7
Historia de Sancto Cuthberto: A History of Saint Cuthbert and a Record of his Patrimony, ed. and trans. T.
Johnson South, Anglo-Saxon Texts 3, Brewer, Cambridge, 2002
Holinshed, R., J. Hooker et al., The first and second volumes of Chronicles . . . now newlie augmented and
continued (with manifold matters of singular note and worthie memorie) to the yeare 1586, Henry
Denham, London, 1587
Hugh Candidus, Chronica, in W. T. Mellows (ed.), The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, A Monk of
Peterborough, Oxford University Press on behalf of the Friends of Peterborough Cathedral, London,
1949
Joannis Lelandi Antiquarii, De Rebus Britannicus Collectanea, ed. T. Hearne, 2nd edn, London, 1774
John of Worcester, The Chronicle of John of Worcester. Vol. II: The Annals from 450 to 1066, ed. R. R.
Darlington and P. McGurk, trans. J. Bray and P. McGurk, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1995
The Letters and Poems of Fulberht of Chartres, ed. and trans. F. Behrends, Oxford Medieval Texts,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976
Liber Eliensis, ed. E. O. Blake, Camden Society 3rd Series, 92, Royal Historical Society, London, 1962
Liber Ruber, in H. H. E. Craster (ed.), ‘The Red Book of Durham’, English Historical Review, 40 (1925),
pp. 504–35
Liber Vitæ Ecclesiæ Dunelmensis; nec non Obituaria duo ejusdem Ecclesiae, ed. J. Stevenson, Surtees
Society, Nichols and Son, Edinburgh, 1834
The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester: British Library Stowe 944: together with
leaves from British Library Cotton Vespasian A. VIII and British Library Cotton Titus D. XXVII, ed. S.
D. Keynes, Rosenkilde and Bagger, Copenhagen, 1996
Den Norsk-Isländske Skjaldedigtning, ed. and trans. Finnur Jónsson, 4 vols., Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen
and Kristiania (Oslo), 1912–15
Den Norsk-Isländska Skjaldediktningen, ed. E. A. Kock, Gleerup, Lund, 1949–50
Norske Middelalder Dokumenter, ed. and trans. S. Bagge, S. H. Smedsdal and K. Helle,
Universitetsforlaget, Bergen, 1974
Olafs Saga hins Helga: Die ‘Legendarische Saga’ über Olaf den Heiligen (Hs. Delagard. saml. nr. 8II), ed.
and trans. into German, A. Heinrichs, Germanische Bibliothek, Vierte Reihe, Texte, Winter, Heidelberg,
1982
Osbern, Translatio Sancti Ælfegi, ed. A. R. Rumble and R. Morris, ‘Textual Appendix: Translatio Sancti
Ælfegi Cantuariensis Archepiscopi et Martiris (BHL 2519): Osbern’s Account of the Translation of St
Ælfheah’s Relics from London to Canterbury, 8–11 June 1023’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of
Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester
University Press, London/New York, 1994, pp. 283–315
The Parker Chronicle and Laws, a Facsimile, ed. R. Flower and A. H. Smith, Early English Text Society,
Original Series, 208, London, 1941
Passio Olaui, in G. Storm (ed.), Monumenta Historica Norvegiae. Latinske Kildeskrifter til Norges Historie
i Middelalderen, Norsk-Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, Kristiania (Oslo), 1880, pp. 125–44
Peterborough Chronicle, 1070–1154, ed. C. Clark, Oxford University Press, 1958
The Peterborough Chronicle: The Bodleian Manuscript Laud Misc. 636, ed. D. Whitelock, with an
appendix by C. Clark, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile 4, Rosenkilde and Bagger, Copenhagen,
1954
Poetry from the King’s Sagas, Vol. 1, ed. D. Whaley, Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages,
Brepols, Turnhout, 2012
Poetry from the King’s Sagas, Vol. 2, ed. K. E. Gade, Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages,
Brepols, Turnhout, 2009
The Poetry of Arnórr jarlaskáld: An Edition and Study, ed. D. Whaley, Brepols, Turnhout, 1998
‘Red Book of Thorney’, in J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel (eds.), Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of
Abbies and other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, with their
Dependencies, in England and Wales; Also of All Such Scotch, Irish, and French Monasteries As Were
in Any Manner Connected With Religious Houses in England. Together With a Particular Account of
Their Respective Foundations, Grants, and Donations, and a Full Statement of Their Possessions, As
Well Temporal As Spiritual. Originally Published in Latin by Sir William Dugdale, Kt. Garter Principal
King at Arms. A New Edition, Enriched with a Large Accession of Materials Now First Printed from
Ledger Books, Chartularies, Rolls, and other Documents Preserved in the National Archives, Public
Libraries, and other Repositories; The History of each Religious Foundation in English Being Prefixed
to its Respective Series of Latin Charters, London, 1817–30, II, pp. 594–7
Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Konrad II, 1024–1039, ed. J. F. Böhmer, ed. and newly revised by H.
Appelt, Böhlau, Graz, 1951
Reyner, C., Apostulatus Benedictinorum in Anglia, sive Disceptatio Historica de Antiquitate Ordinis
Monachorum Nigrorum S. Benedicti in Regno Angliae, Douai, 1626
Rimbert, Vita Anskarii auctore Rimberto, ed. G. Waitz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
Germanicarum 55, 1884
Robert of Torigni’s Chronica, in R. Howlett (ed.), Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and
Richard I, Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1844–89
S. 949 and 982, in C. H. Haskins (ed.), ‘A Charter of Cnut for Fécamp’, English Historical Review, 33
(1918), pp. 342–4
Skáldatal, in Finnur Jónsson (ed.), Snorra Edda Sturlusonar, Gyldendalske Boghandel, Copenhagen, 1931
Slayter, W., The History of Great Britanie from the first peopling of this island to this plesant raigne of
o[u]r hapy and peacefull monarke K. James, W. Stansby for Richard Meighen, London, 1621
Snorre Sturlasons Edda, Uppsala-Handskriften DG 11, ed. A. Grape, G. Kallstenius and O. Thorell,
Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1977
Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, Íslenzk Fornrit 26–8, Híð Íslenska
Bókmenntafélag, Reykjavík, 1941–51
‘Supplement to Jómsvíkinga saga’, in A. Campbell (ed.), Encomium Emmae Reginae, Camden Society 3rd
Series, 72, Royal Historical Society, London, 1949; reprinted with a supplementary introduction by S.
Keynes as Camden Classic Reprints 4, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 92–4
Symeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, in T. Arnold (ed.), Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia,
Rolls Series, Longman, London, 1882–5
Tewkesbury Chronicle, in J. Caley, H. Ellis and B. Bandinel (eds.), Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of
Abbies and other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, with their
Dependencies, in England and Wales; Also of All Such Scotch, Irish, and French Monasteries As Were
in Any Manner Connected With Religious Houses in England. Together With a Particular Account of
Their Respective Foundations, Grants, and Donations, and a Full Statement of Their Possessions, As
Well Temporal As Spiritual. Originally Published in Latin by Sir William Dugdale, Kt. Garter Principal
King at Arms. A New Edition, Enriched with a Large Accession of Materials Now First Printed from
Ledger Books, Chartularies, Rolls, and other Documents Preserved in the National Archives, Public
Libraries, and other Repositories; The History of each Religious Foundation in English Being Prefixed
to its Respective Series of Latin Charters, London, 1817–1830, II, pp. 59–65
Thangmarus Presbyter Hildesheimensis, Vita Sancti Bernwardi episcopi Hildesheimensis, auctore
Thangmaro, ed. G. H. Pertz, Patrologie Cursus Completus. Series Latina, 140 (1844), cols. 393–436
Theodoricus Monachus, Historia de Antiquitate, ed. G. Storm, Monumenta Historica Norvegiae. Latinske
Kildeskrifter til Norges Historie i Middelalderen, Norsk-Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, Kristiania
(Oslo), 1880, pp. 1–68
Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi Chronicon. Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg und
ihre Korveier Überarbeitung, ed. R. Holtzmann, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum
Germanicarum, Nova Series, Tomus 9, Berlin, 1935
Die Urkunden der Deutschen Könige und Kaiser, Bd. 2, Tl. 2. Die Urkunden Otto des III, ed. T. Sickel,
Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae, Hanover, 1893
Vita Ædwardi regis qui apud Westmonasterium requiescit: The Life of King Edward who Rests at
Westminster, ed. F. Barlow, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992
The Waltham Chronicle: An Account of the Discovery of Our Holy Cross at Montacute and its Conveyance
to Waltham, ed. and trans. L. Watkiss, L. and M. Chibnall, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1994
Widukindi Monachi Corbeiensis Rerum Gestarum Saxonicarum Libri Tres. Die Sachsengeschichte des
Widukind von Korvei, ed. H. E. Lohmann and P. Hirsch, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores
Rerum Germanicarum in usum Scholarum ex Monumentis Germanicae Historicis Separatim Editi,
Hanover, 1935
William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M.
Winterbottom, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987–99
— De Antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesiae, in J. Scott (ed. and trans.), The Early History of Glastonbury: An
Edition, Translation and Study of William of Malmesbury’s De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie, Boydell,
Woodbridge, 1981
— Gesta Pontificum Anglorum: The History of the English Bishops. Vol I: Text and Translation, ed. and
trans. M. Winterbottom and R. M. Thomson, Oxford Medieval Texts, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2007
— Vita Wulfstani, ed. R. R. Darlington, Camden Society 3rd Series, 40, Royal Historical Society, London,
1928
William Thorne, Chronica, in R. Twysden (ed.), Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X, Simeon Monachus
Dunelmensis, Johannes Prior Hagustaldensis, Ricardus Prior Hagustaldensis, Ailredus Abbas
Rievallensis, Radulphus de Diceto Londoniensis, Johannes Brompton Jornallensis, Gervasius
Monachus Dorobornensis, Thomas Stubbs Dominicanus, Guilielmus Thorn Cantuariensis, Henricus
Knighton Leicestrensis, ex Vetustis Manuscriptis, Nunc primum in Lucem Editi, London, 1652
Wiponis Opera. Die Werke Wipos, ed. H. Bresslau, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores Rerum
Germanicarum in usum Scholarum Separatim Editi 59, Hanover, 1915, and reprinted 1977
Wolfhere, Vita Godehardi episcopi posterior, ed. G. H. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores
(in Folio) 11, Hanover, 1854, pp. 196–218
Wulfstan, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. D. Whitelock, Methuen’s Old English Library, London, 1976
The York Gospels, a Facsimile with Introductory Essays, ed. N. Barker, Roxburghe Club, London, 1986

SECONDARY SOURCES
Abrams, L., ‘The Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia’, Anglo-Saxon England, 24 (1995),
pp. 213–49
Almqvist, B., Norrön Niddiktning: Traditionshistoriska Studier i Versmagi, Almqvist & Wiksell,
Stockholm, 1974
Andersen, M., M. Højog and S. A. Sørensen, ‘Et Vikingetidshus fra Bredgade i Roskilde’, Romu (Roskilde)
(1986), pp. 33–50
Andersen, P. S., Samlingen av Norge og Kristningen av Landet 800–1130, Handbok i Norges Historie 2,
Universitetsforlaget, Bergen/Oslo/Tromsø, 1977
Andrén, A., ‘Stadsbilden’, in A. W. Mårtensson (ed.), Uppgrävt förflutet för PKbanken i Lund. En
Investering i Arkeologi, Archaeologica Lundensia: Investigationes de Antiquitatibus Urbis Lundae 7,
Kulturhistoriska Museet, Lund, 1976, pp. 21–40
Angenendt, A., ‘How Was a Confraternity Made? The Evidence of Charters’, in D. and L. Rollason (eds.),
The Durham ‘Liber Vitae’ and its Context, Regions and Regionalism in History, 1, Boydell,
Woodbridge, 2004, pp. 207–19
Arnskov, P., Bogen om Slagelse. Historiske og Topografiske Skildringer af Slagelse Gennem Aarene, Age
Bøggild, Slagelse, 1931
Arup, E., ‘Kong Svend 2.s Biografi’, Scandia, Tidskrift för Historisk Forskning, 4:1 (1931), pp. 55–101
Astås, R., ‘Óláfr, St.’, in P. Pulsiano, Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, Garland Reference Library
of the Humanities 934 and Garland Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages 1, Garland, New York, 1993, pp.
445–6
Balle, S., ‘Ulf Jarl og Drabet i Roskilde’, Historisk Årbog for Roskilde Amt (1983), pp. 23–59
Barlow, F., Edward the Confessor, English Monarchs Series, Yale University Press, London, 1970
— The English Church 1000–1066: A History of the Anglo-Norman Church, 2nd edn, Longman, London,
1979
— The Godwins: The Rise and Fall of a Noble Dynasty, Pearson/Longman, London, 2003
— William Rufus, Methuen, London, 1990
— ‘Two Notes: Cnut’s Second Pilgrimage and Queen Emma’s Disgrace in 1043’, English Historical
Review, 73 (1958), pp. 649–56
Barnes, M., ‘Towards an Edition of the Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions of the British Isles: Some
Thoughts’, Northern Studies/Scottish Society for Northern Studies, 29 (1992), pp. 32–42
Bates, D., J. Crick and S. Hamilton, Writing Medieval Biography: Essays in Honour of Frank Barlow,
Boydell, Woodbridge, 2006
Baxter, S., The Earls of Mercia: Lordship and Power in Late Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford Historical
Monographs, Oxford University Press, 2007
Becker, C. J., ‘The Coinages of Harthacnut and Magnus the Good at Lund c.1040–1046’, in C. J. Becker
(ed.), Studies in Northern Coinages of the Eleventh Century, Det kongelige Videnskabernes Selskab,
Historisk-Filosofiske Skrifter 9:4, Copenhagen, 1981, pp. 119–74
Beech, G., ‘Biography and the Study of Eleventh-Century Society: Peter II of Poitiers (1087–1115)’,
Francia: Forschungen zur Westeuropaischen Geschichte, 7 (1979), pp. 101–21
— ‘England and Aquitaine in the Century before the Norman Conquest’, Anglo-Saxon England, 19 (1990),
pp. 81–101
Bethurum, D., The Homilies of Wulfstan, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1957
Biddle, M. and B. Kjølbye-Biddle, ‘Danish Royal Burials: Cnut and his Family’, in R. Lavelle and S.
Roffey, Danes in Wessex: The Scandinavian Impact on Southern England, c.800–c.1100, Oxbow,
Oxford/Philadelphia, 2016, pp. 212–49
Bill, J. and A. Daly, ‘The Plundering of the Ship Graves from Oseberg and Gokstad: An Example of Power
Politics?’, Antiquity, 86 (2012), pp. 808–24
Birch, D. J., Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages: Continuity and Change, Boydell, Woodbridge, 2000
Birkebæck, F. A., ‘Det Ældste Roskilde’, in F. A. Birkbæck (ed.), 13 Bidrag til Roskilde By og Egn’s
Historie. Udgivet i Andledning af Roskilde’s Museum’s 50 Års Jubilæum, Roskilde Museum, 1979, pp.
80–92
Birkedahl, P., ‘Sebbersund – en Handelsplads med Trækirke ved Limfjorden – Forbindelser til Norge’, in
Havn og Handel i 1000 År, Karmøyseminaret 1997, Dreyer Bok, Stavanger, 2000, pp. 31–9
Bjarni Guðnason, ‘Theodoricus og íslenskir Sagnaritarar’, in E. G. Pétursson and J. Kristjánsson (eds.),
Sjötíu Ritgerðir Helgaðar Jakobi Benediktssyni, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, Reykjavík, 1977, pp. 107–
20
— Um Skjöldungasögu, Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs, Reykjavík, 1963
Björkmann, E., Nordische Personenamen in England in Alt-und Frühmittel-Englischer Zeit, Studien zur
Englischen Philologie, 37, Max Niemeyer, Halle, 1910
Blackburn, M. A. S., ‘Do Cnut the Great’s First Coins as King of Denmark Date from Before 1018?’, in K.
Jonsson and B. Malmer (eds.), Sigtuna Papers: Proceedings of the Viking-Age Coinage Symposium at
Sigtuna, 1989, Commentationes de nummis saeculorum IX–XI in Suecia repertis. Nova Series, 6,
Stockholm/London, 1990, pp. 52–65
Blomkvist, R., Tusentalets Lund, Det Gamla Lund, Lund, 1941
Bolton, T., Conquest and Controversy: The Early Career of Odda of Deerhurst, Deerhurst lecture for 2006,
Deerhurst, 2010
— The Empire of Cnut the Great: Conquest and Consolidation of Power in Northern Europe in the Early
Eleventh Century, The Northern World 40, Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2009
— ‘English Political Refugees at the Court of Sveinn Ástríðarson, King of Denmark (1042–76)’, Mediaeval
Scandinavia, 15 (2005), pp. 17–36
— ‘Ælfgifu of Northampton: Cnut the Great’s “other woman”’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 51 (2007),
pp. 247–68
— ‘A Newly Emergent Mediaeval Manuscript Containing Encomium Emmae Reginae with the Only
Known Complete Text of the Recension Prepared for King Edward the Confessor’, Mediaeval
Scandinavia, 19 (2009), pp. 205–21
— ‘A Textual Historical Response to Adam of Bremen’s Witness to the Activities of the Uppsala-Cult’, in
G. Steinsland (ed.), Transformasjoner i Vikingtid og Norrøn Middelalder, Unipub forlag, Oslo, 2006,
pp. 61–91
— ‘Preliminary Investigations into the Scholia of Adam of Bremen’s Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae
pontificum’, Mediaeval Scandinavia (forthcoming) — ‘Was the Family of Earl Siward and Earl
Waltheof a Lost Line of the Ancestors of the Danish Royal Family?’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 51
(2007), pp. 41–71
Boyle, E., ‘A Welsh Record of an Anglo-Saxon Political Mutilation’, Anglo-Saxon England, 35 (2006), pp.
245–9
Branca, A. et al., ‘Detektorfunna föremål från Järnåldern. Översikt av Materialiet vid Årsskriftet
1998/1999’, in B. Hårdh (ed.), Fynden i Centrum: Keramik, Glas och Metal från Uppåkra,
Uppåkrastudier 2, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° 30, Almqvist & Wiksell International,
Häftad, 1999, pp. 59–66
Bresslau, H., ‘Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis von Konrads II: Beziehungen zu Byzanz und Dänemark’,
Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, 10 (1870), pp. 607–13
— Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Konrads II, erster Band, 1024–1031, Dunder und Humblot,
Leipzig, 1879
Brett, M., ‘John of Worcester and his Contemporaries’, in R. H. C. Davis and J. M. Wallace Hadrill (eds.),
The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R. W. Southern, Oxford University
Press, 1981, pp. 101–26
Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066, Studies in the
Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press, 1984
Campbell, A., ‘Knúts Saga’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 13 (1946–53), pp. 238–48
— Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History, Dorothea Coke Memorial Lecture, Constable, London, 1970
Campbell, J., ‘The Late Anglo-Saxon State: A Maximum View’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 87
(1994), pp. 39–65
— ‘Some Agents and Agencies of the Late Anglo-Saxon State’ in J. C. Holt (ed.), Domesday Studies:
Papers Read at the Novocentenary Conference of the Royal Historical Society and the Institute of
British Geographers, Winchester, 1986, Boydell, Woodbridge, 1987, pp. 201–25
Christensen, T., ‘Lejre Beyond Legend – The Archaeological Evidence’, Journal of Danish Archaeology,
10 (1991), pp. 163–85
—, A. C. Larsen, S. Larsson and A. Vince, ‘Early Glazed Ware from Medieval Denmark’, Medieval
Ceramics, 18 (1994), pp. 67–76
— and N. Lynnerup, ‘Kirkegården i Kongemarken’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før 1050.
Et Symposium i Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, Roskilde, 2004, pp. 142–52
Christiansen, E., Saxo Grammaticus, Danorum Regum Heroumque Historia, Books X–XVI: The Text of the
First Edition with Translation and Commentary in Three Volumes, BAR International Series, 84 and
118, Oxford, 1980–1
— (trans.), The Works of Sven Aggeson: Twelfth-Century Danish Historian, Viking Society for Northern
 Research, Text Series, 9, London, 1992
— ‘The Churches of St. Clemens in Scandinavia’, Archaeologia Lundensia, 3 (1968), pp. 103–16
Cinthio, M., De Första Stadsborna: Medeltida Graver och Människor i Lund, Brutus Östlings Bokförlag,
Stockholm/Stehag, 2002
— ‘Myntverk och Myntare i Lund’, Kulturen: En Årsbok till Medlemmarna av Kulturhistoriska Föreningen
för Södra Sverige (1990), pp. 48–53
— ‘Trinitatiskyrkan, Gravarna och de förste Lundboarna’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før
1050. Et Symposium i Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, Roskilde, 2004, pp.
159–73
Clarke, H. and B. Ambrosiani, Towns in the Viking Age, rev. repr., Leicester University Press, 1995
Clarke, P. A., The English Nobility under Edward the Confessor, Oxford Historical Monographs, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1994
Classen, A. (ed.), Childhood in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: The Results of a Paradigm Shift in
the History of Mentality, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2005
Cotgrave, J., The English Treasury of Wit and Language collected out of the most, and best of our English
drammatick poems; methodically digested into common places for generall use, Humphrey Moseley,
London, 1655
Crawford, B., ‘The Cult of Clement of Denmark’, Historie, 2 (2006), pp. 236–82
Crook, J., ‘“A Worthy Antiquity”: The Movement of King Cnut’s Bones in Winchester Cathedral’, in A. R.
Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, Studies in the Early History
of Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York, 1994, pp. 165–91
Davidson, D. L., ‘Hákon jarl (“earl”) Sigurðarson’, in P. Pulsiano, Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia,
Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 934 and Garland Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages 1,
Garland, New York, 1993, p. 259
Demidoff, L., ‘The Death of Sven Forkbeard – in Reality and Later Tradition’, Mediaeval Scandinavia, 11
(1978–9), pp. 30–47
Deshman, R., ‘Kingship and Christology in Ottonian and Anglo-Saxon Art’, Fruhmittelalterliche Studien,
10 (1976), pp. 367–405
Dickins, B., ‘The Cult of S. Olave in the British Isles’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 12 (1939), pp. 53–
80
Dumville, D. N., ‘Some Aspects of Annalistic Writing at Canterbury in the Eleventh and Early Twelfth
Centuries’, Peritia, 2 (1983), pp. 23–57
Edwards, D., ‘Christian and Pagan References in Eleventh-Century Norse Poetry: The Case of Arnórr
Jarlaskáld’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 21 (1982–3), pp. 34–53
Ellehøj, S., Studier over den ældste norrønne Historieskrivning, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana, 26,
Copenhagen, 1965
Erdmann, C., The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (trans. W. Goffart from Die Entstehung des
Kreuzzugsgedankens, 1935), Princeton University Press, 1977
Felitzen, O. von, The Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, Nomina Germanica, Arkiv för
Germansk Namnforskning, 3, Jöran Sahlgren, Uppsala, 1937
— and revised by J. Insley, ‘The Onomasticon’, in L. Rollason (ed.), The Thorney Liber Vitae: London,
British Library, Additional MS 40,000, fols. 1–12r, Edition, Facsimile and Study, Boydell, Woodbridge,
2015, pp. 125–210
Feveile, C., Ribe Studier – Det ældste Ribe. Udgravninger på nordsiden af Ribe Å 1984–2000, Jysk
Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter, 51, Højberg, 2006
Fidjestøl, B., Det Norrøne Fyrstediktet, Nordisk Institutts Skriftserie, Universitetet i Bergen, 11, Bergen,
1982
— ‘“Have you heard a poem worth more?” A Note on the Economic Background of Early Skaldic Praise-
Poetry’, in O. E. Haugen and E. Mundal (eds.) and P. Foote (trans.), Bjarne Fidjestøl: Collected Papers,
The Viking Collection: Studies in Northern Civilization, 9, Odense University Press, 1997, pp. 117–32
— ‘Norse-Icelandic Composition in the Oral Period’, in O. E. Haugen and E. Mundal (eds.) and P. Foote
(trans.), Bjarne Fidjestøl: Collected Papers, The Viking Collection: Studies in Northern Civilization, 9,
Odense University Press, 1997, pp. 303–32
Finberg, H. P. R., ‘The House of Ordgar and the Foundation of Tavistock Abbey’, English Historical
Review, 58 (1943), pp. 190–201
— Lucerna. Studies of Some Problems in the Early History of England, Macmillan, London, 1964
Finlay, A., Fagrskinna: A Catalogue of the Kings of Norway: A Translation with Introduction and Notes,
The Northern World Series, 7, Brill, Leiden, 2004
Finnur Jónsson, Den Oldnorske og Oldislandske Litteraturs, G. E. C. Gads forlag, Copenhagen, 1858–1934
Fleming, R., ‘Christchurch’s Sisters and Brothers: An Edition and Discussion of Canterbury Obituary
Lists’, in M. A. Meyer (ed.), The Culture of Christendom: Essays in Medieval History in
Commemoration of Denis L. T. Bethell, Hambleton, London, 1993, pp. 115–54
Fletcher, R., Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England, Allen Lane, London, 2002
Foot, S., Athelstan: The First King of England, English Monarchs Series, Yale University Press, New
Haven/London, 2011
Foote, P. (trans.), Bjarne Fidjestøl: Collected Papers, The Viking Collection: Studies in Northern
Civilization, 9, Odense University Press, 1997, pp. 303–32
Foote, P. G., ‘Wrecks and Rhymes’, in T. Andersson and K. I. Sandred (eds.), The Vikings: Proceedings of
the Symposium of the Faculty of Arts of Uppsala University June 6–9, 1977, Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis, 8, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1978, pp. 57–66; reprinted in M. Barnes, H. Bekker-
Nielsen and G. W. Weber, Aurvandilstá: Norse Studies, Odense University Press, 1984, pp. 222–35
Frank, R., ‘King Cnut in the Verse of his Skalds’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of
England, Denmark and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press,
London/New York, 1994, pp. 106–24
— ‘When Poets Address Princes’, in Gísli Sigurðsson, Guðrún Kvaran and Sigurgeir Steingrímsson (eds.),
Sagnaþing Helgað Jónasi Kristjánssyni Sjötugum 10. Apríl 1994, Híð Íslenska Bókmenntafélag,
Reykjavík, 1994, pp. 189–95
Freeman, E. A., A History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its Results, 6 vols., 3rd edn,
Oxford University Press, 1877–9
Fuglesang, S. H., Some Aspects of the Ringerike Style: A Phase of 11th-Century Scandinavian Art,
Mediaeval Scandinavia Supplements, 1, Odense University Press, 1980
Gade, K., The Structure of Old Norse Drottkvætt Poetry, Islandica, 49, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
NY/London, 1995
— and E. Marold (eds.), Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages, Brepols, Turnhout, forthcoming.
Gallén, J., ‘Vem var Ulf Jarl, Sven Estridsens Far?’, Scandia, Tidskrift för Historisk Forskning, 58:1 (1992),
pp. 13–30
Gameson, R., ‘Planning, Production and Paleography’, in L. Rollason (ed.), The Thorney Liber Vitae:
London, British Library, Additional MS 40,000, fols. 1–12r, Edition, Facsimile and Study, Boydell,
Woodbridge, 2015, pp. 115–24
Gelting, M. H., ‘Elusive Bishops: Remembering, Forgetting, and Remaking the History of the Early Danish
Church’, in S. Gilsdorf (ed.), The Bishop: Power and Piety at the First Millennium, Neue Aspekte der
Europäischen Mittelalterforschung, 4, Münster/Hamburg/Berlin, 2004, pp. 169–200
— ‘Un Évêque danois élève de Fulbert de Chartres?’, in M. Rouche (ed.), Fulbert de Chartres: Précurseur
de l’Europe médiévale?, Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2008, pp. 63–75
— ‘Forholdet mellem Liber Daticus og Memoriale Fratrum’, in Eva Nilsson Nylander (ed.), Mellan Evighet
Och Vardag: Lunds Domkyrkas Martyrologium Liber Daticus Vetustior (den Äldre Gåvoboken):
Studier Och Faksimilutgåva, Skrifter Utgivna av Universitetsbiblioteket i Lund, 2015, pp. 131–49
— ‘Poppo’s Ordeals: Courtier Bishops and the Success of Christianization at the Turn of the Millennium’,
Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 6 (2010), pp. 101–33
— ‘Saxo Grammaticus in the Archives’, in L. Melve and S. Sønnesyn (eds.), The Creation of Medieval
 Northern Europe: Christianisation, Social Transformations, and Historiography, Dreyer, Oslo, 2012,
pp. 322–5
— ‘Uløste Opgaver: Adam af Bremen, Saxo Grammaticus og Knytlinga Saga’, Scandia, Tidskrift för
Historisk Forskning, 77:2 (2011), pp. 126–43
Gerchow, J., ‘Prayers for King Cnut: The Liturgical Commemoration of a Conqueror’, in C. Hicks (ed.),
England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium, Harlaxton Medieval
Studies, 2, Paul Watkins Medieval Studies, 12, Stamford, 1992, pp. 219–38
Gillingham, J., ‘Chronicles and Coins as Evidence for Levels of Tribute and Taxation in Late Tenth-and
Early Eleventh-Century England’, English Historical Review, 105 (1990), pp. 939–50
— ‘“The Most Precious Jewel in the English Crown”: Levels of Danegeld and Heregeld in the Early
Eleventh Century’, English Historical Review, 104 (1989), pp. 373–84
Graham-Campbell, J., Viking Art, Thames & Hudson, London, 2013
Gransden, A., Historical Writing. Vol. I: c.550–c.1307, Routledge, London, 1996
Gräslund, B., ‘Knut den Store och Sveariket: Slaget vid Helgeå i Ny Belysning’, Scandia, Tidskrift för
Historisk Forskning, 52 (1986), pp. 211–38
Grierson, P., ‘Domesday Book, the Geld de Moneta and Monetagium: A Forgotten Minting Reform’,
British Numismatic Journal, 55 (1986), pp. 84–94
Grinder-Hansen, K., ‘Ringsted som Møntsted’, in J. S. Jensen (ed.), Tusindtallets Danske Mønter fra den
Kongelige Mønt-og Medaillesamling: Danish Coins from the 11th Century in the Royal Collection of
Coins and Medals, Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, 1995, pp. 42–3
Gustin, I., ‘Vikter och Varuutbyte i Uppåkra’, in B. Hårdh (ed.), Fynden i Centrum: Keramik, Glas och
Metal från Uppåkra, Uppåkrastudier, 2, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° 30, Almqvist &
Wiksell International, Häftad, 1999, pp. 243–70
Guðrún Nordal, ‘Skáldatal and its Manuscript Context in Kringla and Uppsalaedda’, in J. R. Haglund (ed.),
Sagas and the Norwegian Experience: “Sagene og Noreg”, Preprints of the 10th International Saga
Conference, Trondheim, 3–9 August 1997, Noregs Teknisk-Naturvitskaplege Universitet, Trondheim,
1997, pp. 205–12
— Tools of Literacy: The Role of Skaldic Verse in Icelandic Textual Culture of the Twelfth and Thirteenth
Centuries, Toronto University Press, 2001
Haki Antonsson, ‘The Cult of St. Óláfr in the Eleventh Century and Kievan Rus’, Middelalderforum,
Tverrfaglig Tidsskrift for Middelalderstudier, 1–2 (2003), pp. 143–60
Hare, M., ‘Cnut and Lotharingia: Two Notes’, Anglo-Saxon England, 29 (2000), pp. 261–78
Harris, J. D., ‘The Site of Alney, AD 1016’, Glevensis: The Gloucester and District Archaeological
Research Group Review, 26 (1992), pp. 11–12
Hart, C. J. R., Early Charters of Eastern England, Leicester University Press, 1966
Hauberg, P., Myntforhold og Udmyntninger i Danmark indtil 1146, Det Kongelige Videnskabernes
Selskabs Skrifter, 6. Række, Historisk og Filosofisk Afdeling Series, 5.1, Copenhagen, 1900
Heijne, C. von, ‘Viking-Age Hoards and Socio-Political Changes in the Slågarp Area, Skåne’, Lund
Archaeological Review, 7 (2003), pp. 109–21
Helgesson, B., ‘HELGE – ett Spår av en Tidig Kristen Mission i Uppåkra?’, in B. Hårdh (ed.), Fynden i
Centrum: Keramik, Glas och Metal från Uppåkra, Uppåkrastudier, 2, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia
Series in 8° 30, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Häftad, 1999, pp. 191–241
Hellberg, S., ‘Slaget vid Nesjar och Sven Jarl Håkonsson’, Scripta Islandica, 23 (1972), pp. 21–30
Henriksson, V., St. Olav of Norway: King, Saint – and Enigma, Tano, Oslo, 1985
Herter, H., ‘Effeminatus’, in T. Klauser (ed.), Reallexikon fuer Antike und Christentum: Sachworterbuch
zur Auxeinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, Hiersemann, Stuttgart, 1950– Heslop,
T. A., ‘The Production of de luxe Manuscripts and the Patronage of King Cnut and Queen Emma’,
Anglo-Saxon England, 19 (1990), pp. 151–95
Hill, D., ‘Trends in the Development of Towns during the Reign of Ethelred II’, in D. Hill (ed.), Ethelred
the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, BAR British Series, 59, 1978, pp. 213–26
— ‘An Urban Policy for Cnut?’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and
Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York, 1994,
pp. 101–5
Hjermind, J., ‘Bestemmelse af Proveniens og Brændingstemperatur på Tidligmiddelalderlig Keramik,
Lerklining m.v. fra Viborg og Spangsbjerg’, in M. Iversen et al., Viborg Søndersø 1018–1030:
Arkæologi og Naturvidenskab i et Værkstedsområde fra Vikingetid, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Viborg
Stiftsmuseum, 2005, pp. 423–38
— ‘Keramik’, in M. Iversen et al., Viborg Søndersø 1018–1030: Arkæologi og Naturvidenskab i et
Værkstedsområde fra Vikingetid, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Viborg Stiftsmuseum, 2005, pp. 415–22
Hofmann, D., Nordisch-Englische Lehnbeziehungen der Wikingerzeit, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana, 14, E.
Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1955
Holst, M. K., M. D. Jessen and A. Pedersen, Runestenens Jelling, Enogtredivte Tværfaglige
Vikingesymposium, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, 2012
— , M. D. Jessen, S. W. Andersen and A. Pedersen, ‘Kongens Gård i Jelling? Et Nyt Anlæg fra Harald
Blåtands Tid’, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark (2011), pp. 170–81
Hooper, N., ‘Edgar the Ætheling: Anglo-Saxon Prince, Rebel and Crusader’, Anglo-Saxon England, 14
(2007), pp. 197–215
— ‘The Housecarls in England in the Eleventh Century’, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle
Conference, 7 (1984), pp. 161–76
— ‘Military Developments in the Reign of Cnut’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of
England, Denmark and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press,
London/New York, 1994, pp. 89–100
— ‘Historiography and Hagiography at Saint-Wandrille: The “Inventio et Miracula Sancti Vulfranni”’,
Anglo-Norman Studies, 12 (1989), pp. 233–51
Houts, E. M. C. van, ‘A Note on Jezebel and Semiramis, Two Latin Norman Poems from the Early
Eleventh Century’, Journal of Medieval Latin, 2 (1992), pp. 18–24
— ‘The Political Relations between Normandy and England before 1066 according to the “Gesta
Normannorum Ducum”’, in R. Foreville (ed.), Les Mutations socio-culturelles au tournant des XIe–XIIe
siècles, Actes du IVe colloque internationale Anselmien, Paris, pp. 85–97
Howard, I., Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, 991–1017, Warfare in
History, Boydell, Woodbridge, 2003
Hunter Blair, P., ‘Some Observations on the “Historia Regum” attributed to Symeon of Durham’, in N. K.
Chadwick (ed.), Celt and Saxon: Studies in the Early British Border, Cambridge University Press, 1964,
pp. 63–118
Hvass, S., ‘Viking-Age Villages in Denmark – New Investigations’, in S. O. Lindquist (ed.), Society and
Trade in the Baltic during the Viking Age: Papers of the VIIth Visby Symposium held at Gotlands
Fornsal, Gotland’s Historical Museum, Visby, August 15th–19th, 1983, Acta Visbyensia 7, Visby,
1985, pp. 211–27
— ‘Vikingebebyggelsen i Vorbasse’, Mark og Montre fra Sydvestjyske Museer, Kulturhistoriske Museer i
Ribe amt (1977), pp. 18–29
— ‘Vorbasse: The Viking-Age Settlement at Vorbasse, Jutland’, Acta Archaeologica, 50 (1979), pp. 137–
72
Indrebø, G., ‘Aagrip’, Edda, 17 (1922), pp. 18–65
Insley, C., ‘The Family of Wulfric Spott: An Anglo-Saxon Mercian Marcher Dynasty?’, in D. Roffe (ed.),
The English and their Legacy, 900–1200: Essays in Honour of Ann Williams, Boydell, Woodbridge,
2012, pp. 115–28
— ‘Politics, Conflict and Kinship in Early Eleventh-Century Mercia’, Midlands History, 25 (2000), pp. 28–
42
Jacobsen, L., Svenskevældets Fald: Studier til Danmarks Oldhistorie i filologisk og runologisk Lys, Levin
and Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1929
Jensen, J. S., ‘Ribes Mønter i 1000-tallet’, in J. S. Jensen (ed.), Tusindtallets Danske Mønter fra den
Kongelige Mønt-og Medaillesamling: Danish Coins from the 11th Century in the Royal Collection of
Coins and Medals, Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, 1995, pp. 48–9
Jeppesen, T. G., Middelalder-Landsbyens Opståen: Kontinuitet og Brud i den Fynske Agrarbebyggelse
mellem Yngre Jernalder og Tidlig Middelalder, Fynske Studier, 11, Odense, 1981
Jesch, J., ‘History in the Political Sagas’, Medium Aevum, 62:2 (1993), pp. 210–20
— ‘Reading the Jelling Inscription’, in P. Gammeltoft (ed.), Beretning fra enogtredivte tværfaglige
Vikingesymposium, Forlaget Wormianum, Højbjerg, 2013, pp. 7–18
Jochens, J., ‘The Politics of Reproduction: Medieval Norwegian Kingship’, American Historical Review, 92
(1987), pp. 327–49
John, E., ‘The Encomium Emmae Reginae – A Riddle and a Solution’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library,
63 (1980), pp. 58–94
Jonsson, K., ‘The Coinage of Cnut’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark
and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York,
1994, pp. 193–230
Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘Tendencies in the Historiography on the Medieval Nordic States (to 1350)’, in J. S.
Amelang and S. Beer (eds.), Public Power in Europe: Studies in Historical Transformation, Edizioni
Plus, Pisa, 2006, pp. 1–15
Kapelle, W. E., The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its Transformation, 1000–1135,
Croom Helm, London, 1979
Karkov, C. E., Ruler Portraits of Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon Studies, 3, Boydell, Woodbridge,
2004
Keats-Rohan, K. S. B., ‘The Prosopography’, in L. Rollason (ed.), The Thorney Liber Vitae: London,
British Library, Additional MS 40,000, fols. 1–12r, Edition, Facsimile and Study, Boydell, Woodbridge,
2015, pp. 211–68
Kennedy, A., ‘Cnut’s Law Code of 1018’, Anglo-Saxon England, 11 (1983), pp. 57–81
Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1957
— ‘The Handwriting of Archbishop Wulfstan’, in P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (eds.), England before the
Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, Cambridge University Press,
1971, pp. 315–31
— ‘The Additions in Old English’, in N. Barker (ed.), The York Gospels: A Facsimile with Introductory
Essays by Jonathan Alexander, Patrick McGurk, Simon Keynes and Bernard Barr, Roxburgh Club,
London, 1986, pp. 81–99
Keynes, S. D., An Atlas of Attestations in Anglo-Saxon Charters c.670–1066. Vol. I: Tables, ASNC Guides
Texts and Studies, 5, Cambridge, 2002; online at http://www.kemble.asnc.cam.ac.uk/node/30
— ‘The Æthelings in Normandy’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 13 (1991), pp. 173–205
— ‘The Burial of King Æthelred the Unready at St Paul’s’, in D. Roffe (ed.), The English and their Legacy,
900–1200: Essays in Honour of Ann Williams, Boydell, Woodbridge, 2012, pp. 129–48
— ‘Church Councils, Royal Assemblies, and Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas’, in G. R. Owen-Crocker and
B. W. Schneider (eds.), Kingship, Legislation and Power in Anglo-Saxon England, Publications of the
Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies, 2013, pp. 17–182
— ‘Cnut’s Earls’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway,
Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York, 1994, pp. 43–88
— ‘The Declining Reputation of King Æthelred the Unready’, in D. Hill (ed.), Ethelred the Unready:
Papers from the Millenary Conference, BAR British Series, 59, Oxford, 1978, pp. 227–53
— Deerhurst, A.D. 1016: Eadric Streona and the Danish Conquest of England, Deerhurst Lecture for 2004
(forthcoming)
— The Diplomas of King Æthelred the Unready, 978–1016: A Study in their Use as Historical Evidence,
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd Series, 13, Cambridge University Press, 1980
— ‘Giso, Bishop of Wells’, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 19 (1997), pp.
 202–70
— ‘The Lost Cartulary of Abbotsbury’, Anglo-Saxon England, 18 (1989), pp. 209–44
— ‘Manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, in R. Gameson (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Book
in Britain. Vol. I: c.400–1100, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 537–52
— ‘The Massacre of St. Brice’s Day (13 November 1002)’, in N. Lund (ed.), Beretning fra Seksogtyvende
tværfaglige Vikingesymposium, Aarhus Universitet, Afdeling for Middelalder-og Renæssancearkæologi,
Hikuin, Højbjerg, 2007, pp. 32–66
— ‘Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)’, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 10
(1987), pp. 185–222
— ‘A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready’, Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society, 5th Series, 36 (1986), pp. 195–217
Keynes, S. D. and R. Love, ‘Earl Godwine’s Ship’, Anglo-Saxon England, 38 (2010), pp. 185–223
— and R. Naismith, ‘The Agnus Dei Pennies of King Æthelred the Unready’, Anglo-Saxon England, 40
(2011), pp. 175–223
King, P., ‘The Cathedral Priory of Odense in the Middle Ages’, Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, 7 (1966), pp. 1–
20
— ‘English Influence on the Church at Odense in the Early Middle Ages’, Journal of Ecclesiastical
History, 13 (1962), pp. 144–55
Koht, H., ‘Haakon Sigurdsson’, in E. Bull and E. Jansen (eds.), Norsk Biografisk Leksikon, Aschehoug,
Kristiania (Oslo), 1931, pp. 187–91
— ‘Sagaernes Opfatning av vor gamle Historie’, Historisk Tidsskrift, 5:2 (1914), pp. 195–206
Körner, S., Battle of Hastings: England and Europe 1035–1066, Bibliotheca Historica Lundensis, 14,
Gleerup, Lund, 1964
Kristensen, H. K., Middelalderbyen Viborg, Projekt Middelalderbyen, 4, Centrum, Århus, 1987
— ‘A Viking-Period and Medieval Settlement at Viborg Søndersø, Jutland’, Journal of Danish
Archaeology, 7 (1988), pp. 191–204
Krogh, K. J., Gåden om Kong Gorms Grav: Historien om Nordhøjen i Jelling, Poul Kristensen. Herning,
1993
— ‘The Royal Viking-Age Monuments at Jelling in the Light of Recent Archaeological Excavations: A
Preliminary Report’, Acta Archaeologica, 53 (1982), pp. 183–216
Krogh, K. J. and B. Leth-Larsen, Hedensk og Kristent: Fundene fra den kongelige Gravhøj i Jelling,
Vikingekongernes Monumenter i Jelling 2, Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, 2007
Kuhn, H., Das Dróttkvætt, Winter, Heidelberg, 1983
Kürbis, B., ‘Die Epistola Mathildis Suevae an Mieszko II. in neuer Sicht Ein Forschungsbericht’,
Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 23 (1989), pp. 318–37
Lang, H. J., “The Fall of the Monarchy of Mieszko II, Lambert’, Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies,
49 (1974), pp. 623–39
Lange, G., ‘Die Anfänge der isländisch-norwegischen Geschictschreibung’, Studia Islandica, 47, Reyjavík,
1989
Larson, L. M., Canute the Great 995–1035, and the Rise of Danish Imperialism During the Viking Age,
Heroes of the Nations Series, Putnam, London, 1912
— ‘The Efforts of the Danish Kings to Recover the English Crown after the Death of Harthacnut’,
published as an appendix to the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1910
(1912), pp. 71–81
— ‘The Political Policies of Cnut as King of England’, American Historical Review, 15 (1909–10), pp.
720–43
Larsson, L. and B. Hårdh, ‘Uppåkra – ett Hövdinga – eller Kungasäte’, Förnvännen. Tidskrift för Svensk
Antikvarisk Forkning, 92 (1997), pp. 139–54
— ‘Archbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element in the Laws of Æthelred II and Cnut’, in A. R. Rumble
(ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, Studies in the Early History of
 Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York, 1994, pp. 141–64
— ‘The Collection of Danegeld and Heregeld in the Reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut’, English Historical
Review, 99 (1984), pp. 721–38
Lawson, M. K., Cnut: The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century, Longman, London, 1993
— ‘Danegeld and Heregeld Once More’, English Historical Review, 105 (1990), pp. 951–61
— ‘“Those Stories Look True”: Levels of Taxation in the Reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut’, English
Historical Review, 104 (1989), pp. 385–406
Lee, H., Virginia Woolf, Chatto & Windus, London, 1996
Lewis, C. P., ‘Danish Landowners in Wessex in 1066’, in R. Lavelle and S. Roffey (eds.), Danes in Wessex:
The Scandinavian Impact on Southern England, c.800–c.1100, Oxbow, Oxford/Philadelphia, PA, 2016,
pp. 172–211
Liebermann, F., National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period, Max Niemeyer, Halle, 1913
Lindkvist, T., ‘Early Political Organisation (a) Introductory Survey’, in K. Helle (ed.), The Cambridge
History of Scandinavia. Vol. 1: Prehistory to 1520, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 160–7
— ‘Social and Political Power in Sweden 1000–1300: Predatory Incursions, Royal Taxation, and the
Formation of a Feudal State’, in R. Samson (ed.), Social Approaches to Viking Studies, Cruithne,
Glasgow, 1991, pp. 137–45
Lindqvist, H., A History of Sweden: From Ice Age to Our Age, trans. R. Bradbury, Norstedts Förlag,
Stockholm, 2006
— ‘The Armies of Swein Forkbeard and Cnut: Leding or Lith?’, Anglo-Saxon England, 15 (1986), pp. 105–
18
Lund, N., ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark
and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York,
1994, pp. 27–42
— ‘The Danish Perspective’, in D. Scragg (ed.), The Battle of Maldon AD 991, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 114–
42
— ‘Mission i Danmark før Harald Blåtands Dåb’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før 1050. Et
Symposium i Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, Roskilde, 2004, pp. 20–7
— ‘Svend Estridsens Blodskam og Skilsmisse’, in L. C. A. Sonne and S. Croix (eds.), Svend Estridsen,
Syddansk Universitetsforlag, Viborg, 2016, pp. 39–55
Löfving, C., ‘Who Ruled the Region East of the Skagerrak in the Eleventh Century?’, in R. Samson (ed.),
Social Approaches to Viking Studies, Cruithne Press, Glasgow, 1991, pp. 147–56
McDougall, D., I. McDougall and P. Foote, Theodoricus Monachus: Historia de Antiquitate Regum
Norwagiensium, Viking Society for Northern Research, Text Series, XI, London, 1998
Mack, K., ‘Changing Thegns: Cnut’s Conquest and the English Aristocracy’, Albion, 16 (1984), pp. 375–87
— ‘The Stallers: Administrative Innovation in the Reign of Edward the Confessor’, Journal of Medieval
History 12 (1986), pp. 123–34
Madsen, H. J., ‘Introduction to Viking Århus’, in H. Bekker-Nielsen, P. Foote and O. Olsen (eds.), The
Proceedings of the Eighth Viking Congress, Århus, 24th–31st August 1977, Mediaeval Scandinavia
Supplements, 2, Odense University Press, 1981, pp. 69–72
Malmer, B., Nordiska Mynt fore År 1000, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8° Nr. 4, Lund, 1966
Marafioti, N., The King’s Body: Burial and Succession in Late Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon Series,
Toronto University Press 2014
Marten, L., ‘The Shiring of East Anglia: An Alternative Hypothesis’, Historical Research, 81 (2008), pp.
1–27
Mårtensson, A. W., ‘Gravar och Kyrkor’, in A. W. Mårtensson (ed.), Uppgrävt förflutet för PKbanken i
Lund. En Investering i Arkeologi, Archaeologica Lundensia: Investigationes de Antiquitatibus Urbis
Lundae, 7, Kulturhistoriska Museet, Lund, 1976, pp. 87–134
— (ed.), Uppgrävt förflutet för PKbanken i Lund. En Investering i Arkeologi, Archaeologica Lundensia:
Investigationes de Antiquitatibus Urbis Lundae 7, Kulturhistoriska museet, Lund, 1976
Marwood, G. W., The Stone Coffins of Bosham Church, privately published, Chichester, 1974
Mason, E., The House of Godwin: The History of a Dynasty, Hambledon, London/New York, 2004
Maund, K. L., ‘“A Turmoil of Warring Princes”: Political Leadership in Ninth-Century Denmark’, Haskins
Society Journal, 6 (1994), pp. 29–47
Melinikova, E., ‘The Baltic Policy of Jaroslav the Wise’, in U. Fransson et al. (eds.), Cultural Interaction
between East and West: Archaeology, Artefacts and Human Contacts in Northern Europe, Stockholm
Studies in Archaeology, 44, Stockholms Universitet, Stockholm, 2007, pp. 73–7
Metcalf, D. M., ‘Can We Believe the Very Large Figure of £72,000 for the Geld Levied by Cnut in 1018?’,
in K. Jonsson (ed.), Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage, Numismatiska Meddelanden, 35, Stockholm,
1990, pp. 165–76
Moberg, O., ‘The Battle of Helgeå’, Scandinavian Journal of History, 14 (1989), pp. 1–19
— Olav Haraldsson, Knut den Store och Sverige, Gleerup, Lund, 1941
Moltke, E., Runes and their Origin, Denmark and Elsewhere, Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, 1985
Molyneaux, G., The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century, Oxford University Press,
2015
Mortensen, L. B., ‘The Nordic Archbishoprics as Literary Centres around 1200’, in K. Friis-Jensen and I.
Skovgaard-Petersen (eds.), Archbishop Absalon of Lund and his World, Roskilde Museums Forlag,
2000
Naismith, R. G. R., ‘London and its Mint, c.800–1066: A preliminary Survey’, British Numismatic Journal,
83 (2013), pp. 44–74
Nelson, J. L., Charles the Bald, Longman, London, 1992
Nielsen, I., Middelalderbyen Ribe, Projekt Middelalderbyen, 1, Forlaget Centrum, Viby, 1985
Nielsen, J. N., ‘Sebbersund – Tidlige Kirker ved Limfjorden’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark
før 1050. Et Symposium i Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, 2004, pp. 103–22
Nielsen, L. C., ‘Hedenskab og Kristendom. Religionsskiftet Afspejlet i Vikingetidens Grave’, in P.
Mortensen and B. M. Rasmussen (eds.), Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark 2. Hovdingesamfund og
Kongemagt, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter, 22:2, Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 1991, pp. 245–67
— ‘Omgård: A Settlement from the Late Iron Age and the Viking Period in West Jutland’, Acta
Archaeologica, 50 (1979), pp. 173–208
— ‘Stormænd og bonder. Et Aktuelt Problem i Sydskandinavisk Vikingetid’, Kontaktstencil, 19 (1981), pp.
63–82
Nightingale, P., ‘The Origin of the Court of Husting and Danish Influence on London’s Development into a
Capital City’, English Historical Review, 102 (1987), pp. 559–78
Nilsson, B., ‘Vikings Deceased in England – Commemorated by Whom? Runic Memorials in Sweden’, in
J. Hill and M. Swann (eds.), The Community, the Family and the Saint: Patterns of Power in Early
Medieval Europe, Brepols, Turnhout, 1998, pp. 379–90
Okasha, E., ‘An Inscribed Anglo-Saxon Lid from Lund’, Medieval Archaeology, 28 (1984), pp. 181–3
Oleson, T. J., The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor: A Study in the Constitutional History
of Eleventh-Century England, Oxford University Press and Toronto University Press, London, 1955
Olrik, H., ‘Den Danske Biskop Tymme: (Thietmar) af Hildesheim’, Historisk Tidsskrift (Copenhagen),
Bind 6. række, 3 (1891–2), pp. 692–710
Olsen, O., ‘Sankt Ibs Kirke i Vindebode: Et Bidrag til Roskildes Ældste Historie’, in Fra Københavns Amt
1961 (1961), pp. 61–87
— ‘St Jørgensbjærg Kirke. Arkæologiske Undersøgelser i Murværk og Gulv’, Aarbøger for Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie. Udgivne af det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab 1960 (1961), pp. 1–71
Ortenberg, V., The English Church and the Continent in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1992
Owen-Crocker, G. R., ‘Pomp, Piety, and Keeping the Woman in her Place: The Dress of Cnut and Ælfgifu-
Emma’, in R. Netherton and G. R. Owen-Crocker (eds.), Medieval Clothing and Textiles, Boydell,
Woodbridge, 2005, pp. 41–52
Peckham, D. W., ‘The Bosham Myth of Canute’s Daughter’, Sussex Notes and Queries, 17 (1970), pp.
179–84
Pedersen, A., ‘Anglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea in the Eleventh Century: A Survey of the Danish
Archaeological Evidence’, in J. Adams and K. Holman (eds.), Scandinavia and Europe 800–1350:
Contact, Conflict and Coexistence, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe, 4, Brepols,
Turnhout, 2004, pp. 43–67
— ‘Jelling im 10. Jahrhundert – Alte Thesen, neue Ergebnisse’, in K. P. Hofmann, H. Kamp and M.
Wemhoff (eds.), Die Wikinger und das Fränkische Reich: Identitäten zwischen Konfrontation und
Annäherung, Wilhelm Frink, Paderborn, 2014, pp. 275–96
Pelteret, D. A. E., Catalogue of English Post-Conquest Vernacular Documents, Boydell, Woodbridge, 1990
Peterson, L., Nordiskt Runnamnslexikon, 5th edn, Institutet för Språk och Folkminnen, Uppsala, 2007;
online at http://www.sprakochfolkminnen.se/om-oss/publikationer/institutets-
utgivning/sprakpublikationer/namn/personnamn/personnamn/2013-11-24-nordiskt-
runnamnslexikon.html
Plummer, C. (ed.), Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1892–9
Poetry from Treatises on Poetics, in K. Gade and E. Marold (eds.), Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian
Middle Ages, Brepols, Turnhout, forthcoming Pons-Sans, S. M., Norse-Derived Vocabulary in Late Old
English Texts: Wulfstan’s Works, a Case Study, NOWELE Supplement Series, 22, University Press of
Southern Denmark, Odense, 2007
— ‘The “Conversion Verses” of Hallfreðr Vandræðaskáld’, Maal og Minne (2002), pp. 15–37
— ‘Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History: Some Aspects of the Period 1009–1016’, Speculum: A Journal
of Medieval Studies, 62 (1987), pp. 265–98
Poole, R. G., Viking Poems on War and Peace: A Study in Skaldic Narrative, Toronto Medieval Texts and
Translations, 8, University of Toronto Press, Toronto/Buffalo/London, 1991
Pratt, D., ‘Kings and Books in Anglo-Saxon England’, Anglo-Saxon England, 43 (2014), pp. 297–377
Previté-Orton, C. W., The Early History of the House of Savoy (1000–1233), Cambridge University Press,
1912
Raraty, D., ‘Earl Godwine of Wessex: The Origins of his Power and his Political Loyalties’, History, 74
(1989), pp. 3–19
Rasmusson, N. L., ‘An Overlooked Type of Coin from the Time of King Anund Jacob’, in N. L. Rasmusson
and L. O. Lagerqvist (eds.), Commentationes de Nummis Saeculorum IX–XI in Suecia Repertis,
Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens Handligar, Antikvariska Serien 19, Almqvist
& Wiksell, Stockholm, 1968, pp. 375–81
Refskou, N., ‘“In marca vel regno Danorum”’, Kirkehistoriske Samlinger (1985), pp. 19–33
— ‘Ottonernes Missionsvirksomhed’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før 1050. Et Symposium
i Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, 2004, pp. 28–42
Renardy, C., ‘Les Écoles ligeoises du IXe au XIIe siècle: grandes lignes de leur évolution’, Revue belge de
philologie et d’histoire, 57 (1979), pp. 309–28
Reynolds, L. D., Texts and Transmissions: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983
Roach, L., Æthelred the Unready, English Monarchs Series, Yale University Press, New Haven/London,
2016
— Kingship and Consent in Anglo-Saxon England, 871–978: Assemblies and the State in the Early Middle
Ages, Cambridge Studies of Medieval Life and Thought, 4th Series, Cambridge University Press, 2013
— ‘Aggersborg in the Viking Age’, in H. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.), The Proceedings of the Eighth Viking
Congress: Århus, 24–31 August 1977, Mediaeval Scandinavia Supplements, 2, Odense University
Press, 1981, pp. 107–22
— ‘Danish Geometrical Viking Fortresses and their Context’, Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the
Battle Conference, 9 (1986), pp. 209–26
— ‘English Connections in the Time of Knut the Great – Material from Viborg’, in U. Fransson et al. (eds.),
Cultural Interaction between East and West: Archaeology, Artefacts and Human Contacts in Northern
 Europe, Stockholm Studies in Archaeology, 44, Stockholms Universitet, 2007, pp. 276–8
Roesdahl, E., Fyrkat. En Jysk Vikingeborg II. Oldsagerne og Glavpladsen, Afdeling for Middelalder-og
Renæssancearkæologi, Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie B, in quarto, Copenhagen, 1977
— ‘En Gravplads fra Tidlig Kristen Tid – Fyrkat’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før 1050. Et
Symposium i Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, 2004, pp. 153–8
— ‘Hvornår blev Kirkerne Bygget?’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før 1050. Et Symposium i
Roskilde den 5–7 Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, 2004, pp. 201–6
— Viking Age Denmark, trans. S. Margeson and K. Williams, British Museum Publications, London, 1982
— et al., The Vikings in England and their Danish Homeland, catalogue for exhibition in Copenhagen,
Århus and York, The Anglo-Danish Viking Project, 1981
Rollason, D. W., The Mildreth Legend: A Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in England, Leicester
University Press, 1982
— (ed.), ‘Translatio Sancte Mildrethe Virginis’, Medieval Studies, 48 (1986), pp. 139–210
Rollason, L. (ed.), The Thorney Liber Vitae: London, British Library, Additional MS 40,000, fols. 1–12r,
Edition, Facsimile and Study, Boydell, Woodbridge, 2015
Ros, J., Sigtuna. Staden, Kyrkona och den Kyrkliga Organisationen, Occasional Papers in Archaeology,
Uppsala Universitet, Institutionen för Arkeologi och Antik Historia, 30, Uppsala, 2001
Sawyer, B., ‘Appendix: The Evidence of Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The
Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain,
Leicester University Press, London/New York, 1994, pp. 23–6
— ‘Viking-Age Rune-Stones as a Crisis Symptom’, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 24 (1991), pp. 97–
112
— ‘Adam and Eve of Scandinavian History’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), The Perception of the Past in Twelfth-
Century Europe, Hambledon, London, 1992, pp. 37–51
— and P. H. Sawyer, ‘A Gormless Dynasty: The Jelling Dynasty Revisited’, Runica-Germanica
Mediaevalia, 37 (2003), pp. 689–706
Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, Royal Historical Society
Guides and Handbooks, 8, Royal Historical Society, London, 1968
— ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, in A. R. Rumble (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark
and Norway, Studies in the Early History of Britain, Leicester University Press, London/New York,
1994, pp. 10–26
— ‘Knut, Sweden and Sigtuna’, in S. Tesch (ed.), Avstamp för en ny Sigtunaforskning. 18 Forskare om
Sigtuna. Heldagseminarium kring Sigtunaforskning den 26 November 1987, Gröna Laden, Sigtuna,
Komm. för Sigtunaforskning, Sigtuna Museer, Sigtuna, 1989, pp. 88–93
— ‘Konger og Kongemakt’, in P. Mortensen and B. M. Rasmussen (eds.), Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark 2.
Hovdingesamfund og Kongemagt, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter, 22:2, Aarhus Universitetsforlag,
1991, pp. 277–85
— The Making of Sweden, Viktoria Bokförlag, Alingsås, 1989 (later republished in Swedish as När Sverige
blev Sverige, 1991)
— ‘The Process of Scandinavian Christianization in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in B. Sawyer, P.
Sawyer and I. Wood (eds.), The Christianization of Scandinavia: Report of a Symposium held at
Kungälv, Sweden, 4–9 August 1985, Viktoria Bokförlag, Alsingsås, 1987, pp. 68–87
— ‘Swein Forkbeard and the Historians’, in I. Wood and G. A. Loud (eds.), Church and Chronicle in the
Middle Ages: Essays Presented to John Taylor, Hambledon, London/Rio Grande, 1991, pp. 27–40
— Textus Roffensis: Rochester Cathedral Library Manuscript A. 3. 5., Part I, Early English Texts in
Facsimile, 7, Rosenkilde and Bagger, Copenhagen, 1957
— The Wealth of Anglo-Saxon England, based on the Ford Lectures delivered in the University of Oxford in
Hilary Term 1993, Oxford University Press, 2013
Sharpe, R., ‘The Use of Writs in the 11th Century: A Hypothesis Based on the Archive of Bury St.
Edmunds’, Anglo-Saxon England, 32 (2004), pp. 247–91
Sigurdsson, J. V., Det Norrøne Samfunnet: Vikingen, Kongen, Erkebiskopen og Bonden, Pax Forlag, Oslo,
2008
Silvegren, U., ‘Mynten från Uppåkra’, in B. Hårdh (ed.), Fynden i Centrum: Keramik, Glas och Metal från
Uppåkra, Uppåkrastudier, 2, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8° 30, Almqvist & Wiksell
International, Häftad, 1999, pp. 95–112
Snook, B., The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: The History, Language and Production of Anglo-Saxon Charters
from Alfred to Edgar, Boydell, Woodbridge, 2015
Sprockel, C., The Language of the Parker Chronicle. Vol. I, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1965
Staats, R., Theologie der Reichskrone: Ottonische “Renovatio Imperii” im Speigel einer Insignie,
Monographen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters,13, Hiersemann, Stuttgart, 1976
— ‘The Laws of Cnut and the History of Anglo-Saxon Royal Promises’, Anglo-Saxon England, 10 (1982),
pp. 173–90
Stafford, P., Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women’s Power in Eleventh-Century England,
Blackwell, Oxford, 1997
— ‘The Reign of Æthelred II: A Study in the Limitations on Royal Policy and Action’, in D. Hill (ed.),
Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, BAR British Series, 59, 1978, pp. 15–46
Steindorff, E., Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich III, Dunder & Humblot, Leipzig, 1839–95
Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971
Stevenson, W. H., ‘An Alleged Son of King Harold Harefoot’, English Historical Review, 28 (1913), pp.
112–17
Ström, F., ‘Poetry as an Instrument of Propaganda: Jarl Hákon and his Poets’, in U. Dronke, Guðrún P.
Helgadóttir, G. W. Weber and H. Bekker-Nielsen (eds.), Specvlvm Norroenvm: Norse Studies in
Memory of Gabriel Turville-Petre, Odense University Press, 1981, pp. 440–58
Stumman Hansen, S., and K. Randsborg (eds.), Vikings in the West, Acta Archaeologica, 71, Acta
Archaeologica Supplementa II, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 2000
Syrett, M., The Vikings in England: The Evidence of Runic Inscriptions, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic
Guides, Texts and Studies, 4, Cambridge University Press, 2002
Talvio, T., ‘Harold I and Harthacnut’s Jewel Cross Type Reconsidered’, in M. A. S. Blackburn (ed.), Anglo-
Saxon Monetary History: Essays in Memory of Michael Dolley, Leicester University Press, 1986, 273–
90
Taranger, A., ‘De Norske Folkelovbøker (før 1263) – I’, Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskap, ny. række V, 39
(1926), pp. 183–211
— ‘De Norske Folkelovbøker (før 1263) – II’, Tidsskrift for Retsvidenskap, ny. række V, 41 (1928), pp. 1–
68
Thaastrup-Leith, A. K., ‘Traekirker i det Middelalderlige Danmark indtil ca. 1100. Hvornår blev de
Bygget?’, in N. Lund (ed.), Kristendommen i Danmark før 1050. Et Symposium i Roskilde den 5–7
Februar 2003, Roskilde Museums Forlag, 2004, pp. 207–14
Thomson, R. M., William of Malmesbury, Boydell, Woodbridge, 2003
Townend, M., ‘Contextualising the Knútsdrápur: Skaldic Praise-Poetry at the Court of Cnut’, Anglo-Saxon
England, 30 (2001), pp. 145–79
— ‘Knútr and the Cult of St Óláfr: Poetry and Patronage in Eleventh-Century Norway and England’, Viking
and Medieval Scandinavia, 1 (2005), pp. 251–79
— ‘Whatever Happened to York Viking Poetry? Memory, Tradition and the Transmission of Skaldic
Verse’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 27 (2003), pp. 48–90
Treharne, E., Living through Conquest: The Politics of Early English, 1020–1220, Oxford Textual
Perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2012
— ‘The Performance of Piety: Cnut, Rome, and England’, in F. Tinti (ed.), England and Rome in the Early
Middle Ages: Pilgrimage, Art, and Politics, Studies in the Early Middle Ages, Brepols, Turnhout, 2014,
pp. 343–61
Trillmich, W., Kaiser Konrad II und seine Zeit, Europa Union Verlag, Bonn, 1991
Tschan, F. J. (trans.), History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen by Adam of Bremen, Columbia
University Press, New York, 1959, reprinted 2002
Uspenskij, F., ‘Dynastic Names in Medieval Scandinavia and Russia (Rus’): Family Traditions and
International Connections’, Studia Anthroponomica Scandinavica, 21 (2003), pp. 15–50
Vince, A. G., Saxon London: An Archaeological Investigation, Seaby, London, 1990
Vincent, N., Peter des Roches: An Alien in English Politics 1205–1238, Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Life and Thought, Cambridge University Press, 2002
Weibull, C., Saxo: Kritiska Undersökningar i Danmarks Historia från Sven Estridsens Död till Knut VI,
Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund, 1915
Weibull, L., Kritiska Undersökningar i Nordens Historia omkring År 1000, Gleerup, Lund, 1911
Weidhagen-Hallerdt, M., ‘St Clemens Kyrka i Helsingborg’, in A. Andrén (ed.), Medeltiden och
Arkeologin. Festskrift till Erik Cinthio, Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology, 1, Lund Universitets
Historiska Museum, 1986, pp. 131–43
Whitelock, D., ‘Archbishop Wulfstan, Homilist and Statesman’, Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society, 4th Series, 24 (1942), pp. 25–45
— ‘The Dealings of the Kings of England with Northumbria in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in P.
Clemoes (ed.), The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in Some Aspects of their History and Culture Presented to
Bruce Dickins, Bowes and Bowes, London, 1959, pp. 70–88
— ‘Scandinavian Personal Names in the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society
for Northern Research, 12 (1937–45), pp. 127–53
— ‘Wulfstan and the Laws of Cnut’, English Historical Review, 63 (1948), pp. 433–52
— ‘Wulfstan’s Authorship of Cnut’s Laws’, English Historical Review, 70 (1955), pp. 72–85
Wilcox, J., ‘Wulfstan’s Sermo Lupi ad Anglos as Political Performance: 16 February 1014 and Beyond’, in
M. Townend (ed.), Wulfstan, Archbishop of York: The Proceedings of the Second Alcuin Conference,
Brepols, Turnhout, 2004, pp. 375–96
Williams, A., Æthelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King, Hambledon, London/New York, 2003
— ‘“Cockles amongst the Wheat”: Danes and English in the Western Midlands in the First Half of the
Eleventh Century’, Midland History, 11 (1986), pp. 1–22
— The English and the Norman Conquest, Boydell, Woodbridge, 1997
— ‘The King’s Nephew: The Family and Career of Ralph Earl of Hereford’, in C. Harper-Bill, C. J.
Holdsworth and J. L. Nelson (eds.), Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen Brown, Boydell,
Woodbridge, 1989, pp. 327–44
— ‘Land and Power in the Eleventh Century: The Estates of Harold Godwineson’, Proceedings of the
Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, 3 (1980), pp. 171–8 and 230–4
— Land, Power and Politics: The Family and Career of Odda of Deerhurst, Deerhurst Lecture 1996,
Deerhurst, 1997
— ‘A Place in the Country: Orc of Abbotsbury and Tole of Tolpuddle, Dorset’, in R. Lavelle and S. Roffey
(eds.), Danes in Wessex: The Scandinavian Impact on Southern England, c.800–c.1100, Oxbow,
Oxford/Philadelphia, PA, 2016, pp. 158–71
— ‘The Spoilation of Worcester’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 19 (1996), pp. 383–408
— ‘Thorkell the Tall and the Bubble Reputation: The Vicissitudes of Fame’, in R. Lavelle and S. Roffey
(eds.), Danes in Wessex: The Scandinavian Impact on Southern England, c.800–c.1100, Oxbow,
Oxford/Philadelphia, PA, 2016, pp. 144–57
— ‘A West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century: The Family, Estates and Patronage of Beorhtric,
Son of Ælfgar’, in K. S. B. Keats-Rohan (ed.), Family Trees and the Roots of Politics: The
Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century, Boydell, Woodbridge,
1997, pp. 41–68
Wilson, D. M. and O. Klindt-Jensen, Viking Art, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1966
Winroth, A., The Conversion of Scandinavia: Vikings, Merchants, and Missionaries in the Remaking of
Northern Europe, Yale University Press, New Haven/London, 2012
Wolfram, H., Conrad II 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms, trans. D. A. Kaiser, Pennsylvania State
University Press, University Park, PA, 2006
Woods, D., ‘The Agnus Dei Penny of King Æthelred II: A Call to Hope in the Lord (Isaiah LX)?’, Anglo-
Saxon England, 42 (2013), pp. 299–309
Wormald, F., The Bendictional of St. Ethelwold, Faber & Faber, London, 1959
— ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, in D. Hill (ed.), Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary
Conference, BAR British Series, 59, 1978, pp. 47–80
Wormald, P., The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century. Vol. 1: Legislation and its
Limits, Oxford University Press, 1999
Wright, C. E., The Cultivation of Saga in Anglo-Saxon England, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1939
Yorke, B., Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, Routledge, London/New York, 1990
 INDEX

Abingdon Abbey (i), (ii)

Adaldag, archbishop (i), (ii)
Agemund, settler in Dorset (i), (ii)
Anund Jakob, king of part of Sweden (i)
Archbishop of Canterbury (see also Lyfing and Æthelnoth) (i), (ii), (iii)
Archbishop of York (see also Wulfstan and Ælfric ‘puttoc’) (i), (ii)
Ashingdon/Assandun, battle of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
Azor Thoredsson (see also Thored, son of Azor) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Arnórr jarlaskáld, skaldic poet (i), (ii), (iii)
Ælfgar mæw, royal minister (i), (ii)
Ælfgifu of Northampton, wife of Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii)
Ælfhelm, earl of Northumbria (i)
Ælfhun, bishop of London (i)
Ælfmær, abbot of St Augustine’s, Canterbury (i)
Ælfmær deorling (i)
Ælfnoth, moneyer in Denmark (i)
Ælfric ‘puttoc’, archbishop of York (i)
Ælfweard, abbot of Evesham, later bishop of London (i)
Ælfweard, moneyer in Denmark (i)
Ælfwig, bishop of London (i), (ii)
Ælfwine, possible son of Harold Harefoot (i)
Ælfwine, abbot of New Minster, Winchester (i)
Ælfwine, moneyer in Lund (i)
Æthelmær, ealdorman of western Wessex (i), (ii), (iii)
Æthelnoth, archbishop of Canterbury (i), (ii), (iii)
Æthelred ‘the Unready’, king of England (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii),
(xiv)
Æthelweard, ealdorman of western Wessex (i), (ii), (iii)
Æthelweard mæw (i), (ii), (iii),
Æthelwine, bishop of Wells (i)
Århus, Jutland (i)

Beorhtred, moneyer in Slagelse (i)

Beorhtric mæw, royal official and son of Ælfgar mæw (i), (ii), (iii)
Bernhard, bishop of Skåne (i)
Bersi Torfuson, skaldic poet (i)
Biorn, earl of Huntingdonshire and brother of King Swen Estrithsson of Denmark (i)
Bjarni Gullbrárskáld, skaldic poet (i), (ii)
Bolesław I ‘Chrobry’, Piast ruler of Poland (i), (ii)
Bovi, huscarl and settler in Dorset (i), (ii)
Brihtwine, bishop of Sherborne (i)
Brihtwine, bishop of Wells (i)
Brothor, settler in East Anglia (i)

Christ Church, Canterbury (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)

Cologne (i), (ii), (iii)
Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Crowland Abbey (i)

Deerhurst (i), (ii)

Duduc (i)

Eadric streona, royal minister (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii)
Eadwig, brother of Edmund ‘Ironside’ (i)
Eadwig ‘the ceorl’s king’ (i), (ii)
Edmund ‘Ironside’, son of King Æthelred (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Edmund, son of Edmund ‘Ironside’ (i)
Edward, son of Edmund ‘Ironside’ (i)
Edward the Confessor, king of England (i), (ii)
Eiríkr of Hlaðir, earl of Northumbria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii)
Eilaf, earl within Mercia and probable brother of Jarl Ulf (i), (ii), (iii)
Einarr Þambarskelfir, , Norwegian magnate (i)
Ekkihard (or Esico), bishop of Hedeby-Schleswig (i), (ii)
Ely Abbey (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Emma, queen of England and successively wife of King Æthelred and Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii),
(viii)
Erlingr Skjálgsson, Norwegian magnate (i)
Esbiorn, brother of King Swen Estrithsson of Denmark (i), (ii)
Esgar, grandson of Tovi pruða (i)
Estrith, sister of Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Evesham Abbey (i)

Fulbert, bishop of Chartres (i), (ii)

Gerbrand, bishop of Roskilde (i), (ii)

Glastonbury Abbey (i), (ii)
Godwine, earl (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii)
Godwine, moneyer in Denmark (i), (ii)
Gottschalk, Slavic prince (i)
Gregory VII, Pope (i)
Grimkell, bishop in Norway (i)
Gunhild, daughter of Cnut, and later wife to Emperor Conrad II’s son, Henry (i), (ii),
Gytha, sister of Cnut, married Eiríkr of Hlaðir (i), (ii)
Gytha, wife of Earl Godwine (i), (ii), (iii)

Halfdan, settler in Kent (i), (ii)

Hallvarðr Háreksblesi, skaldic poet (i), (ii), (iii)
Hamburg-Bremen, archbishopric of (i), (ii)
Harald, brother of Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii)
Harald Gormsson, grandfather of Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Harald Thorkelsson, probable son of Thorkell the Tall (i), (ii)
Haraldr Hardráði, king of Norway (i)
Harold Harefoot, son of Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
Harthacnut, son of Cnut (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix)
Hedeby-Schleswig (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Helgeå, battle of (i), (ii), (iii)
Helsingborg, Skåne (i)
Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor (i)
Hemming, Jarl of Skåne (i)
Hranig, earl within Mercia (i)
Hákon Eiríksson of Hlaðir, earl within Mercia, son of Eiríkr of Hlaðir (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Hárekr of Þiotta, Norwegian magnate (i), (ii)
Hørning, Jutland (i)

Ilja of Novgorod (i)

Imperial coronation of Conrad II (i), (ii)

Jaroslav the Wise, Grand Prince of Russia (i)

Jelling (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
John XV, Pope (i)

Kartoca, settler in Kent (i), (ii)

Knut ‘the Holy’, king of Denmark (i)
Kristian, bishop of Ribe (i)
Kálfr Árnarson, Norwegian magnate (i), (ii)

Lejre, Sjælland (i)

Leo, bishop of Trevi (i)
Leofric, earl (i), (ii), (iii)
Leofwine, earl of Mercia and father of Earl Leofric (i), (ii), (iii)
Leofwine, moneyer in Lund (i), (ii), (iii)
Liber Vitae (Durham) (i)
Liber Vitae (New Minster, Winchester) (i)
Liber Vitae (Thorney Abbey) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Liège (i)
London (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii)
Lund, Skåne (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii)
Lyfing, archbishop of Canterbury (i), (ii)
Lyfing, abbot of Tavistock and later bishop of Devon (i), (ii)

Magnús, king of Norway and son of Ólafr Haraldsson (i), (ii), (iii)
Matilda, aunt to Emperor Conrad II (i)
Mieszko I, Piast ruler of Poland (i)
Mieszko II, son of Bolesław I and Piast ruler of Poland (i)
Morcar, one of chief thegns of the ‘Seven Boroughs’ (i), (ii)

Nafena, brother of Northmann, landowner near Durham (i)

New Minster, Winchester, the abbey of (i), (ii)
Northmann, son of Ealdorman Leofwine (i)
Odda, royal minister and subsequently earl (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Odense, Funen (i)
Old Minster, Winchester, the abbey of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Olof skotkonungr, king of part of Sweden (i)
Ordgar, associate of Odda (i), (ii)
Osgot clapa, royal minister (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
Othinkar ‘the elder’, missionary bishop in Denmark (i)
Othinkar ‘the younger’, bishop of Ribe (i), (ii), (iii)
Óláfr Haraldsson, king of Norway (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii)
Óláfr Tryggvason, king of Norway (i), (ii), (iii)
Óttar keptr (or Óðarkeftr/*Óttarr keptr), skaldic poet (i)
Óttar svarti, skaldic poet (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)

Poppo, missionary in Denmark (i), (ii)

Ramsey Abbey (i), (ii), (iii)

Reginbert, bishop of Funen (i)
Relics, use and giving of (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v),
Ribe, Jutland (i)
Richard II, duke of Normandy (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Ringforts (i)
Ringsted, Sjælland (i)
Roskilde, Sjælland (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Rudolf, bishop of Hedeby-Schleswig (i)
Rycheza, daughter of Ezzo, count palatinate of Lotharingia (i)

St Augustine’s, Canterbury, abbey of (i), (ii)

Santslave, sister of Cnut (i)
Sebbersund, Jutland (i)
Sherborne, abbey of (i), (ii), (iii)
Sherston, battle of (i), (ii), (iii)
Sigeferth, one of the chief thegns of the ‘Seven Boroughs’ (i), (ii)
Sigerich (or Sigtrygg), ruler of region around Hedeby-Schleswig (i),
Sigvatr Þórðarson, skaldic poet (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi)
Siward, earl of Northumbria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
Slagelse, Jutland (i)
Strut-Harald, Jarl of Skåne (i), (ii)
Styr, royal minister to Cnut’s sons (i)
Styr Ulfsson, landowner in northern England (i), (ii)
Sveinn Hákonarson, Jarl of Hlaðir and brother of Eiríkr of Hlaðir (i), (ii), (iii)
Sviatopolk, brother of Jaroslav ‘the Wise’ (i)
Swen, ruler of Norway and son of Cnut (i), (ii)
Swen Estrithsson, king of Denmark (i), (ii), (iii)
Swen ‘Forkbeard’, king of Denmark and briefly of England (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)

Thored, landowner in Kent and probable settler (i)

Thored, son of Azor (i), (ii), (iii)
Þórarinn Loftunga, skaldic poet (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v)
Þórir hundr, Norwegian magnate (i), (ii)
Þórðr Kolbeinsson, skaldic poet (i), (ii), (iii)
Þórðr Sigvaldaskáld, skaldic poet and father of Sigvatr Þórðarson (i), (ii)
Thorkell the Tall, earl of East Anglia (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii)
Thorkell of Harringworth, landholder in East Anglia (i), (ii)
Thorkell Hoga, landowner in East Anglia and probable settler (i)
Thorney Abbey (i), (ii)
Thurbrand the Hold (i), (ii), (iii)
Thurstan, landowner in East Anglia and probable settler (i), (ii)
Tovi pruða, royal minister (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)
Tryggvi, apparent son of Óláfr Tryggvason and pretender to Norwegian throne (i)

Uhtred, earl of Bamburgh (i), (ii), (iii)

Ulf, jarl of Denmark and probable brother of Earl Eilaf (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii),
Ulfcetel, de facto ruler of East Anglia (i), (ii)
Ulric Manfred II of Turin (i)
Unwan, archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen (i), (ii)
Uppåkra, Skåne (i)
Urk, huscarl and royal minister (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)

Viborg, Jutland (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)

William V, duke of Aquitaine (i)

Wrystleof dux (garbled charter witness, perhaps Slavic name Vratislav) (i)
Wulfnoth, abbot of Westminster (i)
Wulfric Spott, brother of Earl Ælfhelm of Northumbria (i), (ii)
Wulfstan, archbishop of York (i), (ii), (iii)
Wyrtgeorn (garbled name), king of the Wends, brother-in-law to Cnut (i)