the schism that never was: old norse views on byzantium and russia

7/29/2019 The Schism that never was: Old Norse views on Byzantium and Russia

1/17

The Schism that never was: Old Norse views on Byzantium and Russia


by Sverrir Jakobsson

Source:

Byzantinoslavica - Revue internationale des Etudes Byzantines (Byzantinoslavica - Revueinternationale des Etudes Byzantines), issue: 1-2 / 2008, pages: 173-188, on www.ceeol.com.
http://www.ceeol.com/http://www.ceeol.com/http://www.ceeol.com/


2/17

The Schism that never was:

Old Norse views on Byzantium

and Russia

Sverrir JAKOBSSON (Reykjavk)

In general works on European medieval history there frequentlyappears a grand narrative about the friction and polarisation withinChristianity which reached a climax with the great schism of 1054. As of

that time, it has often been reiterated, Christians split into a westernbranch which subscribed to Roman Catholic Christianity and an easternbranch which came under the Greek Orthodox Church. Recently, histo-rians have developed an interest in the genesis ofEurope as a medievalphenomenon but this Europe is usually equated with RomanCatholicism. The powerful East Roman Empire is not regarded as a fully-fledged European state, but as on a divergent path leading eventually toa dead-end.

In the Middle Ages, many of those writing about the situation with-

in the Church have viewed it in terms of a split. It could take on a cul-tural meaning, e.g. the term latinitas was sometimes used about theRoman-Catholic world in the 12th century. This word is found in writingsabout the appointment of the German Emperor and the potential con-sequences of this for the Latin world.1 Furthermore, at the time of theCrusades, various scholars in Western Europe were hostile towards theGreeks and some went so far as to say that Constantinople had no partin Christianity except in name.2

This view of the schism has been challenged in recent years, as early

as in 1955 by Stephen RUNCIMANwho claimed that it was impossible togive a precise date for the schism and argued that the schism was not amatter of conflicting ecclesiastical traditions, but of mutual dislikebetween the peoples of Eastern and Western Christendom that arose out

1 R. BARTLETT, The Making of Europe. Conquest, Colonization and CulturalChange 950-1350, London 1993, 19.2 Ipsa rem Christianitatis non habet, sed nomen, cf. R. BARTLETT,Patterns ofUnity and Diversity in Medieval Europe, in: The Birth of Identities. Denmark andEurope in the Middle Ages, ed. B. P. McGuire, Copenhagen 1996, 29-45 (37).

These scholars, however, may not represent the majority opinion among theEuropean elite, cf. J. FRANCE, Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the FirstCrusade, in: Knighthoods of Christ. Essays on the History of the Crusades andthe Knights Templar, presented to M. Barber, Aldershot 2007, 3-16.

173


3/17

of the political events of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.3 In the last10-20 years this view has gained ground among scholars, although it has

yet to become a part of the popular view of the past. For example, JoanM. HUSSEY states that the real schism ocurred as a result of the embit-

terment engendered by the Latin crusading movement and the assaulton Constantinople in 1204.4

In the middle of the 12th-century the Pope even came close to recog-nizing the emperor of Constantinople as sole Roman emperor. EmperorManuel I Komnenos pursued an alliance with Pope Alexander III in the1160s, and even as late as 1175 the Pope and the emperor were workingon the terms of a treaty.5 During the 3rd crusade, 1189-1191, theByzantine establishment was split over the question whether to seek analliance with the Latins or the Islamic ruler Saladin, but the traditional

civil service wisdom prevailed, that peace with the Latins should be soughtat any price.6 However, this was about to change. In the 13th-century, inthe aftermath of the 4th crusade, Byzantine identity was refashioned andnow defined against the Latins. Tia M. KOLBABA has studied polemicaltexts written by medieval Greek Christians, lists of Latin religious errors,and notes that there are apparently two periods in which lists are pro-duced in great numbers (1054-1100 and 1200-following); sandwichedbetween them is a century in which lists are not common.7

Nevertheless, influential elements within the Greek Orthodox

Church continued to seek rapprochement with the West at differenttimes, at Lyon in 1274, during the 14th-century and at the Council ofFlorence in the 15th century.8According to Michael ANGOLD, the churchof Constantinoples insulation from Latin influence only lasted from1274 to the middle of the 14th-century, and was a consequence of thereaction against the union of Lyons.9 Except from this, there was a

3 S. RUNCIMAN, The Eastern Schism. A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern chur-ches during the XIth and XIIth centuries, Oxford 1955, 160, 168.4 J. M. HUSSEY, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford History ofthe Christian Church), Oxford 1986, 136. Cf. Also H. CHADWICk,East and West:The Making of a Rift in the Church. From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence,Oxford 2003, 277.5 P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge1993, 83-95.6 M. ANGOLD, The Fourth Crusade. Event and Context, Harlow 2003, 31-37.7 T. M. KOLBABA, The Byzantine Lists. Errors of the Latins, Urbana Chicago2000, 16.8 Cf. M. ANGOLD,Byzantium and the West 1204-1453, in: Eastern Christianity

(= The Cambridge History of Christianity, 5), ed. M. Angold, Cambridge 2006,53-78.9 M. ANGOLD,Byzantium and the West, 69.

174

Sverrir Jakobsson


4/17

continuous presence in the East Roman Empire of influential peopleworking for the union of the churches.

In addition to this, the concept of schism cannot be applied to allnations which were part of the Roman-Catholic world. A completely dif-

ferent world view appears in sources from the western part of the OldNorse cultural zone where one has to try hard to find any references to asplit in the Church. In this article I will deal mostly with material fromIceland, although the overlap between Icelandic and Norwegian writingand attitudes was considerable. It is my contention that, in the general

view of Icelanders, the Christian world was united, catholic in the orig-inal meaning of the word. Christianity in the East was thought to havesimilar roots to Christianity in Iceland and differences between the reli-gions of Nordic and Eastern people were considered insignificant.

Arguments in support of this ostensibly surprising conclusion will be pre-sented in the following narrative.

The religious Schism

There is only one clear and unambiguous mention of the greatschism in medieval Icelandic sources. Its impact appears not to havebeen felt in Iceland before 1274 when several annals recount that theGreeks had turned from some kind of heresy. For example, the Saga of

Bishop rni states: In the same year came tidings from the aforemen-tioned assembly in Lyon that the Greeks had reverted to trueChristianity, from the contentious position that they had temporarilyadopted, on the wise counsel of Pope Gregory.10 This wording scarcelysuggests much knowledge of the disagreement. The prolonged fractureof the church is not mentioned and it is implied that the dispute, sup-posedly resolved in Lyon, was only of transient nature.

If reconciliation in Lyon of the contentious position temporarilyadopted was deemed feasible by Icelandic chroniclers in the late 13th

century, what reasons did Icelanders have to reject heretic priests fromthe East in the 11th century? That they did so is suggested by theIcelandic law-code Grgswhich differentiates between priests who knowLatin and bishops or priests who are not learned in the Latin tongue,naming people from Armenia (or Warmia on the Baltic Coast) and theRus in particular.11 This has been interpreted as clear endorsement of

10 rna saga biskups (= Stofnun rna Magnssonar slandi, 2), ed. . Hauks-son, Reykjavk 1972, 41-42; Islandske Annaler indtil 1578, ed. G. Storm,Christiania 1888, 28, 49, 69, 139, 194, 259, 332, 484;Laurentius saga biskups (=

Rit Handritastofnunar slands 3), ed. . Bjrnsson, Reykjavk 1969, 7.11 Grgs. Lagasafn slenska jveldisins, ed. G. Karlsson K. Sveinsson M. rnason, Reykjavk 1992, 19.

175



5/17

the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.12 However, it is not clearthat this provision was adopted on the initiative of Icelanders or that itreflects their awareness of the great schism. The notion of the uniquestatus of Latin is not in itself evidence of religious dissent or opposition

to those who did not speak Latin. It is first and foremost suggestive ofefforts to impose order in the Icelandic church by making Latin the onlyaccepted language of priests.

This provision has often been linked with reports in the Old Norsehistorical worksslendingabk andHungurvaka of people who claimed tobe bishops and of foreign bishops who offered more leniency thanBishop sleifr (Gizurarson, 1056-1080).13 But information about theseclerics is sketchy. The church in Scandinavia in the 11th century was stilla missionary field where many might call themselves bishops. One may

infer from the Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, written by Adamof Bremen in the 1070s, that sleifr had been appointed Bishop by theArchbishop of HamburgBremen and could be regarded as his repre-sentative in Iceland.14 Bishops ordained somewhere else were notregarded as having the same authority as sleifr, who was a precursor tolater bishops at the see of Sklholt. In this context there is no reason toassume that these bishops were also considered heretical.

Nor is it certain that the superiors of the first Icelandic bishopswould have objected to acephalic bishops on account of disagreement in

religious matters or differing customs. For example, in the early years ofNordic Christianity in the 11th century, the aforementioned Adam ofBremen describes with great interest various Greek church customs

which the Archbishop of HamburgBremen adopted. Adam appears notto know of a great schism, even though his work was composed after1054.15

In Veraldar Saga, an Icelandic work on universal history written in themid-12th century, the discord between the Greeks and Romans isdefined as political. From the 8th century, the Romans seceded from the

Emperor in Constantinople From then on the Byzantine Emperor in

12 M. M. LRUSSSON, Um hina ermsku biskupa, Skrnir 133 (1959) 81-94 (esp.85-88).13 Ari orgilsson hinn fri, slendingabk (= Nordisk filologi A.5), ed. A.Holtsmark, Oslo 1952, 25;Byskupa sgur (= Editiones Arnamagnan. Series A13), 2 vols, ed. J. Helgason, Copenhagen 1938-1978, II, 77. Cf. S. LNDAL,Upphaf kristni og kirkju, in: Saga slands I, Reykjavk 1974, 225-288 (252).14 Cf. Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der hamburgischen Kirche

und des Reiches (= Ausgewhlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittel-alters 11), ed. W. Trillmich R. Buchner, Berlin 1961, 486.15 Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts, 366. On ecclesiastical conflicts inScandinavia at the time cf. H. JANSSON, Templum nobilissimum. Adam av Bremen,Uppsalatemplet och konfliktlinjerna i Europa kring r 1075 (= Avhandlinger frnHistoriska institutionen i Gteborg 21), Gothenburg 1998, 152-162, 167-711.176

Sverrir Jakobsson


6/17

Constantinople and the Emperor in Saxony have claimed authority overone other.16 This is an interesting point of view coming from a work thatas a rule epitomises the clerical view of world history.17

Morkinskinna and other 13th-century Kings sagas recount the dis-

putes of the Norwegian Harald Hardrada with troops in the service ofthe East Roman Emperor led by George Maniakes (d. 1043), a kinsmanof Empress Zoe. According to these sources, there was a power strugglebetween Maniakes and Harald which only ended when Harald left thearmy and with him, all the Varangians and other Latin people butGyrgir [George] and the others went with the Greek army.18 This couldbe interpreted as deriving from a conflict between members of theRoman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.19 But reli-gious matters are not mentioned in this source, only a disagreement

between people who spoke different languages.Other sources touching on a religious schism are similarly ambigu-ously worded, as though a fundamental understanding of its nature werelacking. The Old Norse Saga of Edward the Confessor tells of the Anglo-Saxons who went to Constantinople some years after the fall of HaraldGodwinsson in 1066, fought alongside King Kirjalax (Alexios I, 1081-1118) and were granted land in the north-eastern part of the Empire

which they called England, with cities called London and York and thenames of other major cities in England. In this unusual narrative, the

religious schism emerges when the Anglo-Saxon settlers refuse to usePlsbk (The Book of Paul) then current in Constantinople; instead theysought bishops and other clerics from Hungary.20

16 Veraldar saga (= Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 61), ed.J. Benediktsson, Copenhagen 1944, 69-70.17 Cf. S. JAKOBSSON, Vi og verldin. Heimsmynd slendinga 1100-1400, Reykjavk2005, 56, 112.18 Morkinskinna (= Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 53), ed.F. Jnsson, Copenhagen, 1932, 62-64. That Harald really was at the Byzantine

court in the 1040s and was later regarded as a loyal ally of the Empire, is con-firmed by the 11th-century text known as the Strategikon of Kekaumenos, cf.Kekavmen, Soveti i rasskazy. Pouchenie vizantiniiskogo polkovodtsa Xi veka (= Serija:Vizantiiskaja biblioteka. Istochniki), ed. G. G. Litavrin, 2nd ed., St. Petersburg2003, 298-301; G. STORM, Harald Hardraade og Vringerne i de grske KejseresTjeneste, Historisk Tidsskrift 2, 4 (1884) 354-386. Many stories about Haraldhave parallels in Norman literature, cf. J. DEVRIES,Normannisches Lehngut in den

islndischen Knigssagas, Arkiv fr nordisk filologi 47 (1931) 51-79 (63-68).19 The ethnic term latinoi is rare in Greek historical sources beforethe 12thcentury, when it became common, cf. A. KAZHDAN, Latins and Franks in

Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century, in: TheCrusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. A. E.Laiou R. P. Mottahedeh, Washington, D.C. 2001, 83-100 (86).20 Flateyjarbk. En samling af norske konge-sagaer med indskudte mindre fortllingerom begivenheder i og udenfor Norge samt annaler, ed. G. Vigfsson C. R. Unger, 3

vols, Christiania 1860-1868, III, 470-472. On the sources of this story cf. 177



7/17

Notwithstanding an interdiction of Armenian and Greek bishopsthere is not much in Icelandic or West Nordic sources which points to anEast-West schism in the Church. One may infer that little was heard ofthis schism and that when it did become known it was understood as

either transient friction or a political dispute between ambitious leaders.It did not threaten the unity of Christianity. Icelanders ideas about theschism were amorphous in contrast to the importance assigned to theschism in modern historiography. This represents an exaggeration of20th-century historians who found in this dissension a resonance with thepolarity of Eastern and Western Europe in their day.

The Figure of the EmperorFlateyjarbk and other 14th-century manuscripts contain a Christian

travelogue called the Saga of Eirkr Vfrli. It is about a prince fromTrondheim who heads east to search for Paradise (dinsakr). Headopts Christianity in Constantinople and the Byzantine Emperor edu-cates him in the Christian world view. He eventually travels further Eastand reaches the end of his road, though he never manages to enterParadise itself.21

The role of the Greek monarch in this narrative is interesting. He is

a fully-fledged Christian doctor or didaskalos, who instructs the youngNordic prince in the fundamentals of Christianity.22 In this particularsource, the Christian world view is described according to learned writ-ings such asImago mundi andElucidarius. A Nordic man is thus made toseek his education about the Christian world view in Byzantium.

The narrative of the Saga of Eirkur can be compared with the Sagaof Charlemagne: this Old Norse chivalric romance recounts the famousKings crusade to the Holy Land where he fights by the East RomanEmperors side. When Charlemagne asks for permission to travel home,

the Byzantine Emperor offers to give him Constantinople and to be his

Ch. FELL, The Icelandic Saga of Edward the Confessor: Its version of the Anglo-SaxonEmigration to Byzantium, Anglo-Saxon England 3 (1974) 179-196 (esp. 181-189).See also Ch. FELL,A Note on Plsbk, Medieval Scandinavia 6 (1973) 102-108.21 Cf. S. JAKOBSSON, On the Road to Paradise: Austrvegr in the Icelandic

Imagination, in: The Fantastic in Old Norse/Icelandic Literature Sagas and theBritish Isles. Preprint papers of the 13th international Saga Conference,Durham and York, 6th-12thAugust 2006, ed. J. McKinnell D. Ashurst D.Kick, Durham 2006, 935-943.22 On the role of the Byzantine emperor asdidaskalos, cf. G. DAGRON,Emperor

and Priest. The Imperial Office in Byzantium (= Past & Present Publications), transl.J. Birrell, Cambridge University Press 2003, 263-266.

178

Sverrir Jakobsson


8/17

vassal. Charlemagne answers: God forbid me to do that because you areEmperor and lord of all Christendom.23 Even if the aim of the story isto aggrandise Charlemagne, this concept of the leader of allChristendom is consistent with what Icelanders at the time probably

believed.In descriptions of the world, Constantinople is usually consideredone of the chief Christian cities alongside Jerusalem and Rome. In the13th-century Biblical retelling Stjrns description of the world, Con-stantinople is that city which Norsemen call Mikligarr [] which in itsgreat power and merit is in many ways equal to Rome itself.24 In SnorriSturlusons Edda, Christ is the King of the heavens and the sun and theangels and ofJerusalem and Jordan and Greece ... [authors emphasis].25

Christ is called stlkonungr in the Miracle of the Virgin Mary, but that

name is otherwise used for the Byzantine Emperor.26

In a world-descrip-tion from 1387, written by a cleric from the western part of Iceland, holyremains in Constantinople are documented and Constantine the Greatand other Emperors are mentioned.27

The relationship between the East Roman Empire and theScandinavian Varangians who served in the imperial guard until the11th century is well-known and has often been commented upon.28 Fora later period, however, the evidence for continuing relations is not sooverwhelming but nevertheless quite substantial. During the Age of the

Crusades, Nordic people travelled increasingly to Constantinople andJerusalem, though never as frequently as they did to Rome. King Eirkr

23 Karlamagns saga. Branches I, III, VII et IX, ed. A. Loth, Copenhagen 1980,95. Tales of the Eastern adventures of Charlemagne were popular in Europefrom the 12th century onwards, cf. C. ERDMANN, Die Entstehung des

Kreuzzugsgedankens (= Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte 6),Stuttgart 1935, 276-277.24 Stjrn. Gammelnorsk biblehistorie fra verdens skabelse til det babyloniske fangen-

skab, ed. C. R. Unger, Christiania 1862, 83.25 Snorri Sturluson, Edda, ed. F. Jnsson, Copenhagen 1900, 121.26 Mariu saga. Legender om jomfru Maria og hendes jertegn efter gamle

Haandskrifter, ed. C. R. Unger, Christiania 1871, 1086. Cf. S. EGILSSON,Lexiconpoticum antiqu lingua septentrionalis, Copenhagen 1931 [2. ed. by F. Jnsson;original ed. Copenhagen 1854-1860], 539.27 Cod. mbr. AM. 194, 8vo. Alfri slenzk: Islandsk encyklopdisk litteratur, 1 (=Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 37), ed. K. Klund,Copenhagen 1908, 25-26.28 Cf. S. BLNDAL, Vringjasaga. Saga norrnna, rssneskra og enskra hersveita

jnustu Miklagarskeisara mildum, Reykjavk 1954, or the English translation:Varangians of Byzantium. An Aspect of Byzantine Military History, ed. B. S. Benedikz,

Cambridge New York, 1978. For later research cf. M. BIBIKOV

, Byzantino-scandica, in: Byzantium. Identity, Image, Influence. XIXth InternationalCongress of Byzantine Studies University of Copenhagen, 18-24 August 1996.Major Papers, ed. K. Fledelius P. Schreiner, Copenhagen 1996, 201-211.

179



9/17

Sveinsson (1055-1103) of Denmark, and King Sigurr Magnsson (1090-1130) of Norway were the first to go. Marks Skeggjasons (d. 1107)Eirksdrpa describes Eirkrs travels south and how his honour reaches itszenith when he goes to Constantinople and is received by the Emperor.29

Depictions of the crusading kings travels have in common that theydwell on the reception they get in Constantinople and their dealings withEmperor Alexios, while less is said about their religious experiences in

Jerusalem. In Kntlinga Saga the Emperors gifts are explicitly used tocompare the valour of the kings.30 This emphasis on the reception ofmonarchs in Constantinople is a key feature of narratives of kings pil-grimages and it eclipses everything else.31 Earl Rgnvaldr of theOrkneys (d. 1158) apparently travels to the Holy Land because a merce-nary back from Constantinople urges him to go, saying: You will be

respected most where you arrive in the company of noble men.32

Thisturns out to be so; as the Earl is received with great honour at Constan-tinople. After the trip all his companions rise in status as everyone con-sidered them much greater men than before.33 In fact, the respectgained by the Earl and his companions in Constantinople is described inmuch more detail than the salvation that pilgrimage brings.

The deference that the Emperor in Constantinople shows the Kingsand the Earl leads them to be considered greater men after the journey.It is unclear what other purpose the trip served since the pecuniary gain

was insignificant. The gain would have been symbolic and kings pil-grimages perhaps had a similar purpose to the trips of Icelandic farm-ers sons to the courts of kings and leaders.34

The travels of Scandinavian rulers to the Byzantine Empire can beinterpreted in multiform ways. In the 12th century the Emperor inConstantinople seems to have regarded Nordic kings as his vassals. In1196 Kirjalax the king of the Greeks (Emperor Alexios IV) sent messen-gers with a letter and seal to the kings of Norway, Denmark and Sweden,and asked them to send him soldiers.35 This may be understood as a

29 Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning, ed. F. Jnsson, Copenhagen 1912-1915.800-1200, B. Rettet text, I, 414-420.30 Sgur Danakonunga. 1. Sgubrot af fornkonungum. 2. Knytlinga saga (=Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 46), ed. C. af Petersens E. Olson, Copenhagen 1919-1925, 236-237.31 Morkinskinna, 337;grip af Nregs konunga sgum (= Altnordische Saga-bib-liothek 18), ed. F. Jnsson, Halle 1929, 50-52.32 Orkneyinga saga (= Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 40),ed. S. Nordal, Copenhagen 1913-1916, 215.33 Orkneyinga saga, 259.34 Cf. S. JAKOBSSON, Upphef a utan, in: Smdarmenn. Um heiur jveld-isld, Reykjavk 2001, 23-39.35 Sverris saga etter Cod. AM 327 4o, ed. G. Indreb, Kristiania 1920, 133.

180

Sverrir Jakobsson


10/17

request for continued support, which Scandinavians had usually providedin the previous century, and it shows that the links between Scandinaviansand Constantinople were still considerable. The knights of Archbishop

Absalon of Lund resided in the court of the Byzantine Emperor in 1184

and it is credible that men from Denmark were in the Emperors army.36

Of course, it may have been sound strategy for Nordic kings to defer tothe distant Byzantine Emperor: he did not threaten their independencein the same way as the neighbouring Holy Roman Emperor did.

There are various indications that the Byzantine Emperor had moreprestige than other monarchs, even the Emperor of the Holy RomanEmpire. Serving such a leader added to a persons honour, as oftenemerges in the Sagas of Icelanders. Bari Gumundarson, the protagonistofHeiarvga Saga (Saga of the Heath Slayings), redeems himself by

defending the Emperors realm whereas inBrennu-Njls Saga KolskeggrHmundarson, brother of the brave Gunnar of Hlarendi, ends his lifeas Gods knight and leader of the Varangian Guard.37A similar senti-ment is found in Icelandic chivalric romances. In the Saga of Konr theson of the Emperor the protagonist, the son of the Emperor of Saxony,refuses to visit or serve any monarch who is not richest in all the world,but that is the Byzantine Emperor himself and we shall toConstantinople.38 In romances it is common for excellent leaders to becounted among the most famous men north of the Greek Sea, but there

is no attempt to compare their glory with the Byzantine Emperor orother rulers in the southern lands.This is a recurrent theme within Icelandic chivalric literature, but

very similar sentiments can be noted in religious literature.Kristni Saga(the Saga of Christianity) andFlateyjarbk recount the Icelandic missionaryorvaldr vfrlis efforts to promote Christianity in the East. The 14th-century The Greatest Saga of lafr Tryggvason recounts that orvaldr hadbeen honoured as glorious confessor of our Lord Jesus Christ, by theEmperor of Constantinople and all his magnates and not least by all

bishops and abbots throughout Greece and Syria. Above all else, he wasrevered in the Eastern lands where he was sent by the Emperor as a chiefor ruler, appointed above all the kings of Rus and in all of Gararki[Rus].39

36 K. CIGGAAR,Denmark and Byzantium from 1184 to 1212. Queen Dagmars cross,a chrysobull of Alexius III and an ultramarine connection, Mediaeval Scandinavia 13(2000) 118-143.37 Cf. B. GUNASON, Tlkun Heiarvgasgu (= Studia Islandica 50), Reykjavk1993, 65.38 Fornsgr Surlanda. Magus saga jarls, Konras saga, Brings saga, Flovents saga,

Bevers saga, ed. G. Cederschild, Lund 1884, 48.39 lfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta (= Editiones Arnamagnan. Series A13), 3 vols, ed. . Halldrsson, Copenhagen 1958-2000, I, 300.

181



11/17

Embroidered tales of this kind say little of factual value aboutorvaldurs life at the end of the 10th century but they show what greatthings 14th-century Icelanders believed could have awaited their coun-trymen in the East at that time. It is interesting that despite orvaldrs

religious achievement, his promotion is also shown to be of a secularnature.Stories of the widely-travelled Eirkr and orvaldr reveal that at the

end of the 14th century Icelanders still looked upon the ByzantineEmperor as leader of all Christendom who was in a position to grantNordic men worldly and spiritual eminence. The Emperor appears tooccupy a unique position among Christian rulers. The power receivedfrom his hand is spiritual no less than secular. This hardly seems influ-enced by the great schism, quite the opposite.

The Eastern missionary field

At least from the 12th century on, there was a common opinionamong Icelandic historians that the Norwegian king lafr Tryggvason(d. 1000) played a big part in the Christianisation of Iceland.40 Due tothis groundbreaking event, lafr Tryggvason was a pivotal figure in theIcelanders retelling of their own past and the history of Scandinavia.Oddr Snorrason, a monk at ingeyri in the north of Iceland, wrote the

oldest preserved saga about lafr in the last quarter of the 12th century.In the saga, lafr had already promised to adopt Christianity after aclose call at sea, but upon arriving in Rus he has another vision and a

voice from heaven says to him: Go to Greece and the name of the Lordwill be made known to you. In Greece he meets glorious and devoutscholars and he is taught the true faith and Gods commandments. Thenhe asks a Bishop called Pll to go with him to Rus and preach Gods

word to all heathen nations.41According to Monk Oddr, the land of theRus was thus Christianised from Greece through lafrs intercession.

Other accounts of the Christianisation of the Rus were probably knownin Iceland, although the notion that lafr brought Christianity to theRus via Greece was clearly most prevalent.42

40 This may have been a reaction against the prevalent tradition in which therole of St. Olaf was more important, cf. L. LNNROTH, Studier i Olaf Tryggvasons

saga, Samlaren 84 (1963) 54-94 (61-67). Older sources, such ast the GestaHammaburgensis ecclesiae Pontificum by Adam of Bremen, do not representlafr Tryggvason as a Christian missionary, cf. Quellen des 9. und 11.

Jahrhunderts, 486. This has been pointed out by H. LAXNESS, cf. Vnlandspnktar,

Reykjavk 1969, 27.41 Saga lfs Tryggvasonar af Oddr Snorrason munk, 40-42. On this character, cf.Ch. FELL,A Note on Plsbk.42 lfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, I, 158;Flateyjarbk, I, 119.

182

Sverrir Jakobsson


12/17

Contemporary sources about lafr Tryggvason lend little support tothis account of his adventures in the East. But the idea that Norwegianand Icelandic missionaries played a part in the Christianisation of theRus may derive, in part, from the close links between the courts of Rus,

Norway and Denmark before 1200. The Norwegian King had close andfriendly relations with the princes of the Rus in the 11th and 12th cen-turies, and Danish kings were also related to the princes of the Rus.43

Mstislav, prince of Novgorod, is an example of this, as he married to thedaughter of the Swedish King Ingi, and his daughter was later marriedto both the Norwegian and the Danish kings.

These connections influenced Nordic politics in the 12th century.The Danish King Valdemar the Great (1157-1182) was the grandson ofPrince Vladimir Monomakh (d. 1125) in Kiev. Magnus, son of King

Nicholas (1104-1134), a rival of Valdemars father Lord Knud, married adaughter of the King of Poland and thereby became connected with theroyal family from Polotsk, which was at war with Vladimirs family in Kievand Novgorod. As Valdemar Knudsson and Knud Magnusson were rivalsfor the throne in Denmark in the 1150s, each as a candidate of a respec-tive Danish house, they also represented different branches of the rulingfamily which had formerly vied for power in Rus.44Valdemars sons camefrom both of these families, as he married Sophie, Knuds sister, who wasdescended from the Prince Volodar of Rus. Concurrently, the Rus vener-

ated royal-born Scandinavian saints, e.g. Magnus the Earl of Orkney, St.Knud and St. Olaf.45 This hardly supports the idea of significant reli-gious discord between Rus and Scandinavia in the 12th century.

When Oddr Snorrason wrote his Saga of lafr Tryggvason at the endof the 12th century, relations between Nordic and Eastern powers hadbeen close and friendly for many years. The religious schism or conflict

was hardly discussed, if at all. When Oddr describes the achievements oflafr Tryggvason in the East, his missionary accomplishments wereaccentuated. Oddr adhered to the view that Christianity had come to Rus

from Greece but made lafr Tryggvason an intermediary. It is clear thatOddr would not have written in this way about the achievements of theMissionary King in the East if he thought that the Rus subscribed toheresy or if he had a grudge against the Orthodox Church.

43 J. H. LIND, De russiske gteskaber. Dynasti- og alliancepolitik i 1130s danskeborgerkrig, Historisk tidsskrift 92 (1992) 225-263 (228).44 J. H. LIND,De russiske gteskaber, 248.45 J. H. LIND, The Martyria of Odense and a Twelfth Century Russian Prayer. To theQuestion of Bohemian Influence on Russian Religious Literature, Slavonic and EastEuropean Review 68 (1990) 1-21.

183



13/17

Oddrs depiction of lafr Tryggvasons missionary work in the Eastbecame predominant in Icelandic historical writing about lafr. Whenthe Greatest Saga of lafr Tryggvasonwas written at the end of the 14th cen-tury this idea still prevailed in Iceland. It is impossible to reconcile this

outlook of the Christianisation of Rus with a keen awareness of the Greatschism.From the same period we have Eymundar ttr Hringssonar in

Flateyjarbkwhich depicts politics in Rus and power disputes between therulers in a story that supposedly takes place in the early 11th century.46

This tale bears witness to how Icelanders viewed both the lie of the landand the political situation in Rus in former times.47 It recounts the dis-putes of a prince in Novgorod with his brothers who are rulers in Kievand Polotsk. InEymundar ttr it is assumed that the lands of the Rus are

Christianitys outpost and beyond its borders are evil peoples such asPerms, Turks and Vlachs.48

Attitudes were different in Eastern Scandinavia, as the Danish andSwedish monarchs sought influence and dominions in the region of theBaltic rim. Religious disputes between the Rus and Swedes were on theincrease in the 13th century. In sources emanating from the Rus it is stat-ed that Prince Jaroslav of Novgorod instigated extensive and widespreadmissionary work among the Karelians in 1227 and subsequently amongthe Tavastians.49 This led to conflict with the Swedes who were simulta-

neously seeking a foothold in Finland.The Swedish Earl Birger went on a mission to Finland in 1239 andthe Swedes campaigned against enemies in the East in 1240, with thesupport of the Pope.50 A crusade was preached against the Rus as

46 Flateyjarbk, II, 118-134.47 On the source value of thettr and its congruence with Russian sources, cf.R. COOK,Russian History, Icelandic Story, and Byzantine Strategy in Eymundar ttr

Hringssonar, Viator 17 (1986) 65-89 (68-71).48 Flateyjarbk, II, 124-127. On Vlachs (Blkumenn) cf. S. B. F. JANSSON,Runinskrifter i Sverige, Uppsala 1984 [3. ed; original ed. 1963], 66-68.49 Finlands medeltidsurkunder, I. -1400, ed. R. HAUSEN, Helsinki 1910, 25-26. J.LIND has raised doubts about the validity of these sources, cf. De russiske krniker

som kilde til kontakter i stersomrdet, in: Det 22. nordiske historikermte Olso13.-18. august 1994. Rapport I: Norden og Baltikum, ed. K. Tnnesson, Oslo1994, 35-46 (esp. 42-45).50 J. KORPELA reckons that the papal letters of the time are not specificallydirected against the Russians, cf. The Russian Threat Against Finland in theWestern Sources Before the Peace of Nteborg (1323), Scandinavian Journal of

History 22 (1997) 161-172 (esp. 162-168). Cf. also J. H. LIND, Early Russian-Swedish Rivalry: The Battle on the Neva and Birger Magnussons Second Crusade toTavastia, Scandinavian Journal of History 16 (1991) 269-295 (esp. 284-294).

184

Sverrir Jakobsson


14/17

heretics.51 The original intent of the Papacy may have been to use thecrusade as a lever to bring to an end the quarrels of different parties whohad invested in the Baltic mission. Not only would the crusade relievedomestic pressures, it would repeat the success of the fourth crusade by

forcing the Rus to recognize the supremacy of the Roman Church.52

This is the oldest example of a religious conflict between Swedenand Rus, prompted by religious and political rivalries in the Balticregion. Their defeat at the hands of the Rus in 1240 would colourSwedish perceptions of their neighbours in the East for centuries tocome. For their part, the Rus were suspicious of the beliefs of the

Varangians, although the contributions of Varangians to the Christiani-zation of Rus were also noted.53

In 1293 Swedes built the walled city of Viborg (Viipuri) in Karelia,

right at the base of the Finnish Gulf. The Swedes founded the fortLandskrona at the mouth of the Neva, not for from the site of StPetersburg in later times, but the Rus laid siege to it and captured it in1301. These events marked the beginning of centuries of hostilitiesbetween the Swedes and the Rus, based on the perceived threat to theSwedish territories in Finland.54

The SwedishErikskrnika (Chronicle of Erik), written around 1330,uses the terms the crisno (the Christians) and the hedno (the Pagans)

when recounting the mid-13th century clashes between Swedes on one

hand, and the Rus and their respective Finnish allies on the other.55

Thiscould simply mean that the term heathen was used for all possible ene-mies of the king.56 Parallels can certainly be found, such as when PopeHadrian gave King Henry II of England permission in 1155 to expandthe borders of the Christian church by conquering Ireland.57 The Rus

51 Cf. E. CHRISTIANSSEN, The Northern Crusades, London 1997 [2. ed., originaled. 1980], 116-117.52 W. L. URBAN, The Baltic Crusade, De Kalb 1975, 161-169.53 J. FENNELL, A History of the Russian Church to 1448, London New York1995, 33, 101-102; S. FRANKLIN J. SHEPARD, The Emergence of Rus 750-1200 (=Longman history of Russia), London New York 1996, 308.54 Cf. J. KORPELA, The Russian Threat Against Finland, 168-171.55 Cf. R. PIPPING, Kommentar till Erikskrnikan, Helsinki 1926, 495-496; S.-B.

JANSSON,Medeltidens rimkrnikor. Studier i funktion, stoff, form (= Studia litterarumUpsaliensia 8), Stockholm 1971, 185-187.56 T. LINDKVIST, Crusades and Crusading Ideology in the Political History of Sweden,1140-1500, in: Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1100-1500, ed.

A. V. Murray, Aldershot, Hampshire 2001, 119-130 (esp. 124).57

R. R. DAVIES,Domination and Conquest. The Experience of Ireland, Scotland, andWales, 1100-1300 (The Wiles Lectures given at the Queens University Belfast),Cambridge 1990, 111.

185



15/17

were called heathens in Papal edicts from the 13th century onwards, butit is novel to see this concept appear in secular works.58 This terminolo-gy came into regular use in Sweden in the 14th century. According to theRevelationes of St. Brigid, Magnus Erikssons campaign against Rus was

aimed against heathens (paganos) and heretics (infideles). Swedish texts,however, only talk about hedhninga (Pagans).59 Nordic vocabulary forreligious dissent appears to have been limited: whatever that was notimpeccably Christian was viewed as heathen.

Norwegians and Icelanders had no part in this political rivalry, untilthey became involved in these conflicts through their joint monarchy

with Sweden (1319-1355). Another cause of antagonism which had newlyarisen was periodic raiding in Finnmark. In the Icelandic chronicleGottsklksannll it says that the Rus had campaigned north in

Hlogaland and burned the island of Bjark belonging to Sir ErlingVidkunnsson in the year 1323. This Erling, who was governor (drottsete)of Norway at the time, consequently wrote to Archbishop Eilif inTrondheim and called Finns, Rus and Karelians enemies of God.

Another chronicle,Lgmannsannll (1386), says: The Rus campaigned inNorway from the North and killed men and captured women and chil-dren and pillaged.60

In Iceland, Magns Eirkssons warfare in Rus was seen in terms ofterritorial and religious objectives.61 In 1348, according to theFragments

of the Annals of Sklholt he headed for Rus. That was for two reasons: hewanted to regain a large area of Sweden that the Swedes had lost controlof and, because the Norwegians were unwilling to wage war on anotherkings kingdom, the king sought support from the Pope and promised toconvert the people of Rus to Christianity if he received support to do so.So it came to pass that, with the support of the holy King lafr, the Kingof Rus and many inhabitants adopted the faith.62

58 J. H. LIND, Consequences of the Baltic Crusades in Target Areas: The Case ofKarelia, in: Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1100-1500, 133-150(149).59 Cf. Sancta Birgitta, Revelaciones. Lib. VII (= Samlingar utg. av Svenska forn-skriftsllskapet. Ser. 2. Latinska skrifter, VII:8), ed. H. Aili, Uppsala 2002, 163;

Heliga Birgittas uppenbarelser (= Samlingar utgifna af Svenska fornskrift-sll-skapet, 14), ed. G. E. Klemming, 5 vols, Stockholm 1857-1884, III, 397.60 Islandske Annaler, 283, 346;Diplomatarium Norvegicum. Oldbreve til Kundskabom Norges indre og ydre Forhold, Sprog, Slgter, Sder, Lovgivning og Rettergang i

Middelalderen, 32 vols, Christiania 1847-1995, VIII, 99-100; Regesta Norvegica, 7vols, Oslo 1989 etc., IV, 149.61 On the crusades of King Magnus cf. CHRISTIANSEN, The Northern Crusades,189-197.62 Islandske Annaler, 223.

186

Sverrir Jakobsson


16/17

The religious argument thus seems to be a ruse to persuade theNorwegians to agree to an unpopular war. However, not all contempo-rary chronicles present the episode in these terms. In FlateyjarannllMagns is said to have gone in 1351 to Rus and campaigned against the

Rus and intended to lead them to the true faith. The Norwegians man-aged to conquer several cities but could not conquer any more. InLgmannsannll, on the other hand: King Magns went to Rus and cam-paigned against the Rus and conquered a big city.63 From this, it mightbe supposed that Magns crusade was of marginal interest to theIcelanders, who equated it with any other territorial war.

Very little is known about the premises of this war.64 But it is clearthat discussion of the paganism of the Rus at the Kings court would havebeen in sharp contrast to the views which most Icelanders held about

neighbouring countries in the East.

Conclusions

No doubt the great schism in the Middle Ages had some indirecteffect on the Icelandic church. However, little points to Icelanders hav-ing had a clear idea about it. So rarely do reports of the split of Romanand Greek Catholicism find their way into Icelandic annals, that anunderstanding of the nature of the dispute seems to have been limited

and no awareness of a prolonged religious dispute is evident. Accountsof clashes between Greeks and Latins can be found once in a while, butlittle about what was the issue and there is nothing to indicate that theIcelanders writing about it saw it as deeply-rooted.

In the Saga of lafr Tryggvason and in the accounts of the missionaryking which followed, Icelandic annalists look upon the Christianisationof Rus and West Nordic countries as part of a series of events showinglafr Tryggvason at work everywhere. This was beside the fact that they

were aware that Christianity had been introduced in Rus from Greece.

Throughout Icelandic sources, one finds constant and fairly equivo-cal reverence for the Byzantine Emperor, who was looked upon as one ofthe foremost rulers of Christianity, or even the head of Christendom, asit says in the Saga of Charlemagne. It is perhaps not surprising that thissentiment was prominent in the 12th century, when the way Nordic kingsand nobles were received in Constantinople really does seem to havebeen of the utmost significance to them. At the far end of the North,

63

Islandske Annaler, 276, 40564 M. NORDBERG,I kung Magnus tid. Norden under Magnus Eriksson 1317-1374,Stockholm 1995, 100.

187



17/17

however, this perception seems to have persisted into the 14th century,despite a marked change of attitude in neighbouring countries. InIcelandic works dating from the late 14th century the Emperor inConstantinople is still looked upon as a Christian authority who could

grant pious men a great deal of power in the East.In this context, accounts of Magns Erikssons crusade against theRus in the mid-14th century, not least their ostensible aim of convertingpeople to Christianity, jarred with the dominant version of the historyof the Christianisation of Rus just before 1000, which Icelandic histori-ans had recorded thoroughly. No sagas were written about this campaignand in Flateyjarbk, composed in honour of Magnus grandson, the oldtales about lafr Tryggvason retain their force. Nor does this crusadeseem to have made Icelanders aware of the existence of any great

schism. They still believed in a unitary, catholic world.

188

Sverrir Jakobsson

the schism that never was: old norse views on byzantium and russia

Documents