69
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
Introduction
Erich Hoffmann saw royal saints’ cults among
the Scandinavian peoples as a means of limiting
legitimacy to a specific branch of the ruling house;
the cult of St. Knud Lavard of Denmark, who was
killed in 1131, might be seen as an example of this,
as through it his descendants ultimately came to be
the only rulers able to claim the throne (Hoffmann
1975:210), though there were a series of challenges
to them in the later twelfth century. Unlike this
Knud, his namesake, the Danish King Knud the
Holy (1080–1086), had no descendants who were to
rule in Denmark; after his murder (or martyrdom)
at the hands of an angry mob in St. Alban’s Church
in Odense in 1086, the throne passed to three of his
brothers in succession. His Flemish wife, Adela,
daughter of Count Robert the Frisian, fled to her
homeland on Knud’s death with their son Charles,
who would succeed his cousin Baldwin VII as Count
of Flanders in 1119, and the Folkung kings of Sweden
were descended from Knud and Adela through
their daughter, Ingegerd (Gallén 1985:59). But in
neither case was Knud’s sanctity seen to justify their
rule (though his son Charles did make use of it in his
personal title in charters; Esmark 2009:24). Many
other scholars have examined the political purposes
to which Knud’s cult might have been used, such as
strengthening the royalty against rebellious nobles
(Riis 1977:198, Skyum-Nielsen 1971:16), establishing
an image of vigorous, Christian kingship (Koch
1963:85–92), and creating an independent Danish
archbishopric (Christensen et al. 1977:259). However,
since Carsten Breengaard’s thesis Muren om
Israels Hus, the emphasis has been on the role and
interests of the clergy. In Breengaard’s (1982:122–
49) interpretation, the clergy established the cult in
order to protect itself within a violent society by prohibiting
the killing of the king, a figure it recognized
as its necessary and most effective protector. In this
article, I do not wish so much to challenge this interpretation
but rather to examine the potential roles
played by intra-dynastic strife both in Knud’s reign
and in the early phase of his cult.
Intra-dynastic strife in Denmark
The Danish kingdom (or kingdoms) experienced
periods of joint rule in the ninth and tenth centuries,
but from the time of Harald Bluetooth (ob. c. 986),
it has generally been seen as indivisible. However,
a less settled history lies under this veneer: that
Harald, who in his famous runestone boasted of
having “won all Denmark for himself”, ended his
days in exile following a rebellion by his own son,
Sven Forkbeard (AB II.xxvii:87). Sven’s own sons
Harald and Cnut (later the Great)1 were alleged to
have discussed the possibility of dividing Denmark
before Harald’s death in 1018 (EE II.i–ii:14–18),
and Cnut the Great’s own sons, although only one
ever ruled in Denmark, quarrelled over and divided
England (ASC E 1036 [=1035]:76). When Cnut the
Great’s last surviving son died in 1042 with no heirs,
Denmark was fought over by the Norwegian King
Magnus the Good and Cnut the Great’s nephew,
Sven Estridsen. Although Sven enjoyed a long and
distinguished reign as sole king after Magnus’ death
in 1047, he left behind, due to what Adam of Bremen
called his incontinentia mulierum (“inability to
restrain himself as far as women were concerned”),2
as many as fourteen sons on his death in 1076 (AB
III.xxi, with Scholion 72:164). It is worth remembering
that at this time that Scandinavian societies
had no established principles of primogeniture or of
the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate
birth. In a case such as Sven’s, this lack of accepted
procedure could lead to difficulties (Hoffmann
1976:26–33).
Although evidence is sparse in this period, we are
fortunate enough to possess two tidbits which reveal
that the thought of a division of the kingdom was
still a real possibility: an anonymous skaldic verse
preserved in Knýtlinga saga reports that Harald had
Across the Sólundarhaf: Connections between Scotland and the Nordic World
Selected Papers from the Inaugural St. Magnus Conference 2011
Journal of the North Atlantic
*Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 9 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DP, England:
pmg38@cam.ac.uk.
2013 Special Volume 4:69–76
Anglo-Danish Connections and the Origins of the Cult of Knud
Paul Gazzoli*
Abstract - This article examines two aspects of St. Knud, King of Denmark (1080–1086), in life and death. During his
lifetime, it examines the evidence for the role possibly played by intra-dynastic strife in his downfall. After his death, it
examines the early origins of his cult and his brother and successor Erik Ejegod’s (1095–1103) connections to England, and
argues that Erik visited Durham and Evesham personally, probably early in his reign, and took up the cause of promoting
his brother’s cult from early on. The possibilities of Erik’s involvement before becoming king are examined.
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
70
to defend his land from eleven of his brothers, and a
papal letter addressed to King Olav Kyrre of Norway
in 1078 requested the king to use his influence to
effect a peaceful reconciliation between the Danish
king and his brothers, whom the Pope had heard
were attempting to force him to a division of the
kingdom (Skj AI:427, BI:397; Gade 2009 II:826–7;
DD I.2:18).
As far as we can tell, no division resulted, but it
was clearly considered a possibility. After Harald’s
death in 1080 the throne passed to his brother Knud,
whose reign was ended by a revolt in 1086. After
the revolt, Knud’s brother Oluf took the throne.
His reign was plagued by famine, which was attributed
to divine anger at the slaying of Knud, and
when he died in 1095, he was replaced by another
brother, Erik. In the same year, Knud’s remains
were elevated, and he was proclaimed a saint. Erik
did much to foster the cult of his brother, including
arranging for the importation of Benedictine monks
from England to establish a monastery at Odense
and journeying to Rome to acquire Papal approval
for Knud’s canonization.
This is the most obscure period in the history
of the Danish kingdom since its emergence under
Harald Bluetooth. Adam of Bremen's work, which
gives us a lively portrait of King Sven, stops at
1072; we cannot help but feel the lack of such a
source for the reigns of his sons. Sven Aggesen
and Saxo wrote over a century later, and Knýtlinga
saga did not come into being until c. 1250. Closer
to the time at hand, we have the Roskilde Chronicle
from 1138 (Kristensen 1969:41), potentially within
living memory of the events, and the hagiographic
material from Odense, written between 1095 and the
second decade of the twelfth century (Gelting 2011;
J. Grove, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK,
pers. comm.). By way of contemporary sources, we
have coinage and Knud’s charter of 1085 to Lund
Cathedral (DD I.2:21).
The Reign of Knud
When Knud assumed the throne in 1080, he ruled
the country in its entirety, as Harald had before. But
by the end of his reign, a regional disparity becomes
apparent, first of all in coins. The coinage of Denmark
had begun in earnest under Cnut the Great and
was modelled on the Anglo-Saxon system, under
which the minting of coins was a royal monopoly
and coins had to be exchanged at regular intervals
for newer mintings. By the time of Knud’s predecessor
Harald, the system had become advanced enough
that, for the first time ever, the majority of currency
used in Denmark was official Danish coins (Christensen
et al. 1977:242). An unexplained peculiarity
of the system is that the coins minted in western
Denmark were always lighter than those in the eastern
half; under Knud, the discrepancy became even
more pronounced, with not only the fineness but
also the weight of coins decreasing from 0.76 g to
0.56 g (Jensen 1995:120; Venge 2002:26, 32; Galster
1934:129–36). Although this was undoubtedly
at least in part attributable to a general shortage
of silver in northern Europe (Hybel and Poulsen
2007:329–30), it was not popular. In fact, such a dramatic
change was likely seen as an attempt to abuse
the royal privilege of minting (especially as the
coins of eastern Denmark remained less debased);
when the coins were exchanged as required by law,
nearly one third of the silver of western Denmark
was effectively confiscated by the Crown. This historical
information lends credibility to the account
of Ælnoth, who reported that the revolt which cost
Knud his life broke out in Jutland on account of
heavy taxation and a claim that tax collectors were
using faulty weights so that “they allowed the worth
of unciae barely to reach the value of a solidus” (“regalium
negociorum executores siue exactores plus
iusto in causis exaggerandis insistere, staterarum
pondera adaugere, rerum quarumque precia uilipendere
et, ut uulgariter edisseram, unciarum ualentiam
uix solidi precio admittere” ...) (VSD:102). It is easy
to see how this report could be derived from the debasement
of the coinage.
While he debased the coinage in western Denmark,
Knud showed generosity to churches in Sjælland
and Skåne, notably Lund, to which his charter
has survived (DD I.2:21). The anonymous Passio
from the last five years of the eleventh century records
that he was also generous to the churches of
Roskilde and Dalby (VSD:65), which like Lund lie
in the eastern half of the country. Together with his
debasement of the coinage in the west, these records
suggest that Knud’s interests and base of power may
have lain in the eastern half of the kingdom, and indeed
Saxo records that the people of Skåne were the
most devoted to him and chose him over his brother
Harald in the national assembly to choose the king in
1076 (GD XI.x.12 II:34). Although the later Knýtlinga
saga records that Knud had difficulties with the
peasants of Skåne (Bjarni Guðnason 1982:145–7),
this episode seems more designed to show the king’s
wisdom in overcoming an obstacle—as indeed would
suit it if it was based on an earlier saga of St. Knud
(ibid:cxiii–cxxxiv), fitting in with other such early
Icelandic saintly-royal biographies such as Játmundar
saga, which are more concerned with the spiritual
than historical truth and are often clearly confused
in their details (cf. Haki Antonson, in press). This is
not to suggest that there was a transfer of wealth from
one part of the kingdom to another—although it is
71
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
possible that it seemed that way to some in the west
of Denmark, and Ælnoth’s text’s correspondence to
the debasement of coinage suggests that there was a
good deal of grumbling going on.
I would like to suggest that Knud’s charter may
also hint at internal differences within the kingdom
in another way: in the opening of the charter, Knud
calls himself the fourth son of King Sven. Although
the phrase has traditionally been read as “Knud the
Fourth, son of King Sven”, and scholars have rather
unsatisfactorily attempted to justify this ordinal
which has become traditional,3 Birger Bergh made a
case for the reading “Knud, the fourth son of King
Sven”: the only difference in the Latin occurs in
punctuation, and indeed the two oldest copies of the
charter (from around 1123 and 1494) place a point
after “Knud”, which suggests that this is how the
phrase was interpreted then (Bergh 1988:40–1).4
In nomine sanctę et individuę Trinitatis. patris et
filii et spiritus sancti.
Notum omnibus in Christo fidelibus esse cupimus.
qualiter ego Cnvto. quartus Magni regis filius. post
susceptum paternę hereditatis regnum. ecclesiam
sancti Lavrentii. quę sita est Lundę. licet nondum
perfectam dotaui (DD I.2:21).
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity. Of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We desire it to be known amongst all faithful to
Christ, how I, Cnut, the fourth son of King Magnus
(i.e., Sven Estridsen, his baptismal name), having
taken up the kingdom inherited from my father,
have endowed the Church of St. Laurence, which
is at Lund, although not yet completed.
The question this raises is why Knud should
choose to emphasize this point. Unfortunately, we
have no other charters of Knud to compare it with
so we cannot see it diverging from any established
practice. The use of the numeral “fourth” was seen
as an imitation of German charters of the Emperor
Heinrich IV (Fritz 1988:32, Weibull 1941:131),
but this of course no longer works with the reading
above. But as the earliest sources indicate that seniority
was a generally agreed if not strictly codified
principle for how Sven’s sons should succeed one
another (WM III.cclxi.1 I:480, Krause 1985:256,
VSD:90, cf. Hoffmann 1976:33), the numeral may
suggest that Knud wanted to emphasize his precedence
over a younger brother or brothers who were
attempting to remove him.
In fact, just such a situation arose in 1085, a
few months after the charter was issued. Knud had
planned a massive expedition to England in the
summer of that year, which failed to set out because
Knud was in Schleswig, probably due to tensions
with the German Emperor caused by the flight of the
anti-king Hermann von Salm and some of his allies
to Denmark (Nass 2006:476). The men grew restless
at being called away from their own affairs and discouraged
as they ate their way through the supplies
which were supposed to see them through the seavoyage
and initial campaigns until they could forage
(Malmros 2005:368–9); eventually Knud’s brother
Oluf arrived at Schleswig as a spokesman demanding
that Knud either set out with the fleet at once
or else appoint a different leader for the expedition
(VSD:100).5
If discontent had existed earlier, as would have
been entirely probable over high taxation and debasement
of coinage, there may have been a plot to
drive Knud out of the kingdom and install Oluf, or
possibly to divide the kingdom, as was threatened
in the days of Knud’s predecessor Harald.6 If either
of these was the case, it would explain why Knud
would want to emphasize his precedence in his charter.
The events of the following year, when Knud lost
his life to an angry mob on the 10th of July, could
thus be understood not as a spontaneous outbreak
of mass fury but part of a longer history of events.
First, Oluf took advantage of discontent over Knud’s
debasement of the coinage, higher levels of taxation
and other demands to support the English expedition
of 1085 in order to attempt to remove his brother or
possibly divide the kingdom. Second, Knud failed
to set out on the expedition, further angering the
men, and Oluf presented their case to Knud, possibly
together with his own demands. Third, Knud
imprisoned Oluf and disbanded the fleet. Fourth, in
the next year, open revolt drove Knud from Jutland
as he journeyed around it (as part of itinerant kingship)
and on to Fyn, where he was killed. Fifth, the
rebels had Oluf released and proclaimed him king.
Oluf’s reign lasted until 1095, and Denmark
suffered famine at least in 1086 and 1087, though
it was later recalled as lasting for his entire reign
(Gelting 2011:35; ASC E 1085 [=1086]:94–5, 1086
[=1087]:95; Gertz 1917–1922 I:24). Scandinavians
of the time often responded to famine by attacking
Christian clergy and women believed to be witches;
a report of this reached Pope Gregory VII, probably
via a Danish clergyman, in 1080, and he wrote a letter
to Knud’s elder brother Harald urging him to curb
the practice (DD I.2:20). According to the Roskilde
Chronicle, Bishop Sven “the Norwegian” of Roskilde
predicted the famine as divine punishment immediately
after the death of Knud (Gertz 1917–1922
I:24), which may have been a way to deflect blame
from the clergy (Breengaard 1982:159–62).
By 1095 at any rate, the Danes seem to have
placed the blame on King Oluf. This is the point at
which the cult of Knud first appears. Our earliest
source, the anonymous Passio, probably written
in 1095 or 1096 but certainly no later than 1101
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
72
(Gertz 1907:66), immediately associates the cult
with Oluf’s downfall; just as Oluf was released from
prison in Flanders when Knud died, so, it says, Oluf
died the moment when Knud’s relics were elevated
(VSD:71). It is worth noting that the author of the
Passio uses the first person when describing the
elevation, implying that he was present in Odense in
1095, and thus his view of the matter is contemporary.
From a theological angle, this is part of the portrayal
of Knud’s martyrdom as similar to the death
and resurrection of Christ; when Christ died, Satan
seemed to have triumphed, but was vanquished
when Christ rose again (Gertz 1907:70–1), although
in fact Oluf’s death seems to have occurred several
months after the elevation (Esmark 2010:195,
Weibull 1923:84). However, this fact does not preclude
a politically charged reading of the passage;
indeed, the willingness to have Oluf take the part
of Satan suggests that there could have been little
sympathy for him on any level.
Erik in England
What I wish to examine at this point is whether
we can cast any further light on the circumstances of
Oluf’s death and Erik’s rise to power. Ælnoth records
that Erik had accompanied Knud to Odense where he
was to die, along with two other brothers, though
there is no mention of his taking part in the fighting
(VSD:113). It is reasonable to assume that he went
into exile following on this: Saxo records that he
went to Sweden, probably with Knud’s daughters
(GD XI.xiv.16 II:58, XII.iii.1 II:66). Skaldic verse,
in particular Markús Skeggjason’s Eiríksdrápa, recalls
that Erik was well travelled, and in the course
of his life visited Russia, Rome, and Constantinople.
Neither these verses nor the later written traditions
recall any trips to England, but one (or more) could
certainly not be ruled out for such an avid traveller.
Here I would like to advance evidence that Erik did
visit England.
As far as hard evidence of Erik’s presence in
England is concerned, we have the commemoration
of him and his wife Bothild in the Liber vitae Dunelmensis,
the book of names of members of Durham’s
monastic community and the outside figures who
had been granted confraternity, that is were to be
prayed for as if they were members (LVD, fo. 55v
I:159).7 While the presence of the name has been
remarked upon before, it has been overlooked that
the acquisition of confraternity would have required
Erik’s personal presence. According to the Constitutions
of Lanfranc, if a secular person petitioned for
confraternity,
ante abbatem uel iuxta abbatem, si honorabilis
persona sit, sedeat; postea ostensa eius petitione
fratribus, per textum euangelii societatem suscipiat;
dehinc ad osculandum fratres, si mulier
non sit, in circumitu pergat. (Knowles and Brooke
2002:170)
let him sit before the abbot, or next to him, if
he should be a distinguished person; afterwards,
when his petition has been presented to the brothers,
let him receive fellowship through the text of
the gospel; then, if the applicant is not a woman,
let him go around to kiss the brothers.
Although this was not necessarily the practice
in earlier days, in 1083 the old community was
replaced with Benedictines who adhered to Lanfranc’s
rule: indeed, Durham had (and still has) one
of the earliest manuscripts of the rule, written at
Christ Church, Canterbury sometime 1090 × 1095
(Durham Cathedral Library, B.IV.24, fos. 47r–71v;
Knowles and Brooke 2002:xliv). Although it is conceivable
that some leeway would still be granted to
kings, it is more likely that strict adherence to the
rules would have been expected: the Benedictines
at Durham were faced with the problem of justifying
their expulsion of the ancient community of
Cuthbert in 1083, which they did by asserting that
they had merely restored proper monastic practice
as followed by St. Cuthbert himself—any laxity towards
the rules of monasticism would have compromised
this position (LDE II.xii:116, IV.ii:228–30,
Introduction:lxxxi–lxxxv).8
Thus, I believe it is safe to say that Erik would
have visited Durham himself. Nor would it be unreasonable
to suppose that Bothild was present as
well; Saxo reports that she journeyed with Erik to
Jerusalem (GD XII.vi.5: II, 76), and the Constitutions
quoted above make provision for women to
receive confraternity. We cannot date Erik’s visit
precisely, aside from the fact that he is referred to
as “king” and so presumably it was after 1095—and
thus the Constitutions of Lanfranc would have been
in effect.
This same visit may also have been when Erik
arranged for English Benedictines from Evesham
Abbey to found a daughter-house in Odense. The
Benedictines who refounded Durham in 1083 had
come from Wearmouth and Jarrow, which themselves
had been refounded in the 1070s by monks
from Evesham (Knowles 1949:163–9). If we can
accept the testimony of a fifteenth-century Evesham
chronicle, the monks were sent over to Odense
in the time of Abbot Robert, who died in 1096
(Knowles 1949:164, n. 1; Gelting 2011:36–7, n. 7),
and thus Erik’s visit to Evesham and Durham might
be dated to 1095 or 1096. A copy of the fraternity
agreement has survived in Evesham’s archives although
without the names of the original witnesses
73
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
(DD I.2:24, Weibull 1941:197–201), and no confraternity-
book survives from Evesham, so we do not
have as strong evidence for Erik’s personal presence
there as we do for Durham. Nonetheless, it
is hardly unlikely that Erik, after visiting Durham,
could have made a visit to its ultimate motherhouse,
and this would be the most likely time for
him to arrange the foundation of a monastic house
in Denmark to serve his brother’s cult.
The Beginnings of the Cult of Knud
Do Erik’s actions in England, possibly in the first
year or so of his reign, show an early involvement
in the cult of his brother? There is no indisputable
evidence of his involvement before 1099 (Haki
Antonsson 2005:71) when he journeyed to Rome to
secure papal approval for the canonization, and both
the anonymous Passio and Ælnoth make the initial
elevation a purely ecclesiastical affair (VSD:70–1,
129–30). But we do not even know who was bishop
of Odense in 1095, and scholarly consensus is that
the bishopric was probably vacant at the time (Haki
Antonsson 2007:129, 2005:71; Nyberg 1986:113–
18; cf. King 1962:148–9), although a general lack
of sources for this period makes it difficult to be
certain of this simply through an argumentum e
silentio. However, the lack of a leader would mean
that the church at Odense was even more susceptible
to interference from a powerful secular figure, such
as Erik. Even in normal circumstances, the church
in Denmark at the time was not powerful or rich and
was far more reliant on royal power than it was in
Germany or England. Indeed it was this weakness of
the clergy that Breengaard suggested prompted them
to begin the cult of Knud in the first place (Breengaard
1982:122–49). Even if the initiative was taken
by the clergy, as the texts imply, Erik could have
involved himself from an early stage—possibly as
early as 1095 or 1096—by arranging for the monastic
foundation of Odense on his voyage to England.
And although there is admittedly no explicit indication
of Erik’s early involvement, Ælnoth does immediately
associate him with Knud’s elevation, as it
was after this that Oluf died and Erik was chosen as
king, leading to the end of the famines and plagues
that had afflicted Denmark during the former’s reign
(VSD:129–30).
Could Erik’s connections to England have
begun before 1095, and if so could these have
had any effect on the early stages of the cult? By
1100 or 11019 at the translation of Knud’s relics,
we know that Odense had a bishop named Hubald
(VSD:133), a former canon of Lund Cathedral
(Weibull 1923:133) who is normally held to be of
English origin, though this is not certain (Kluger
1992:59, n. 67), and we do not know when he arrived
at Odense. It is also generally assumed, but
not certain, that the community of clerks of St.
Alban’s who probably produced the Passio were
of English origin, and may have come over when
Knud himself brought the relics of Alban and Oswald
to Odense (VSD:60, 69). The trial by fire of
Knud’s relics (VSD:70–1) was a ritual that had
previously been carried out at Evesham in 1080,
and at Durham in 1065 and sometime between
1057 and 1072 (Esmark 2010:198), though it was
admittedly relatively common in Catholic Europe
between the tenth and twelfth centuries (Esmark
2010:169–70). Thus, the ritual could have come
to Odense from Evesham, implying that there was
contact between the two from before 1095 (Esmark
2010:200, Nyberg 2000:56). Yet even if this was
the case, we cannot say that the involvement of
Evesham shows the involvement of Erik—in fact,
he may have established a relationship with Durham
and Evesham because of pre-existing links to
Odense.
If the clerks had been brought over by Knud, his
brother and companion Erik may have had contact
with them earlier, and they may have been involved
with one another from the early days of the cult—but
this must remain no more than speculation. Alternatively,
Erik’s importation of monks to serve his
brother’s cult and his building of a new cathedral to
house his relics may indicate dissatisfaction with the
clerks of St. Alban’s, and/or a desire to use the cult
in a different way or shift its emphasis. This scenario
would be similar to the way it has been suggested
that Cnut the Great patronized the cults of Ælfheah
and Olav in order to ensure that they served, or
at least would not damage, his own political ends
(Townend 2005:262–264, 273).
There are thus a multitude of potential conduits
for Erik’s influence over the early cult, none
of which are certain. Given the previous history,
however, of Harald facing opposition from his own
brothers, and the suggestion made above that Knud
emphasized his seniority in his charter due to a
challenge, possibly from Oluf, it would hardly be
surprising for Erik to have taken advantage of
Oluf’s unpopularity towards the end of his reign to
agitate for a change in the kingdom while the clerks
of Odense, and possibly forerunners of the monks
from Evesham (Nyberg 2000:56), spread the idea
that the famine was the result of the killing of Knud
and was Oluf’s fault. Certainly, once Erik became
king, he was clearly involved in the promotion of
the cult, and on his visit to England, which may
have occurred as early as 1095 or 1096, he arranged
for the establishment of Odense Cathedral Priory.
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
74
Esmark, K. 2010. Hellige ben i indviet ild. Pp. 161–210,
In H.J. Orning, K. Esmark, and L. Hermanson (Eds.).
Gaver, ritualer, konflikter: Et rettsantropologisk perspektiv
på nordisk middelalderhistorie. Unipub, Oslo,
Norway. 378 pp.
Fritz, B. 1988. Knut den heliges gåvobrev av den 21
maj 1085 och dess öden under 900 år: En arkivhistorisk
och diplomatarisk orientering. Pp. 21–35, In S.
Skansjö and H. Sundström (Eds.). Gåvobrevet 1085:
Föredrag och diskussioner vid Symposium kring Knut
den heliges gåvobrev 1085 och den tidiga medeltidens
nordiska samhälle. Lund University Press, Lund, Sweden.
152 pp.
Gade, K.E. (Ed.). 2009. Poetry from the Kings’ Sagas 2:
From c. 1035 to c. 1300. Skaldic poetry of the Scandinavian
Middle Ages 2. Brepols, Turnhout, Belgium.
2 vols.
Gallén, J. 1985. Knut den helige och Adela av Flandern:
Europeiska kontakter och genealogiska konsekvenser.
Pp. 49–66, In R. Sandberg (Ed.). Studier i äldre historia
tillägnade Herman Schück 5/4 1985. Historiska
institutionen, Stockholm, Sweden. 328 pp.
Galster, G. 1934. Knud den helliges jydske Mønter.
Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie
1934:129–36.
GD = Friis-Jensen, K. (Ed.), and P. Zeeberg (Trans.).
2005. Saxo Grammaticus: Gesta Danorum/Danmarkshistorien.
Gad, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2 vols.
Gelting, M.H. 2011. Two early twelfth-century views of
Denmark’s Christian past: Ailnoth and the anonymous
of Roskilde. Pp. 33–55, In I. Garipzanov (Ed.). Historical
Narratives and Christian Identity on a European
Periphery: Early History Writing in Northern, East-
Central, and Eastern Europe (c. 1070–1200). Medieval
Texts and Culture of Northern Europe 26. Brepols,
Turnhout, Belgium.
Gertz, M.C. 1907. Knud den Helliges Martyrhistorie, særlig
efter de tre ældste Kilder: En filologisk-historisk
undersøgelse. Festskrift udgivet af Københavns Universitet
i Anledning af Hans Majestæt Kongens Fødselsdag
den 3. Juni 1907. J.H. Schultz, Copenhagen,
Denmark. 126 pp.
Gertz, M.C. (Ed.) 1917–1922. Scriptores minores historiae
Danicae medii aevi. Gad, Copenhagen, Denmark.
2 vols.
Haki Antonsson. 2005. Saints and Relics in Early Christian
Scandinavia. Mediaeval Scandinavia 15:51–80.
Haki Antonsson. 2007. St. Magnús of Orkney: A Scandinavian
Martyr-Cult in Context. The Northern World
29. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. vi, 269 pp.
Haki Antonsson. In press. Early saga-writing in Iceland.
Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 8.
Herrgott, M. (Ed.). 1726. Vetus disciplina monastica.
Carolus Osmont, Paris, France. 594 pp.
Hoffmann, E. 1975. Die heiligen Könige bei den Angelsachsen
und den skandinavischen Völkern: Königsheiliger
und Königshaus. Quellen und Forschungen
zur Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins 69. Wachholtz,
Neumünster, Germany. 238 pp.
Hoffmann, E. 1976. Königserhebung und Thronfolgeordnung
in Dänemark bis zum Ausgang des Mittelalters.
Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters
5. De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany. xviii, 206 pp.
This interpretation of the record does not necessarily
conflict with the idea that the cult may have begun
at the initiative of the clergy or that it could be
used to promote the clergy’s own ends—but Erik’s
involvement in the cult could well have begun before
1099, and he certainly could have adapted it to
his own political ends as well.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Jonathan Grove and Vicky Cribb
for their comments on this paper, and Michael Gelting for
his comments to me on the subject and for access to his
2011 article when it was still unpublished.
Literature Cited
AB = Schmeidler, B. (Ed.). 1917. Magistri Adam Bremensis
Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum.
Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex monumentis
Germaniae historicis separatim editi. 3rd edn. Hahn,
Hanover and Leipzig, Germany. 353 pp.
ASC E = Irvine, S. (Ed.). 2004. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle MS E: A Semi-Diplomatic Edition with Introduction
and Indices. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A
Collaborative Edition 7. D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, UK.
clxxvii, 174 pp.
Bergh, B. 1988. Textinnehållet i Knut den heliges gåvobrev
ur filologisk synvinkel. Pp. 36–49, In S. Skansjö
and H. Sundström (Eds.). Gåvobrevet 1085: Föredrag
och diskussioner vid Symposium kring Knut den heliges
gåvobrev 1085 och den tidiga medeltidens nordiska
samhälle. Lund University Press, Lund, Sweden.
152 pp.
Bjarni Guðnason. 1982. Danakonunga sögur. Íslenzk fornrit
35. Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, Reykjavík, Iceland.
cxciv, 371 pp.
Breengard, C. 1982. Muren on Israels hus: Regnum og
sacerdotium i Danmark 1050–1170. G.E.C, Gads Forlag,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 341 pp.
Christensen, A.E., H. Paludan, and I. Skovgaard-Petersen.
1977. Danmarks historie I: Tiden indtil 1340. Gyldendal,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 668 pp.
Cowdrey, H.E.J. 1965. Unions and Confraternity with
Cluny. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 16.2:152–62.
DD I.2 = Weibull, L., and N. Skyum-Nielsen (Eds.). 1963.
1053–1169. Diplomatarium Danicum I.2. Munksgaard,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 456 pp.
DD I.3 = Weibull, L., H. Nielsen, and C.A. Christensen
(Eds.). 1976–1977. 1170–1199 et epistolae abbatis
Willelmi de Paraclito. Diplomatarium Danicum I.3.
Munksgaard, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2 vols.
EE = Campbell, A., and S. Keynes (Eds.). 1998. Encomium
Emmae reginae, with a supplementary introduction.
Camden Classic Reprints 4. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. lxix, 112 pp.
Esmark, K. 2009. Spinning the revolt: The assassination
and sanctification of an 11th-century Danish King. Pp.
15–31, In H. Jensen (Ed.). Rebellion and Resistance.
Pisa University Press, Pisa, Italy. 264 pp.
75
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
Riis, T. 1977. Les institutions politiques centrales du
Danemark 1100–1332. Odense University Studies in
History and Social Sciences 46. Odense University
Press, Odense, Denmark. 397 pp.
Skj = Finnur Jónsson (Ed. and Trans.). 1912–15. Den
norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning. Gyldendal, Copenhagen,
Denmark. 4 vols.
Skyum-Nielsen, N. 1971. Kvinde og slave. Danmarkshistorie
uden retouche 3. Munksgaard, Copenhagen,
Denmark. 373 pp.
Steidl, P.D. 1907. Hvornaar blev Knud Konge skrinlagt?
Varden 5:391–7.
Surtees Society. (Ed.). 1841. Liber vitae ecclesiae Dunelmensis
nec non obituaria duo ejusdem ecclesiae. Publications
of the Surtees Society. J.B. Nichols, London,
UK. xvi, 152 pp.
Townend, M. 2005. Knútr and the cult of St Óláfr: Poetry
and patronage in eleventh-century Norway and England.
Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 1:251–279 .
Venge, M. 2002. Danmarks skatter i middelalderen indtil
1340. Dansk Skattehistorie 1. Told- og skattehistorisk
selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark. 232 pp.
VSD = Gertz, M.C. (Ed.). 1908–1912. Vitae sanctorum
Danorum. Gad, Copenhagen, Denmark. 558 pp.
WM = Mynors, R.A.B., R.M. Thomson, and M. Winterbottom
(Eds. and Trans.). 1999. Willelmi Malmesbiriensis
Gesta regum Anglorum. Oxford Medieval
Texts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 2 vols.
Weibull, C. 1989. Bidrag till tolkningen av Knut den heliges
gåvobrev till Lunds domkyrka år 1085. Scandia
55:5–11.
Weibull, L. (Ed.). 1923. Necrologium Lundense: Lunds
domkyrkas nekrologium. Monumenta Scaniae historica.
Berlingska boktryckeriet, Lund, Sweden. cii,
213 pp.
Weibull, L. 1941. S:ta Maria i Evesham och s:t Knut i
Odense. Scandia 13:196–205.
Endnotes
1Cnut the Great will be referred to with the Old English
spelling of his name, in order to distinguish him from
Knud (the modern Danish spelling), the main subject of
this article.
2This and all other translations are mine, unless noted
otherwise.
3The Roskilde Chronicle (Gertz 1917–1922:23) states that
Knud’s elder brother, Harald, was the fourth king of this
name to rule in Denmark, which implies that by 1138 the
idea of regnal numbers of kings was becoming known.
Nonetheless, this is over half a century after the charter,
and King Knud (1182–1202), son of Valdemar I, who is
normally known as Knud VI, was referred to as “Knud
IV” in his charters (DD I.3:111), which suggests that it is
unlikely that Knud the Holy was known by this ordinal
(Bergh 1988:41).
4Curt Weibull has also accepted this reading (Weibull
1989:7, 11, n. 6).
Hybel, N., and B. Poulsen. The Danish Resources c.
1000–1550: Growth and Recession. The Northern
World 34. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. xxvi, 448 pp.
Jensen, J. S. 1995. Tusindtallets danske mønter fra den
Kongelige mønt- og medaillesamling. Nationalmuseet,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 171 pp.
King, P. 1962. English Influnce on the Church at Odense
in the Early Middle Ages. Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 13:144–55.
Kluger, H. 1992. Othinse (Odense). Pp. 54–63, In H.
Kluger (Ed.), Archiepiscopatus Lundensis. Series
episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae occidentalis ab initio
usque ad annum mcxcviii, ser. 6, Britannia, Scotia
et Hibernia, Scandinavia 2. Hiersemann, Stuttgart,
Germany. 123 pp.
Knowles, D. 1949. The Monastic Order in England: A History
of its Development from the Times of St. Dunstan
to the Fourth Lateran Council 943–1216. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 764 pp.
Knowles, D., and C.N.L. Brooke. 2002. (Eds. and trans.).
The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc. Oxford Medieval
Texts. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK. lvii, 259 pp.
Koch, H. 1963. Kongemagt og kirke. Danmarks historie 3.
Politiken, Copenhagen, Denmark. 512 pp.
Krause, H. 1985. Radulfus Niger—Chronica: Eine englische
Weltchronik des 12. Jahrhunderts. Europäische
Hochschulschriften, ser. 3, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften
265. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. xxv, 361 pp.
Kristensen, A.K.G. 1969. Danmarks ældste Annalistik:
Studier over lundensisk Annalskrivning i 12. og 13.
Århundrede. Skrifter udgivet af Det historiske Institut
ved Københavns Universitet, 3. Gyldendalske Boghandel,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 161 pp.
LDE = Rollason, D.W. (Ed. and Trans.) 2000. Symeonis
monachi Dunelmensis libellus de exordio atque
procursu istius hoc est Dunelmensis ecclesie. Oxford
Medieval Texts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
xcv, 353 pp.
LVD = Rollason, D.W., and L. Rollason (Eds.). 2007. The
Durham Liber Vitae. The British Library, London,
UK. 3 vols.
Malmros, R. 2005. Kongemagt og leding i Norge og
Danmark omkring 1100 belyst ud fra den tidlige
kristne fyrstedigtning. (Dansk) Historisk Tidsskrift
105:321–380.
Martène, E. (Ed.). 1736–1738. De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus.
Joannis Baptista de la Bry, Antwerp, Netherlands.
3 vols.
Migne, J.P. (Ed.). 1853. Antiquiores consuetudines Cluniacensis
monasterii collectore Udalrico monacho
benedictino. In J.P. Migne (Ed.). Patrologia Latina
149. J.P. Migne, Paris, France.
Nass, K. (Ed.). 2006. Die Reichschronik des Annalista
Saxo. Monumenta Germaniae historica Scriptores 37.
Nyberg, T. 1986. Die Kirche in Skandinavien: Mitteleuropäischer
und englischer Einfluß im 11. und 12.
Jahrhundert. Anfänge der Domkapitel Børglum und
Odense in Dänemark. Beiträge zur Geschichte und
Quellenkunde des Mittelalters 10. Thorbecke, Sigmaringen,
Germany. 197 pp.
Nyberg, T. 2000. Monasticism in North-Western Europe,
800–1200. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK. x, 295 pp.
P. Gazzoli
2013 Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 4
76
5Alternatively, Oluf may have already been in Schleswig,
as Saxo says Knud had put him in charge of it (GD
XI.xiii.1 II:44–6).
6On the threat of division in Harald’s reign, see above
(Skj AI:427, BI:397; Gade 2009 II:826–7; DD I.2:18). It
must be acknowledged that there is no evidence that Oluf
wanted to split the kingdom, and the anonymous Passio
states that Oluf wished to rule without Knud (VSD:67).
The theological parallelizations between Knud and
Christ as well as between Oluf and Satan in the Passio
(Gertz 1907:71) mean that it would be difficult for the
text to allow Oluf merely to want to share Knud’s realm,
rather than usurp it entirely. In any event, although there
is more evidence for the rebels wanting to remove Knud
completely, I do not believe that it should be ruled out
that a division of the kingdom was an outcome they
would have accepted.
7The Surtees Society edition of 1841 attributes the entries
on this folio to “various hands of the twelfth and early
parts of the 13th century” (Surtees 1841:78 n. 1), but the
recent edition by the the Rollasons dates the hand to the
beginning of the twelfth century, and the entry to 1095
× 1103—i.e., the dates of Eric’s reign (LVD I:159). The
palaeographical judgement seems to be that there is no
reason for it not to be written contemporarily with or
just after Eric’s visit. It is also “possible that this entry is
connected in some way with the list of the monks from
Evesham” (LVD III:437) on folio 24v, which is dated to
the same period (LVD I:103).
8Other contemporary liturgies also required or implied
personal presence for a lay person receiving confraternity
(Herrgott 1726:200; Cowdrey 1965:157; Migne
1853:764–5; Martène 1736–1738 III:888, 897–8). I am
grateful to an anonymous peer reviewer for this point.
9Ælnoth, an eyewitness at the ceremony, dated it to 19
April 1101, though many have now accepted Steidl’s argument
for redating the event to 1100 on the grounds that
the elevation could not have taken place on Good Friday,
which fell on 19 April in 1101 (Steidl 1907:393–5;
Skyum-Nielsen 1971:16, n. 6; Gelting 2011:37, n. 9).