CHAPTER IV

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CHRISTIANITY OF CNUT THE GREAT

The Christian church was an integral part of the political and national life of England when Cnut became king in 1016 so the church was properly uncomfortable with an alien conqueror whose Christian antecedents were suspect. The hostility of the thirteenth century monastic chroniclers toward his father Svein Forkbeard indicates that his reputation for indifference toward the Christian religion may not have been unfounded.¹ The English people had experienced a short period of "rough and ready" rule under Svein and may have expected similar treatment from his son. The Encomiast gave a very different picture of Svein, but since his purpose was to praise Queen Emma in particular and the Danish dynasty of Cnut in general, his opinion was also biased. Even the Encomiast admitted the Svein was "hateful to [the English] people owing to the invasion of the kingdom."² In addition to questionable Christianity among the leaders, many of the soldiers who helped Cnut conquer England were pagan Norwegians and Swedes.

Cnut's execution of English leaders in 1016, the exile of the young sons of King Edmund Ironside, and the enormous Danegeld of 1018 can not have eased the concerns of English churchmen. None of these actions agreed with the church's teachings regarding proper punishment of offenders or its belief that the burden of taxation should be light. Several of the executions of the first year of Cnut's reign were followed by the comment, "though innocent" when they were reported in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.³

It has generally been accepted that Cnut was already a Christian when he conquered England.⁴ He was probably baptized as a child, though we have no firm proof. Adam of Bremen reported that Cnut's father Svein was baptized as an infant when his father, Harold Bluetooth, became a Christian and that his baptized name was Svein Otto, after his baptismal sponsor, the German King Otto.⁵ Adam also recorded that Cnut's baptized name was Lambert, but did not tell when he was baptized or by whom.⁶ Although Stenton stated that Cnut had been baptized in Germany, it seems probable that Cnut was baptized by someone not associated with the See of Hamberg-Bremen, since Adam did not claim that distinction for his church.⁷ Since Svein's relations with the German Emperor were not cordial, there is a high probability that Cnut was baptized outside Germany.

Unlike the baptism of the Viking leader Guthorm in 878 with King Alfred in attendance, or the later confirmation of Olaf Tryggvason with King Æthelred as sponsor, there was no mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of baptism or confirmation of King Cnut.⁸ This strongly indicates that he was accepted as a Christian by the English church at the beginning of his reign and that his baptism and confirmation occurred elsewhere.⁹

It is impossible to prove that Cnut's devotion to the church came out of deep religious devotion or if it was merely a means to increase his political power.¹⁰ Cnut's position in England in 1016 to 1017 was initially based on military force and a rather vague agreement that King Edmund had designated Cnut his heir before his early death in 1016.¹¹ As such, Cnut may have been willing to offer reform both to gain support from the church and to vilify Æthelred whose policies he would be reforming.¹² This could have made him more amenable to ecclesiastical direction and a conciliatory gesture at this time might gain the support of hesitant clergymen.¹³ In any case, Cnut was eager to be accepted as a legitimate Christian king and was willing to do what was needed to attain that goal. That does not, however, mean that he was not sincere. The tone of Cnut's 1020 letter to the English was that of a sincere Christian leader exhorting his subjects to obey God's law as well as his own. He promised to observe God's rights and to provide just secular law to the people. This letter showed that Cnut intended to rule England within a Christian framework. The latter publication of his own law codes, I and II Cnut, fulfilled these intentions.¹⁴

The Danish armies of Svein and Cnut had pillaged and destroyed churches throughout England. William of Malmesbury claimed that Cnut "repaired, throughout England, the monasteries that had been partly damaged and partly destroyed by the military incursions of himself, or of his father."¹⁵ Tavistock had been burnt in 997, Cerne was despoiled by Cnut, probably in 1015, the church of St. Mary in Exeter was destroyed in 1003, the nunnery at Minister-in-Thanet was destroyed, and worst of all, Christ Church Canterbury was burned in 1011 and Archbishop Ælfheah murdered.¹⁶ The records show that Cnut was associated with the refounding, or at least the rebuilding of the monastery of St. Edmund in East Anglia and replacing the secular priests at the shrine with monks. In addition to a land grant for the support of the monastery, Cnut granted immunities except for the common burdens. He also granted land and immunities to Christ Church in Canterbury in 1018 and 1019 which could have been in compensation for the destruction of the church and the murder of the Archbishop by Danish forces.¹⁷ The repair and construction of ecclesiastical buildings and attention to the relics of the saints and their shrines provided evidence to church leaders that Cnut took Christianity seriously in spite of his questionable ancestry and the actions of the Danish armies during the conquest.¹⁸ These reparations also could have been a sincere act of contrition on the part of Cnut.

Whatever his motivation, Cnut's gifts to the church were impressive. Queen Emma actively encouraged Cnut's generosity to ecclesiastical institutions and may have acted as his advisor. She was also an active donor in her own name.¹⁹ The drawing of Cnut and Emma donating a rich cross to the New Minster in Winchester is well known.²⁰ It is possible that Cnut and Emma sponsored many of the illuminated books that were produced in England at this time to be used as royal gifts.²¹ They were both well respected for their generosity. Cnut as an alien conqueror and Emma as a Norman intruder were not likely to be remembered as benefactors of the church unless they had earned that distinction.²² A summary of their known gifts to English churches shown on Table 1 makes an impressive list.

Beyond his gifts to English institutions, Cnut also sent gifts to foreign churches and to religious and secular leaders. About 1020, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres sent a letter to Cnut that showed that his gifts there made a very favorable impression.

When we saw the gift you conferred on us, we were amazed at your wisdom, and equally at your piety: ... when we perceived that you, whom I had heard to be a ruler of pagans, not only of Christians, are also a most gracious benefactor of churches and Servants of God.²³

Cnut also granted English land to the Abbey of Fecamp, possibly at the urging of Emma.²⁴ An English manuscript called the Arenberg Gospels found at Cologne may also have come from Cnut.²⁵ An illustrated life of the Saints that Cnut sent to William of Aquitane was later used as proof that St. Martial should be declared an apostle by the church.²⁶ In addition, there were significant gifts to St. Omer that were witnessed by the Encomiast himself.²⁷ Finally, there were the rich gifts given while Cnut was at Rome.

Cnut respected the English saints and was involved in the translation of several. St. Wistan was translated from Repingdon to Evesham, St. Felix was brought back to Ramsey and St. Ælfheah was translated from London to Canterbury.²⁸ It is possible that political motives were involved in some of these translations. While Canterbury certainly wanted the relics of the martyred archbishop Ælfheah, Archbishop Æthelnoth was a powerful friend and their removal from London also took away a focus for hostility toward the Danes among the residents of London.²⁹ There is some evidence of hostility on Cnut's part toward St. Edith, but that may have been because she was Æthelred's sister. Cnut could not credit a daughter of the "libidinous and tyrannical" Edgar with sanctity, but he was convinced by a rebuke from the virgin herself.³⁰ Stories of this type show that the English believed that Cnut was willing to accept and respect their religion and beliefs.

Once he was firmly in power, Cnut became a patron of monastic reform. He continued the policy of Edgar and Æthelred by appointing monks as his bishops and archbishops. .³¹ As early as 1017, Cnut commanded Wulfstan to remodel Gloucester as a Benedictine monastery.³² He was associated with the foundation or at least regularization of the communities at St. Bennet at Holme and St. Edmund at Bury in 1019 and 1020. Bury was also richly endowed by Cnut and Emma with both land and immunities.³³ The small monastery at Abbotsbury also probably dates from Cnut's reign.³⁴ He allowed the translation of saints to Evesham and Christ Church in Canterbury. The Old English song attributed to Cnut in Liber Eliensis shows that he was affectionately remembered at Ely.

Merie sungen [th]e muneches binen Ely [th]a Cnut ching reu [th]er by. Rowe[th] cnites noer the lant and here we [th]es muneches sæng.35

Merrily sang the monks in Ely, As Cnut the king rowed by Row, boatmen, near the land, And let us hear the monks sing.

Cnut's pilgrimage to Rome in 1027 was another sign of his devotion to the Christian religion.³⁶ The trip to Rome came at an inconvenient time for Cnut. He had just met a coalition of King Olaf Haraldsson of Norway and King Onund-Jakob of Sweden in an inconclusive sea battle at Holy River. The issue in the North remained unsettled for another year, yet Cnut left Denmark for a long religious pilgrimage at this seemingly critical time. His concern for the situation in the North was indicated by the fact that he did not stop in England either going to Rome, or returning but went directly to and from Denmark.³⁷

There are several possible reasons for this trip. Cnut's wish to be in Rome for the coronation of Conrad II which took place at that time has often been cited. Cnut had an interest in establishing friendly relations with his powerful neighbor, but I do not think that was a strong enough reason for him to leave Denmark at this time. I believe that he went because of a genuine concern for his soul.

The northern sagas say that after the battle of Holy River, Cnut suspected treachery on the part of his brother-in-law Ulf and ordered him killed. Snorri said that Ulf fled for sanctuary to the church at Rothskilde where he was murdered at the direct command of Cnut. The monks immediately closed the church. Cnut ordered it opened for mass and when he came to the church, he gave it so much property that it became a great landowner. ³⁸

Among the many reasons given by Larson for Cnut's pilgrimage was the comment, "Worst of all, the killing of Ulf in violation of the right of sanctuary was not easily atoned."³⁹ Cnut's behavior at St. Omer as described by an eye witness in the Encomium was certainly that of a penitent, however overdone it now seems.

When [Cnut] had entered the monasteries, and had been received with great honour, he advanced humbly, and with complete concentration prayed for the intercession of the saints in a manner wonderfully reverent, fixing his eyes upon the ground, and freely pouring forth, so to speak, rivers of tears. But when the time came when he desired to heap the holy altars with royal offerings, how often did he first with tears press kisses on the pavement, how often did self-inflicted blows punish that revered breast, what signs he gave, how often did he pray that heavenly mercy might not be displeased with him!⁴⁰

English law considered the violation of church sanctuary a serious matter. VIII Æthelred 1.1 which was duplicated in I Cnut stated that violation of sanctuary was beyond compensation, but if the king granted a homicide his life, that he must make full compensation to God and men. Additionally paragraph 3 stated "the purification of the church is to be secured as befits it, and he is indeed to supplicate earnestly to God."⁴¹ A large gift of land to the church may have secured its purification, but it probably did not fully expiate Cnut's guilt. Cnut's monarchical status may have required that he receive forgiveness from Saint Peter himself, or from Peter's representative on earth, the pope at Rome. This would make Cnut's comment in his letter of 1027 more than mere pious platitude. Cnut's confessor may very well have told him that Peter's intercession was the only sure way to expiate the guilt of his involvement in the murder of Ulf.

I make it known to you that I have recently been to Rome, to pray for the remission of my sins .... Especially I have accomplished this because I learned from wise men that the holy Apostle Peter had received from the Lord great power to bind and to lose, and was the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and I considered it very profitable diligently to seek his special favour before God.⁴²

While in Rome, Cnut also obtained the agreement of the Pope to reduce the fees paid by the English archbishops to receive their pallium. About 1020, the bishops of England had sent a letter to the Pope. This letter discussed who had the right to ordain English archbishops and argued that according to ancient custom, the surviving archbishop in England consecrated the new one. The letter also protested the huge fees that were extorted from the archbishops for their pallium using the argument that they were a form of simony which was forbidden.⁴³ Cnut may have been aware of this letter and the argument contained in it and we know that he was successful in obtaining Pope John's agreement to reduce the fees. This agreement seems in line with the decision of the Council at Rome in 595 which abolished all fees at the bestowal of the pallium, but allowed voluntary gifts.⁴⁴ In exchange, Cnut agreed to make sure that Peter's Pence and other church dues were paid on a more regular basis.⁴⁵ In this matter, Cnut performed a significant service for the English church. He also aided English pilgrims and merchants by the arrangements he made with various leaders for protection of people and abolition or reduction of tolls on the pilgrim road.⁴⁶

In addition to the executions of 1016 and the heavy tax of 1018 which the church must have opposed, there was the issue of Cnut's relationship with Ælfgifu of Northampton. Cnut's liaison with her may have begun as early as 1013 when he was in charge of the Danish army at Gainsborough.⁴⁷ Their relationship was probably viewed by the church as concubinage which was prohibited by English law. Cnut's own law clearly forbade it.

And if anyone has a lawful wife and also a concubine, no priest is to do for him any of the offices which must be done for a Christian man, until he desists and atones for it as deeply as the bishop directs him, and desists from such for ever.⁴⁸

Concubinage was readily accepted in Scandinavia and was practiced in upper-class Anglo-Saxon society as well.⁴⁹ The laws showed the church felt it necessary to legislate against concubinage. The Northumbrian Priest's Law indicated that even priests were guilty of illicit relations with women.⁵⁰ That different standards prevailed in Scandinavia was shown by the fact that as well regarded a king as St. Olaf had a "frilla", Alvhild, who was the mother of his heir Magnus.⁵¹ Later, King Harald Hardrada's heirs, Magnus and Olaf, were his sons by his concubine Thora.⁵²

Cnut and Ælfgifu had two sons, Harald and Svein, who were probably born before Cnut and Emma were married in 1017. Emma was very concerned to obtain an agreement that any son of hers would inherit Cnut's kingdom ahead of any sons he might have by other women.⁵³ Since at the time he married Emma, Cnut only held England, he may later have felt free to make arrangements for his other family like he did for Svein in Norway without breaking his sworn agreement.⁵⁴

Most authors assume that Cnut continued relations with Ælfgifu after marrying Emma.⁵⁵ However, the primary sources are silent about their relationship. Clearly Cnut's attachment to Ælfgifu was strong enough so that he tried to find positions for their sons.⁵⁶ It is interesting to note that Svein and Ælfgifu were sent to places that Cnut did not visit. In 1023, Svein was sent as Cnut's lieutenant in the Wendish area of Danish territory with his mother as regent.⁵⁷ After Earl Häkon drowned in 1030, Cnut made Svein, King of Norway, again with Ælfgifu as regent.

Cnut may have ended any sexual relationship with Ælfgifu once he married Emma as the church required, but he still could have been determined to provide for her and their sons. On the other hand, it is very difficult to tell strong kings what to do and the church may have had to accept what it could not change. There was no specific condemnation of Cnut for concubinage, but neither was there praise for his marital fidelity. After Cnut died Ælfgifu was powerful enough to cause significant trouble for Emma through her son Harald, but whether that was because of Cnut's favor, or due to the power of her family is difficult to determine. Since Harald was first accepted by the northern nobility, a family relationship might be indicated. Both Roger de Hovden and Simeon of Durham claimed that Cnut had given Harald power in England before he died.⁵⁸ It is possible that he was given some sort of position in the North which would explain the support of the northern nobility for his cause after Cnut's death. The Encomium claimed that Harald was chosen king by the witan, but that Archbishop Æthelnoth refused to consecrate him.⁵⁹ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was silent on that subject.

The primary sources thus do not exclude an interpretation that Cnut ended his relationship with Ælfgifu of Northampton after his marriage to Emma as required by the church, but continued to make arrangements for the advancement of their sons. Like so many issues, other interpretations are also possible.

The church and politics were bound together in medieval government so it is not possible to tell if a king was sincerely religious or merely going through the motions for political ends. Cnut's recorded actions were those of a Christian king. His benevolences to the church were significant. Only Æthelstan has the same reputation for the collection and presentation of relics to both English and foreign churches. Prior to Cnut's pilgrimage in 1027, the last English king to go to Rome while he held the crown had been Æthelwulf, the father of Alfred the Great in 840/841.⁶⁰ All of the English primary sources emphasize the Christian nature of Cnut's reign. While political considerations were important, his Christian commitment should not be minimized. If Cnut is judged by his recorded actions, we can only conclude that he was a sincere Christian.

NOTES

1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is silent as it is on so many other questions, but both Florence and William of Malmesbury recorded Svein's death at the hand of St. Edmund because of impiety. Thus his reputation in the thirteenth century was not good. However, this could just be a Norman reaction to the Danish kings. RETURN

2. Campbell, Encomium Emmae, p. 15. RETURN

3. See Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1016 and 1018 for details. RETURN

4. Lawson, Cnut, p. 129; Lamb, The Archbishopric of Canterbury, p. 220 and Larson, Canute the Great, p. 164-5, all agree though Larson thought that Cnut might have been confirmed by Æthelnoth. RETURN

5. Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, Francis J. Tschan, trans., (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), Book II, iii, p. 56. RETURN

6. Ibid., Scholium 37, p. 91. RETURN

7. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 411. RETURN

8. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 878 and 994 for details regarding Guthorm and Olaf respectively. RETURN

9. While an argument from silence is not completely convincing, in this case I believe that if Cnut had been either baptized or confirmed by an English churchman after his conquest of England, it would have been recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as an important achievement. RETURN

10. Lamb, The Archbishopric of Canterbury, p. 223 claimed Cnut was deeply religious. Larson, Canute the Great, p. 162, felt he was more pragmatic and even that favorable policies toward the church were limited until Cnut no longer had to depend on heathen allies. RETURN

11. Forester, Florence of Worcester, s.a. 1016; Ann Williams, "Some Notes and Considerations on Problems Connected with the English Royal Succession, 860-1066," In Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies I, 1978, ([...]: Boydell Press, [1978]), pp. 144-67 indicates that designation by the previous king was an important element in English royal succession during this period. RETURN

12. Pauline Stafford, "The laws of Cnut and the history of Anglo-Saxon royal promises," Anglo-Saxon England 10 (1981), p. 188. RETURN

13. Ibid., p. 183. RETURN

14. Ibid. RETURN

15. Giles, William of Malmesbury, p. 198. RETURN

16. Lawson, Cnut, pp. 125-6. RETURN

17. Johannes M. Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, Tomus IV, Publications of the English Historical Society (Londini: Sumptibus Societatis, MDCCCXLVI; reprint, Vaduz: Kraus, 1964), No 727 and 729. RETURN

18. T. A. Heslop, "The production of de luxe manuscripts and the patronage of King Cnut and Queen Emma," Anglo-Saxon England [19] (1990), p. 180. RETURN

19. Ibid., p. 156; Ortenberg, The English Church and the Continent, p. 231. RETURN

20. Lawson, Cnut, cover. RETURN

21. Ortenberg, The English Church and the Continent, p. 151. RETURN

22. Ibid., p. 158. RETURN

23. "Letter of Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, to King Cnut" In Whitelock, English Historical Documents, p 825. RETURN

24. Charles H. Haskins, "A Charter of Cnut for Fècamp," English Historical Review 33 (1918): 342-4. RETURN

25. Ortenberg, The English Church, p. 62. RETURN

26. Ibid., p. 241; George Beech, "England and Aquitaine in the century before the Norman Conquest," Anglo-Saxon England 19 (1990), p. 84. RETURN

27. Campbell, Encomium Emmae, ii, 20. RETURN

28. Larson, Canute the Great, p. 171-2. RETURN

29. Lawson, Cnut, p. 140-1. RETURN

30. Edwards, Liber Monasterii De Hyda, pp. 185-6. RETURN

31. Dom David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England: A History of its Development from the Times of St. Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council, 940-1216, 2d. ed. (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1963), p. 70. RETURN

32. Ivor Atkins, "The Church at Worcester from the Eighth to the Twelfth Century, Part II," The Antiquities Journal XX (1940), p. 16. RETURN

33. Heslop, "The Production of de luxe manuscripts," p. 158. RETURN

34. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, p. 70. RETURN

35. Blake, Liber Eliensis, p. 153. RETURN

36. The English chroniclers all placed the date of Cnut's trip to Rome in 1031. If we believe Cnut's letter that he sent to the English people from Rome, he was there during the coronation of Conrad II as Holy Roman Emperor. According to Karl Hampe, Germany Under the Salian and Hohenstaufen Emperors, Ralph Bennet, tr. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973), p. 42, this event occurred in 1027 and that was the only time that Conrad was in Rome. A more complete argument for dating Cnut's pilgrimage in 1027 is given in Appendix 2. RETURN

37. Forester, Florence of Worcester, p. 138-9. RETURN

38. Sturluson, Sagas of the Norse Kings, p. 240. RETURN

39. Larson, Canute the Great, p. 225. RETURN

40. Campbell, Encomium Emmae, ii, 21. RETURN

41. "Extracts from King Ethelred's 1014 code (VIII Ethelred)," in Whitelock, English Historical Documents, p. 411. RETURN

42. Ibid., p. 416. RETURN

43. Dorothy Whitelock, et al, ed., Councils and Synods, pp. 441-7. RETURN

44. Lamb, The Archbishopric of Canterbury, p. 223. The question in Cnut's day seemed to be how voluntary were the gifts. This must always have been a sensitive subject as the Germanic custom of gift exchange would still apply. RETURN

45. See 1027 letter in Forester, Florence of Worcester, p. 137-9. RETURN

46. Ibid. RETURN

47. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, .sa. 1013. RETURN

48. II Cnut 54.1 in Whitelock, English Historical Documents, p. 427. RETURN

49. Margaret Clunies Ross, "Concubinage in Anglo-Saxon England," Past & Present 108 (1985), p. 1. RETURN

50. Law of Northumbrian Priests, paragraph 35 in Whitelock, English Historical Documents, p. 437. RETURN

51. Sturluson, Sagas of the Norse Kings, p. 208. RETURN

52. Ibid., p. 325. RETURN

53. Campbell, ed., Encomium Emmae, ii, 16. RETURN

54. Miles W. Campbell, "Queen Emma and Ælfgifu of Northampton: Canute the Great's Women," Medieval Scandinavia 4 (1971), p. 67. RETURN

55. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 397; Jones, Vikings, p. 372. RETURN

56. Campbell, "Queen Emma and Ælfgifu," p. 69. RETURN

57. Ibid., p. 70. RETURN

58. Henry T. Riley, The Annals of Roger De Hovden, Vol. 1 (London: Henry G, Bohn, MDCCCLIII; reprint, New York: AMS, 1968) and Rev. Joseph Stevenson, trans. The Church Historians of England containing The Historical Works of Simeon of Durham, vol. III, pt. II ([London]: Seeleys, MDCCCLV), s.a. 1035. RETURN

59. Campbell, ed., Encomium Emmae, iii, 1. RETURN

60. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 840 (841). RETURN