Sven Estridson’s incest and divorce

Niels Lund

Adam of Bremen, the eleventh century chronicler of the archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen,

informs us that at some time not very long after his accession to Denmark in 1047 Sven

Estridson violated canon law by marrying a consanguinea, a woman so closely related to him

that in the eyes of the church the marriage was incestuous. She is also referred to as a

consobrina, a niece. The archbishop was very upset by this and intervened, insisting that the

marriage be dissolved immediately. The king was furious, Adam tells us, and threatened to

ravage and destroy all the diocese of Hamburg-Bremen. Adalbert, the archbishop, however,

stuck to his guns and in the end, helped by papal intervention, succeeded in persuading the

king to bring his marriage to an end, the queen retiring to her native Sweden.

Immediately, it is surprising that an archbishop who depended so much on royal

favour for his work conditions in Denmark would stake everything on one throw like this.

Without royal cooperation his influence in the key part of his diocese would be severely

curbed. However, one contemporary incident might suggest that around the middle of the

eleventh century the church in general and Pope Leo IX (1049-54) in particular set great store

by the observance of canon law concerning consanguinity. At a council in Reims in 1049 Leo

threatened to ban the projected marriage between William, duke of Normandy, and

Mathilde, daughter of count Baldwin V of Flanders, on grounds of consanguinity. The

popular myth has it that William defied the pope and wedded Mathilde, and both then did

penance by founding an abbey each in Caen, William L’Abbaye aux hommes, St Etienne, and

Mathilde L’Abbaye aux Dames, Holy Trinity.1 This myth has, however, been utterly

dismantled by David Bates. Pope Leo did threaten to ban the marriage but he did so for

political reasons. A coalition involving the count of Flanders was building up against the

emperor Henry III (1039-56),2 and the popes were still very much the emperor’s men. What

problems there were between Duke William and the pope seem to have been resolved quickly

and amicably. The rest is an accretion of loose hypotheses in later sources.3 This story

therefore does not provide a context for the story of Sven Estridson’s forced divorce and does

not render it any less baffling. The nature of the alleged consanguinity has never been defined.

It also seems strange that, if the Danish royal dynasty had been the object of

determined archiepiscopal castigation for its marital habits, it should soon go on indulging in

marriages between cousins. According to Knytlinga Saga Harald Hen (^ 1080), Sven’s son and

first successor, married a daughter of Sven’s brother Osbeorn,4 and Ubbe, who was the son-

in-law of King Niels (1104-34), Sven’s son and fifth successor, was the son of that same

Osbeorn.5 One might have expected some knitting of brows at this, whether the information

in the late Knytlinga Saga is true or not, had the Danes really been made forcefully aware of

the viciousness of incestuous marriages, but there is no hint of that in any of these cases. It is

surely not conclusive in any sense but it is still remarkable that none of the later Danish

sources basing themselves extensively on Adam of Bremen, such as the Chronicon Roskildense6

1David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror : The Norman Impact upon England, 76-80,and appendix C.

2David Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, 49-51.

3David Bates, Normandy before 1066, 199-201.

4Knytlinga Saga ch. 26.

5Lars Hermanson, Släkt, vänner och makt,

6SM 1, 22-23.

or the Series ac breuior historia regum Danie,7 have included his information about Sven’s

incestuous marriage and divorce in their accounts.

Incest loomed large in eleventh century politics and theology. It had been an issue

throughout the middle ages; it had been discussed with varying intensity within what degrees

of relationship marriage was permissible. In the eleventh century discussion and concern

soared to unprecedented heights led by people like Petrus Damianus, whose attitude really

was that since the end of the world was imminent there was no point in human procreation. It

would only produce more sinners and was sinful per se. He therefore advocated the adoption

of very wide forbidden degrees of consanguinity and carried the day when Pope Alexander II

(1061-73) supported him. This led to rules forbidding marriage between descendants of

common great-great-great-great-great grandparents, a number of forbears amounting to 124

who would, statistically speaking, have about eighth thousand descendants. Nobody could

keep track of this number of relationships – to which were added spiritual relationships like

sponsorships and other indirect relationships. If, for example, a married woman died her

bereaved husband could not marry her sister, because the marriage had brought him into too

close relationship with his wife’s sister.

Before it ended up in absurdities like this, which were only tempered in 1215 by the

Fourth Lateran Council, there had been many discussions about how to calculate degrees of

relationship. Some advocated the calculation by knees known from Roman law, others

favoured what they regarded as the Canon calculation, and some preferred various

combinations. The results of the different methods varied considerably, and this, off course,

left scope for litigation as well as political exploitation. Parties opposed to a proposed alliance

could challenge it by alleging consanguinity while those wanting it would contest the claim of

7SM 1, 165.

consanguinity. The outcome often depended on politics. Henry II (1002-24) accused Count

Otto of Hammerstein, last male descendant of King Conrad I (911-18), and his wife

Irmingard of consanguinity because he wanted to curb Otto’s power in Wetterau and Frankia.

The couple was anathematized in 1018 but persisted in their marriage. Later they secured

papal recognition of their alliance but still the archbishop of Mainz challenged it in a synod in

Frankfurt in 1027. Finally, Conrad II who had other political priorities, and whose queen

Gisela belonged to Count Otto’s family, put an end to the case.8

Another case arose when Henry III (1039-56) wanted to marry Agnes of Poitou.

Abbot Siegfried of Gorze objected on grounds of consanguinity but imperial lawyers disputed

his calculation and the marriage was concluded in November 1043 according to the emperor’s

wishes.9

Some impediments to marriage were so grave that if a marriage had been contracted

and it was afterwards found out that such impediments applied, the alliance, as in the case of

Sven Estridson and Gunhild, would have to be dissolved. Such impediments were called

diriment. Less grave impediments were called impedient. If such impediments were ascertained

post festum they did not lead to separation of the parties and annulment of their marriage. This

was an important distinction because consanguinity was one of the very few reasons for which

you could obtain a divorce and became a frequently used pretext for getting rid of an

unwanted spouse. A famous example is the attempt of the French king Philip August (1180-

1223) to reject and divorce his Danish queen Ingeborg.10

Adam of Bremen does not date the divorce of Sven Estridson precisely but we

8LexMA, Hammersteiner Ehe; Ubl, Inzestverbot, 417-26.

9Ubl, Inzestverbot, 447-50.

10Nanna Damsholt, Kvindebilledet i dansk højmiddelalder, 231ff.

normally assume that it took place c.1050, because Adam places the marriage after Sven had

become lord of Denmark and Norway as well as England. Peter Sawyer, disregarding Adam’s

information that Sven married Gunhild after the death of Magnus the Good in 1047,

suggests that Sven had married Gunhild during his sojourn at the court of Anund

Jacob/James, king of Sweden c.1022-50, in his youth, and that in fact he wanted the divorce

because the Swedish alliance was less useful for him after Magnus’s death.11 If Sven had in

fact contracted a new and politically more promising marriage soon after his divorce, a

hypothesis that he himself advanced diriment marriage impediments to obtain it might have

found support in this; there is, however, no hint of this in our sources. Adam says that for the

rest of his life Sven indulged in numerous wives and concubines, no political implications

being given. Sven got many children but, in fact, we have no idea who were their mother, or

mothers.

There is no doubt that if Adam’s claim that Sven Estridson and his queen were

cousins, having a common grandmother, were true, the church had a strong case against the

royal couple. Such a relationship was within the forbidden degrees by all calculations of

relationship and cases were brought against much remoter relationships even before the end of

the eleventh century.

Adam’s story of Sven Estridson runs like this:

ii, 78: In cuius locum Angli prius elegerunt fratrem eius Eduardum, quem

de priori marito Imma genuit, vir sanctus et timens Deum. Isque suspectum

habens Suein, quod sceptrum sibi Anglorum reposceret, cum tyranno pacem

fecit, constituens eum proximum se mortuo regni Anglorum heredem, vel si

11Peter Sawyer, Making of Sweden, 35.

filios susceperit. Tali pacto mitigatus Suein in Daniam remeavit. Multa

prelia Suein cum Magno feruntur. Tociens Suein victus ad regem Sueonum

fugiens pervenit Anundum.

iii, 12: Magnus eo tempore simul tenebat duo regna, Danorum videlicet

atque Nortmannorum, Iacobus adhuc in Suedia sceptrum habuit. Cuius

auxilio Suein et Tuph ducis effultus Magnum pepulit a Dania. Qui denuo

bellum instaurans obiit in navibus. Suein duo regna possedit classemque

parasse dicitur, ut Angliam suo iuri subiceret. Verum sanctissimus rex

Edwardus cum iusticia regnum gubernaret, tunc quoque pacem eligens

victori obtulit tributum, statuens eum, [ut supra dictum est,] post se regni

heredem. Cumque [rex] iuvenis Suein tria pro libitu suo regna tenuerit, mox

succedentibus prosperis oblitus est celestis regis et consanguineam a Suedia

duxit uxorem. Quod domno archiepiscopo valde displicuit, furentemque

regem missis legatis ad eum de scelere terribiliter increpuit, postremo, nisi

resipuerit, excommunicationis gladio feriendum esse. Tunc ille conversus in

furorem minabatur omnem parrochiam Hammaburgensem vastare et

exscindere. Ad quas minas imperterritus noster archiepiscopus arguens et

obsecrans perstitit immobilis, donec tandem flexus Danorum tyrannus per

litteras papae libellum repudii dedit consobrinae. Nec tamen rex sacerdotum

admonitionibus aurem prebuit, sed mox ut consobrinam a se dimisit, alias

itemque alias uxores et concubinas assumpsit. Et suscitavit ei Dominus

inimicos in circuitu multos, sicut Salemoni fecit proprios servos.

B Schol. 61 (62): Suein a Magno victus cessit fortunae et factus est homo

victoris, faciens ei sacramentum fidelitatis. Sed cum denuo rebellare cepisset

consilio Danorum, nihilominus a Magno superatus est. Ita Suein fugiens ad

Iacobum venit, adprime dolens pro fide pollicita, quam violavit.

iii,15: Nomen ei Stinkel. Is solus misericordia motus super fratres optulit eis

munera transmisitque eos per montana Suedorum salvos usque ad

sanctissimam Gunhild reginam, quae a rege Danorum pro consanguinitate

separata in prediis suis trans Daniam commorata est, hospitalitati

elemosinisque vacans et ceteris operibus sanctitatis insistens. Ea legatos cum

ingenti honore quasi a Deo missos recipiens magna per eos xenia misit

archiepiscopo.

ii, 78 (74): In Harthacanute’s place the English had previously chosen his

brother Edward, whom Imma had conceived by her former husband.

Edward was a holy man and one fearing God. Since he suspected that Svein

would claim the English sceptre for himself, Edward made peace with the

despot, designating him to be, on his death, the next heir to the English

throne, even if Edward had sons. Appeased by this arrangement, Svein

returned to Dennark. Svein is said to have fought many battles with

Magnus. As often as Svein was defeated, he came fleeing to the king of the

Swedes, Anund.

iii, 12: Magnus at that time held two kingdoms; namely, that of the Danes

and that of the Norwegians. James still held the sceptre in Sweden. With his

support and that of Duke Tove, Svein drove Magnus from Denmark. When

the latter again resumed the war, he died on shipboard. Svein possessed two

kingdoms and is said to have got ready a fleet to subject England to his

jurisdiction. But as the most saintly king Edward governed his realm with

justice, he then also preferred peace to victory and, proffering tribute,

ordained, as has been stated above, that Svein should inherit the kingdom

after him. Since the young king Svein had three kingdoms at his disposition,

he by and by forgot the heavenly King as things prospered with him and

married a blood relative from Sweden. This mightily displeased the lord

archbishop, who sent legates to the rash king, rebuking him severely for his

sin, and who stated finally that if he did not come to his senses, he would

have to be cut off with the sword of excommunication. Beside himself with

rage, the king then threatened to ravage and destroy the whole diocese of

Hamburg. Unperturbed by these threats, our archbishop, reproving and

entreating, remained firm, until at length the Danish tyrant was prevailed

upon by letters from the pope to give his cousin a bill of divorce. Still the

king would not give ear to the admonitions of the priests. Soon after he had

put aside his cousin he took to himself other wives and concubines, and

again still others. And the Lord raised up against him many adversaries on

all sides as He had against Solomon through his own servants.

Schol. 61 (62): On being overcome by Magnus, Svein bowed to fate and

taking an oath of fidelity to the victor, became his vassal. But when on the

advice of the Danes he undertook to rebel a second time, he was none the

less defeated by Magnus. Taking to flight, then, Svein came to James,

grieving in particular about the pledged faith he had violated. [Tschan]

iii, 15: …His name was Stenkil. He alone was moved with compassion for

the brethren, offering them gifts and conveying them safely over the

Swedish mountains to the most saintly queen Gunnhild. After her

separation from the king of the Danes on the ground of consanguinity, she

lived on her estates across from Denmark, devoting her time to hospitality

and almsgiving and busying herself with other works of charity. She received

the legates with great respect, as having been sent by God, and as their host

sent valuable gifts to the archbishop by them.

Adam’s account of Sven Estridson takes its point of departure in his account of Sven

Forkbeard (^ 3rd February 1014), and to a large extent it follows the pattern of this account.

According to Adam Sven Forkbeard defied God by rising against his father Harald Bluetooth

who lost his life battling against his son and in addition to this he persecuted the Christians of

Denmark. Sven had, Adam says, been baptized through Otto the Great (936-973) and had

even been called after the emperor, answering to the double name of Sven Otto, but after his

accession through patricide he apostatized and started persecuting the church. For these

infamous deeds he appropriately suffered severe divine punishment. He was twice captured by

Slavs so that the Danes had to ransom him very dearly both times. In addition to this he was

driven away from his kingdom by the Swedish king Erik the Victorious and had to spend

biblical twice seven years of exile in Scotland, probably chosen for being the most forbidding

place Adam could think of. After the death of Erik the Victorious Sven married his widow,

thus making Erik’s son and successor Olof Skötkonung (c.994-c.1022) his stepson, and took

over power in Denmark. However, Adam reminds us, «this marital relationship was of no

advantage to him, for God was angry with him». Olof drove Sven Forkbeard out of Denmark

and took possession of the realm himself. Thus castigated, Sven finally returned to the Faith,

he «knew that the Lord He is God», and was permitted by his stepson, an ardent Christian of

course,12 to be reinstated in his kingdom of Denmark.13

Other sources tell a very different story, and they are so much more reliable that we

have little reason to doubt that Adam invented his story to serve homiletic purposes rather

than historical truth. One captivity among the Slavs, as also recorded by Thietmar, might

have seemed plausible, even if corroboration is impossible to find, but as for the rest of the

story we know that while, according to Adam, Sven was wandering about the world looking

for someone who would put him up and put up with him, and afterwards spending a fourteen

year exile in Scotland, driven away from Denmark by Erik the Victorious, he was in fact

leading a series of successful raids on England. On his first visit to England he was even

offered the crown of England by some English magnates.14

This story is very typical of Adam. It is a homily about how ill those fare who fall

foul of God. Godless princes lose their kingdoms, devout ones win new lands with divine

support. One example of this is the story about how Harald Bluetooth, pious and brave, was

able to extend his power over England15 – an information, of course, not supported by any

12Adam ii, 58 (56).

13Adam ii, 39 (37).

14Anglo-Saxon Wills no. 16 (2).

15Adam ii, 25.

other evidence.16

Adam’s account of Sven Estridson’s life first informs us of his relationship with

Magnus the Good, king of Norway 1035-47 and of Denmark 1042-47. We are told that for a

start Sven was defeated by Magnus and then succumbed to fate and became Magnus’s vassal.

However, at the instigation of the Danes he broke his oath of fidelity, only to be defeated

once again by Magnus, and had to flee to Anund Jacob. Later, with the help of the Swedish

king and Tovi, earl of Götaland, Sven succeeded in driving Magnus away from both Norway

and Denmark. Magnus staged a counterattack but then died onboard his fleet. This, in

Adam’s account, put Sven in possession of both Denmark and Norway, and he then gathered

a fleet to add England to his dominions. However, Edward the Confessor, king of England

since 1042, proffered tribute to the victor – Adam is styling Sven victor without recording any

battle or any victory to Sven – and, once again, made Sven heir to his kingdom. Sven was now

in possession of three kingdoms: Denmark, Norway and England.

Sven had truly prospered; in a short time he had gone from being a refugee in

Sweden to being lord of three kingdoms. This, in Adam’s world, was only possible because

the Lord was with him. Sven, however, did not appreciate this; his success made him forget

the Lord. He acted against him, taking a blood relative, a consanguinea, as his wife.

Archbishop Adalbert intervened, rebuking the king sternly for this transgression and insisted

that Sven gave up his marriage. The king was unwilling, threatened to ravage and destroy all

the diocese of Hamburg, but after the pope had intervened he gave in and divorced his queen,

giving her a libellus repudii. As Carsten Breengaard has commented this was a clear victory for

16Niels Lund, Harald Blåtands død – og hans begravelse i Roskilde? idem, ‘HaraldBluetooth – a saint very nearly made by Adam of Bremen;’ Peter Sawyer, ‘Swein Forkbeardand the Historians.’

canon law and an equally clear defeat for morality.17 Adam regrets that after the divorce Sven

did not listen to the prelates regarding women but took a number of new uxores et concubinas,

wives and concubines, a biblical expression that does not imply any legitimacy for any of

them.18 Therefore the Lord raised up against him a number of enemies, just as he had raised

Salomo’s own servants against him. This is a reference to 1. Kings 11 about Salomo having

foreign and gentile women in his harem in spite of the Lord’s ban. The reason for this ban

was the risk that such women might convert him to their gods, and for his disobedience the

Lord rent ten of Israel’s twelve tribes from Salomo.

Adam’s account of Sven Estridson’s career raises no fewer questions than that of

Sven Forkbeard’s. It will not bear close scrutiny. For a start, Adam’s claim that after Magnus’s

death Sven possessed both Denmark and Norway is far from accurate: In Norway Magnus

had shared power with his uncle Harald Hardrada in 1046 and after Magnus’s death Harald

went on as sole ruler.19 Sven never ruled Norway.

Regarding the control of England Adam is also skating on very thin ice. In the first

place Edward the Confessor ruled till 1066, and however much trouble the relatives of Sven

Estridson gave him, not least Edward’s father-in-law Godwine and his sons, cousins of Sven,

he excercised his royal power in such a way that it is utterly misleading to claim that Sven

could dispose of England at his will. After his defeats in Scandinavia at the hands of the

Norwegians, why didn’t Sven, if he were designated heir to the country, seek refuge in

England rather than in Sweden with Anund Jacob?20

17Carsten Breengaard, Muren om Israels hus, 83-84.

18Schmeidler, Hamburg-Bremen und Nordost-Europa, 304.

19Claus Krag, Norges historie fram til 1319, 72.

20Sture Bolin, Kring mäster Adams text, 216.

Adam first mentions Edward’s appointment of Sven as heir to England right after

his accession in 1042.21 In this context he borrows an expression form the apocryphal Book of

Judith to describe Edward as vir sanctus et timens Deum;22 later he describes him as rex

sanctissimus.23 Edward and his queen Edith left no issue, and after the death of the king on the

Twelfth Night in 1066 a rumour began to circulate that the marriage had never been

consummated because the pious king did not want to pollute himself by sexual intersourse

with women. Many theologians of that age regarded this as very meritorious and conducive to

redemption, and this rumour is the basis of the whole idea of the king’s sanctity.24 Adam must

have known this rumour but in the 1040s nobody expected sanctity from Edward and his

queen, neither sexually nor in other respects. Edward had married Godwin’s daughter Edith

in January 1045 and nothing suggests that they did not expect to have children, or that this

was not expected of them.25 It is therefore very unlikely that on any of the occasions suggested

by Adam, soon after his accession or in 1047 soon after Magnus’s death, Edward would have

been prepared to make anybody his heir to England at the expense of his own future issue.

That idea was not plausible until after his death Edward’s childlessness was given a pious

explanation.

Sven did send a fleet to England in 1069, led by his brother Osbeorn and by his son

Cnut, later St Cnut, king of Denmark 1080-86, and the following year he led a fleet there

himself. It was all about supporting those in England who were still hoping to get rid of

21Adam ii, 78.

22Adam ii, 78.

23Adam iii,12.

24Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor, 73ff.

25Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor, 85

William the Conqueror.26 We have quite an abundance of sources for the history of England

in this period but none of them have any knowledge that Sven was ravaging the coasts of

England at the time of Magnus’s death.27 On the contrary, the D-version of the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle has it that precisely in 1047 Sven sent to Edward asking for an English fleet to

support him against Magnus.28 According to John of Worcester Sven’s uncle Godwin

advocated sending him fifty ships but was unable to persuade the witenagemot.29 Sven maybe

made another attempt to obtain English help the following year but otherwise he is not

mentioned again in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before 1069.

Numismatic research has provided some fresh information about relations between

Magnus and Sven in Denmark. The late C. J. Becker demonstrated that the name of Magnus

disappeared from coins struck in Lund in the mid 1040s. At the same time a couple of

moneyers disappeared from Lund, only to surface as moneyers for Magnus in Odense.

Becker’s interpretation of this is that about 1044-1045 Magnus was forced to abandon Lund

and Scania and continue his coinage in Fyn through moneyers brought from Lund.30 This

shows that Sven did not always get the worst of it in relations with the Norwegians and hardly

spent as much of his youth as a fugitive at the court of Anund Jacob as we have been prepared

to believe. Erik Arup made him lead the life of a landowner in Sweden for many years.31

26Sten Körner, Battle of Hastings, 138-45; Niels Lund, De hærger, 193-204.

27Frank Barlow, Edward the Confessor, 64, 93; Peter Sawyer, The Making of Sweden,13.

28Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ii, 228; The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed.Whitelock et al., 110-111.

29John of Worcester, sub anno 1047.

30C. J. Becker, ‘The Coinage of Harthacnut and Magnus the Good at Lund c. 1040-c. 1046, 157-58; idem ‘Lund – Odense – Lund,’ passim.

31Erik Arup, ‘Kong Svend 2.s Biografi,’ 70-75.

Adam’s history of Sven Estridson really lacks an account of the many adversaries that

the Lord is said to have raised up against him because of his marital transgressions before and

after his divorce. We may, of course, point, as Bolin did,32 to the losses of England and

Norway, but they were both fictitious. Sven never had any power to lose in either England or

Norway. These losses serve homiletic purposes well but never happened in life. We may ask if

in fact there were more adversaries than Harald Hardrada?

The accusation of incest rested on the claim that Sven’s mother Estrid and the

mother of his queen Gunhild were uterine sisters, which made Sven and Gunhild cousins. It

made no difference to this that the two sisters had different fathers. The common mother of

the two sisters was claimed to be the Polish princess, a sister of Boleslaw Chrobry, who,

Adam tells us, was first married to Erik the Victorious and subsequently, after Erik’s death

c.994, married Sven Forkbeard. As queen of Denmark she is known as Gunhild, apparently an

unavoidable name for royal women at this time, while in later Norse-Icelandic tradition she

became Sigrid Storråde, ‘the Haughty’. In Polish her name may have been Czcirada or

Ðwi“tos»awa.33 In the Liber Vitæ of New Minster there is record of a sister of King Cnut with

the name ‘Santslave’, probably a garbled version of Ðwi“tos»awa.34 She was probably named

after her mother. In her first marriage with Erik the Victorious this Polish princess is said to

have become the mother of Olof Skötkonung and a daughter named Holmfrid, who was later

married to Sven Earl Hákonsson (^ 1016 after the battle of Nesjar). An issue of their marriage

was the daughter Gunhild. In her marriage to Sven Forkbeard Ðwi“tos»awa became the

mother of two Danish kings, Harald (1014-18) and Cnut (1018-35), and the grandmother of

32Sture Bolin, ‘Kring mäster Adams text,’ 223.

33LexMa, sv. ‘Dobrawa’.

34Timothy Bolton, The Empire of Cnut the Great, 215-16.

one, Sven Estridson, his mother Estrid also probably being the child of Sven Forkbeard’s

Polish queen.

The oldest information about the marriage between a Polish princess and Sven

Forkbeard is found in the chronicle of Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg:

Thietmar vii, 39. … et de geniminis viperarum, id est filiis Suenni

persecutoris, pauca edissero. Hos peperit ei Miseconis filia ducis, soror

Bolizlavi successoris eius et nati; quae a viro suimet diu depulsa non

minimam cum caeteris perpessa est controversiam.

…and I will say a few words about the progeny of the vipers, i. e. the sons of

Sven the Persecutor. They were born to him by Duke Mieszko’s daughter,

the sister of Boleslav, his successor and son; rejected by her husband for a

long time she, with others, suffered no little controversy.

It is conspicuous that Thietmar has no knowledge that the princess, whom he does not name,

was first married to the Swedish king Erik the Victorious; it must be a slip of the mind that

made Tschan inform us, in a note to Adam’s scholion 24, that ‘according to Thietmar

Chronicon viii.xxxix (vii.28) Boleslav gave Eric the Victorious his sister in marriage…’ The

passage given in evidence is the vii.39 (28) quoted above.35 Thietmar does not mention Erik at

all. That information is first, and only there, encountered in Adam of Bremen, who supplies it

in his scholion 24:

35Adam, trl. Tschan, 78.

Schol. 24 (25). Hericus rex Sueonum cum potentissimo rege Polanorum

Bolizlao fedus iniit. Bolizlaus filiam vel sororem Herico dedit. Cuius gratia

societatis Dani a Sclavis et Sueonibus iuxta impugnati sunt36 …

Eric, the king of the Swedes, entered into an alliance with Boleslav, the

most powerful king of the Poles. Boleslav gave his daughter or sister in

marriage to Eric. Because of this league the Danes were jointly attacked by

the Slavs and the Swedes…

Adam’s information about Boleslav giving his daughter or sister in marriage to Erik the

Victorious is found in the context of his account of the captivities, exiles and other

wretchedness that Sven Forkbeard had to suffer when God deserted him. This context is very

suspicious. It must alert us to the possibility that Adam invented the Swedish-Polish marital

alliance and the following military cooperation between the parties in order to consolidate his

account of Sven’s fourteen years of exile in Scotland and Erik’s concurrent rule of Denmark,

just as he invented the context it belongs in. The scholion almost has the function of a

footnote to the information about Erik the Victorious.

A closer look at the chronological facts, to the extent they can be ascertained, puts

the story in an even more dubious light. According to Adam, Boleslav’s sister, or daughter,

was given in marriage by her brother as king, i. e. not before May 992, not by her father

Mieszko (c.960-992). Boleslav was born 965×967 and his first marriage was to a daughter of

margrave Rikdag of Meißen in 983 or 984. A daughter was born in 984. At Boleslav’s

36This is one of the scholia that Schmeidler ascribed to Adam himself with greatconfidence, xli-xlii.

accession in 992 she could have been no more than eight years old and by no means nubile.

Boleslav was the son of Mieszko in his marriage to Dobrava (^ 977), a daughter of Boleslav I

of Bohemia; his sister Ðwi“tos»awa was not much younger than him, probably born 966×969.

She could have been marriageable around 983, aged about fifteen.37

Mieszko died 25 May 992 and Boleslav (992-1025) succeeded him. Since Erik the

Victorious died no later than 995 he could not have had many years of married life with

Ðwi“tos»awa. The issue claimed for the alliance, the son Olof Skötkonung, could have been

born no earlier than 993 and therefore been no more than two years old at the death of his

father; and for the alleged incest to come into question his parents must also beget his little

sister Holmfrid who would later serve as the mother of Sven Estridson’s queen Gunhild. Olof

was, however, old enough to take over from his father c.995 and to take part in the battle of

Svold in 999/1000 as an ally of Sven Forkbeard. If we believe Adam he was also powerful

enough to drive his stepfather from Denmark in the mid 990s. Also, a considerable coinage

was minted in his name in Sigtuna from 995.38 It seems almost unimaginable that it could

have gone unmentioned by all sources if Olof had started his reign as a minor; he would have

needed guardians, probably his mother and her new husband, and councillors to rule on his

behalf. Rulers are sometimes seen to mature very quickly but Olof must, as normally assumed,

have been born round about 980,39 and that is twelve years before it was up to Boleslav, not

his father Mieszko, to marry off his sister to Erik. There are good arguments for finding Olof

another mother. A daughter of Olof, Ingegerd, married Jaroslav the Wise of Novgorod in

37Dates from LexMA.

38Brita Malmer, Mynt och människor : Vikingatidens silverskatter berätter, 147-58;eadem, The Sigtuna Coinage c.99-100, passim.

39See. e. g. Olof "skötkonung", http://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/7749, Svensktbiografiskt lexikon (art av Hans Gillingstam), hämtad 2015-01-27.

1019. The following year she gave birth to Vladimir, later grand prince of Novgorod. She

could not have been born much after 1000 and may have been born as early as 988 – in which

case her father Olof must of course have been born before 980; she passed away 1050.40

In Norse-Icelandic tradition the queen of Erik the Victoriuos became known as

Sigrid; according to Snorri Sturlason’s Heimskringla41 she was the daughter of Skoglar-Toste,

an earl in Västergötland. The Norse tradition about Sigrid has most often been discarded in

favour of more contemporary information. It has recently been studied by Birgit Sawyer who

has found much of it to be based on the account of Queen Olga in the Russian Primary

Chronicle.42 There is no doubt that the Nordic tradition about Erik’s queen is fictitious.

However, does the fiction have to extend to the name itself, or could the name of Erik’s queen

in fact have been Sigrid, whatever fantastic stories were afterwards told about her?

It has often been claimed that a reference in the cadaster of King Valdemar from the

first half of the 13th century to something called «Syghridlef» is evidence of the alliance

between Sven Forkbeard and Sigrid. Svend Aakjær assumed that it had belonged to Sigrid

Storraade ans had passed from her to her daughter Estrid and from her to Sven Estridson;

from Sven it passed on to his son Erik Ejegod and via his son Knud Lavard it ended with

Valdemar the Great.43 This assumption is, however, mere guesswork. The possessions of the

Danish kings in Sweden have turned out to be very difficult to locate, and there is no certainty

that the person concerned in Syghridlef is Sigrid Storraade.44

40Ingegerd, http://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/11952, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon(art av Hans Gillingstam), hämtad 2015-01-27.

41Håkon Jarl’s saga, ch. 6.

42Birgit Sawyer, Sigrid Storråda – fanns hon? Forthcoming in NHT.

43Kong Valdemars Jordebog, i, 116 and ii, 187-88.

44Johannes C. H. R. Steentrup, Studier over Kong Valdemars Jordebog, 304-07-

Contemporary information is, of course, normally to be preferred to later

information, and contemporary evidence is available from Thietmar, from the Encomium

Emmae Reginae, as well as from Adam who even claims to have his information straight from

Sven Estridson. We have seen, however, that contemporary sources may be strongly biased.

Contemporaneity is not invariably a stamp of quality. Lauritz Weibull45 and Peter Sawyer46

have these three sources support and confirm each other. It is true that Adam confirms

Thietmar’s information about Sven Forkbeard’s Polish marriage, and Thietmar’s information

that the mother of Harald and Cnut, the progeny of the vipers, had been rejected by her

husband is confirmed by the Encomium Emmae Reginae, which relates that after the death of

Sven Forkbeard, Harald and Cnut went to Sclavonia to fetch their mother ii, 2: Pariter uero

Sclauoniam adierunt, et matrem suam, quae illic morabatur, reduxerunt.47 The crucial bit of

information, that, namely, which is only found in Adam, that when Sven Forkbeard married

the Polish princess she was the widow of Erik the Victorious and the mother of Olof and

Holmfrid, is confirmed by neither Thietmar nor the Encomium. Weibull’s best argument for

trusting Adam seems to be that with Adam’s close relations to Sven Estridson, the grandson

of Sven Forkbeard, he cannot well be mistaken regarding so close family relations.48 Those

who have seen Adam’s willingness to stretch history on a Procrustean bed to make it fit his

purposes, and who know his liberty with chronology, will not recognize this as a strong

argument in favour of Adam’s credibility. Also, if Sven had rejected Olof’s mother, is that not

most likely to have put an end to the political understanding between stepson and stepfather?

45Lauritz Weibull, Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia omkring år 1000, 310-12.

46Peter Sawyer, The Making of Sweden, 31.

47Encomium Emmæ Reginæ, 18.

48Kritiska undersökningar, 311.

It lasted at least to the battle of Svold in 999/1000. And if a son of the Polish princess was

wearing the crown of Sweden, would she have had to retire to Poland when rejected by her

Danish husband? Olof might have accommodated her decently in Sweden. She was, however,

in Poland to be fetched by her two sons by Sven Forkbeard after his death.

It is, then, very difficult to reach the conclusion that the marriage between Sven

Estridson and Gunhild was in fact incestuous. Johannes Steenstrup’s solution, much like that

of Knytlinga Saga,49 to the problem was to disregard Adams claim that the Polish princess

was first married to Erik the Victorious. He accepted her marriage to Sven Forkbeard and

Sven’s rejection of her, as told by Thietmar. Having rejected her Sven married Erik’s widow

Sigrid.50 It is no exaggeration to say that the last step in this series of events is dubious but it is

no doubt sound to disregard Adam’s information about a Polish-Swedish alliance, including a

marriage. The Polish princess was married to Sven Forkbeard only, and he rejected her. She

was never married to Erik the Victorious and therefore did not create any basis for later

incestuous relations between her descendants, certainly not between Sven Estridson and

Gunhild. Gunhild was not her granddaughter. It is of course imaginable that the church

might have invented the claim of an incestuous marriage because it was a useful way of

discrediting Sven in Rome, thus obstructing his attempts to achieve an independent

archbishopric of Denmark, but everything suggests that Adam’s story about Adalbert’s heroic

efforts and the intervention of Pope Leo IX is all made up. Bernhard Schmeidler concluded

his study of Sven Estridson’s marriage on this resigned note: «Von welcher Seite man auch

Adams Angaben überlegt, sie geben überall Anlaß zu Unsicherheit und Zweifeln. Will man

nicht erklären, daß die Quellen uns ein sicheres Wissen überhaupt nicht vermitteln – dieser

49Ch. 5.

50Johannes C. H. R. Steenstrup, ‘Oldtiden og den ældre Middelalder,’ 371.

Verzicht wäre bei Lage der Dinge ganz verständlich und jedenfalls die vorsichtigste

Entscheidung –, so muß man als die immerhin wahrscheinlichste Lösung annehmen, daß der

Name der e inen Gattin Svends Gunhild gewesen sei, wie Adam A I und Snorri berichten,

und daß ihr Geschlecht und ihre Abkunft die gewesen sind, die Snorri ihr beilegt.»51

There could be several explanations why Adam spun this yarn. It might serve to

ascribe to his archbishop a heroic effort for Canon law and morality in an area that attracted

much attention in the eleventh century, and even more so in the 1070s at the time Adam was

writing than it had in the 1050s. Around 1070 Pope Alexander II intervened in a strife

between his good friend Petrus Damianus and some lawyers in Venice, coming down on

Peter’s side. This, as we have seen, led to a considerable tightening of incest legislation. It

might also serve to buttress his account of the fate of Sven Forkbeard, so that Sven could be

humiliated by being driven out by his queens first husband and afterwards by having to receive

his kingdom from the gracious hand of his stepson. Another possibility is that it served to

underpin Adam’s construction of a Polish-Swedish alliance against Denmark. The first

installment of the punishment meted out to Sven by the Lord was two captivities by the Slavs

among whom Harald Bluetooth had died, and two ransomings from them, the next was his

expulsion from his kingdom by Erik the Victorious who afterwards held it for fourteen years.

It seems obvious to elaborate this into a proper cooperation and a marital alliance between

Swedes and Slavs.

Adam of Bremen has often been described as a very scrupulous historian who took

great care to document his accounts with references to his sources. Inge Skovgaard-Petersen

regards it as a sign of Adam’s faithfulness to his sources that sometimes he quotes

51Bernhard Schmeidler, Hamburg-Bremen und Nordost-Europa vom 9. bis 11.Jahrhundert. Kritische Untersuchungen zur Hamburgischen Kirchengeschichte des Adam vonBremen, zu hamburger Urkunden und zur nordischen und Wendischen Geschichte, 310-11.

contradictory statements. When Adam does not quote any sources she is, however, prepared

to consider the possibility that Adam may have invented the information himself.52 It is,

however, too optimistic to assume that whenever Adam refers to a source his information is

reliable or, at least, that Adam himself found it reliable after careful scrutiny. Adam often

invokes Sven Estridson as the source of his information, and this has led scholars, taking this

at face value and regarding Adam simply as a medium of the king, to aim their criticism at the

king rather than at the historian. Arup accused the king of bragging and giving Adam a biased

impression of his achievements, and Lauritz Weibull was inclined to believe Adam’s royal

information because the king could not well be mistaken about recent events in his own

family. Birgit and Peter Sawyer have, on the other hand, suggested that Adam’s peculiar

secrecy about the death of Sven Estridson served to prevent doubts about the credibility of

the information ascribed to the king from arising. They conclude a critical survey of Adam’s

work by giving him credit for having crafted a cunning work of propaganda that succeeded in

misleading generations of historians for a millennium.53 Adam’s account of Sven Forkbeard’s

career is demonstrably false – and for most of it, the captivities, the Scottish exile and the rules

of Erik the Victorious and Olof Skötkonung in Denmark, he invokes Sven Estridson as his

informant! Should we conclude that the king’s knowledge of his forbears was this imperfect,

or should we conclude that Adam fraudulently passed off his own homiletic inventions under

the king’s name? One thing only seems to have restrained Adam’s ingenuity: the risk that

someone might catch him in lies – and the risk that Sven Estridson might become aware of

what he is quoted for and object to it must have been negligible.

Adam of Bremen’s job was to justify the existence of the archbishopric of Hamburg-

52Oldtid og vikingetid, 161.

53Birgit & Peter Sawyer, Welt der Wikinger, 351-56.

Bremen. In its own opinion the archbishopric had been responsible for the Christian faith in

all Scandinavia and in the Slavonic areas east of the Elbe since it was created for Ansgar in

831×832. There was a hard battle to be fought with Cologne because Bremen had been

severed from that archbishopric when after the Viking devastation of Hamburg in 845 Ansgar

was made bishop of Bremen. As an archbishopric Hamburg-Bremen was an anomaly because

it did not have any suffragans and therefore could not function canonically. Cologne often

advocated the quashing of Hamburg-Bremen for this reason.

It has long been clear that there was much playing to the gallery in the acting of the

archbishopric. In 948 three bishops consecrated to Danish dioceses participated in a synod in

Ingelheim. They were consecrated in that very synod,54 at there is no reason whatsoever to

believe that they ever set foot in Denmark. In 965, after Otto the Great and archbishop

Adaldag had returned from a four year sojourn in Italy, the archbishop persuaded the emperor

to issue a diploma relieving the Danish dioceses of all obligations towards the emperor. The

diploma is unique in being issued to three bishops in common, the bishops of Schleswig, Ribe

and Aarhus. These bishops did not get their own copies so they had nothing to produce back

home in their dioceses, should anyone challenge their privileges.55 The diploma was only

meant to persuade the archrival in Cologne that the Hamburg archbishop certainly did have

suffragans.

On this background, and after Eric Knibbs56 has recently demonstrated to what

extent the early history of the archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen is based on fiction and

fraud, we have to ask when the claim of Hamburg-Bremen to lead and supervise the Nordic

54Horst Fuhrmann, ‘Die «heilige und Generalsynode» des Jahres 948', 52-53.

55There is a thorough study of the diploma and its status in Ottonian diplomatics byNiels Refskou, «In marca vel regno Danorum».

56Eric Knibbs, Ansgar, Rimbert and the Forged Foundations of Hamburg-Bremen.

church began to have any real substance.

It has been suggested that Poppo, who, according to Widukind,57 persuaded Harald

Bluetooth to desist from worshipping pagan gods alongside Christ, did in fact come from

Cologne as a legate from archbishop Brun and was identical with Brun’s successor Folkmar.58

If this is so Hamburg-Bremen suffered a serious slight in the 960s while the archbishop was

away in Rome with the emperor. Adam does not mention this incident at all but transfers

Poppo’s effort to Sweden and the Christianization of Erik the Victorious, and insists that

there was perfect cooperation between the church of Hamburg and Harald Bluetooth but

there is very little truth in that story. It has been made up to prove Hamburg-Bremens key

role in the consolidation and progress of Christianity in Scandinavia.59

During the reign of Sven Forkbeard the archbishopric did not have much influence

in Denmark either. Sven got his bishops from England, so they were not consecrated in

Hamburg-Bremen. In his early career Cnut the Great also procured bishops from England,

among them Gerbrand who was consecrated in Canterbury for Roskilde.60 There is reason to

believe, though, that later, maybe in connection with his negotiations with Konrad II in 1027,

maybe later, Cnut made some concessions that at length enabled the archbishops of

Hamburg-Bremen to begin to exercise the influence they had been claiming for two centuries.

When Libentius assumed office in 1029 he needed to start by winning over Cnut .61 Aksel E.

57Widukind, Sachsengeschichte iii, 65.

58Michael H. Gelting, ‘Poppo’s Ordeal: Courtier Bishops and the Success ofChristianization at the Turn of the First Millennium’.

59Lund, Harald Blåtands død, passim.

60Niels Lund, ‘Ville Knud den Store gøre Roskilde til ærkesæde?’

61Adam ii,64; see also Lesley Abrams, The Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization ofScandinavia, Anglo-Saxon England 24 (1995), 213-49, på 227-29.

Christensen believed that the break of frost between Hamburg-Bremen and Denmark was

brought about by Cnut’s negotiations with Conrad II during his coronation festivities in

1027,62 while Michael Gelting has argued that Cnut’s concessions applied only for a short

period around 1030, or even as late as 1033.63 Bishop Henrik of Lund was one of Cnut’s

clerics, consecrated in England and possibly introduced in Lund by Magnus the Good,64 while

Egino, who first had a see in Dalby, seems to have been a Hamburg man.

Apparently, then, Hamburg-Bremen had made some progress in Cnut’s reign but it

is uncertain whether this could be maintained in the reigns of Harthacnut (1035-42) and

Magnus. It rather looks as if what had been achieved under Cnut was lost after his death.

Michael Gelting has recently shown how far from reality the claim of Hamburg-Bremen to be

leading the church of Denmark was.65 Was the church really prepared to stake every

possibility of progress in Denmark on one throw by alienating Sven Estridson so soon after

his accession?

Archbishop Adalbert was a very ambitious man and he was up against an equally

ambitious king. Shortly after his accession Sven Estridson must have started work to secure

Danish independence from Hamburg-Bremen. Adalbert had not yet become regent of

Germany; that did not happen until the death of Heinrich III in 1056, but he had great

influence at court already. A Danish king had to realize that a conflict with the archbishop

62 Aksel E. Christensen, ‘Archbishop Asser, the Emperor and the Pope,’ 29; in‘Ærkebiskop Asser som nordisk kirkeleder’ 38, the year is given as 1028.

63Michael Gelting, Lund, Dalby og Bornholm : Politik og mission i biskop Eginostid, 103; idem, Viborg stifts grundlæggelse - og den danske kirkes udvikling i 1000-tallet’, 18-19.

64 Gelting, Lund, Dalby og Bornholm, 111.

65Michael Gelting, ‘Elusive Bishops: Remembering, Forgetting, and Remaking theHistory of the Early Danish Church.’

could soon become a conflict with the empire. Therefore Sven wanted to have a Danish

bishopric elevated to archiepiscopal status for Denmark. He took this wish to Rome in the

pontificate of Leo IX.66 If he succeeded Hamburg-Bremen would loose their Danish

suffragans and be back at the starting post. Adalbert reacted with a plan to have the diocese of

Hamburg-Bremen elevated to a patriarchate. This would imply that Danish and other

archbishops would refer to him in the same way that the bishops were now doing. Hamburg

would become a northern Rome.67

To the extent this ambitious plan could not be proceeded with, Adalbert had to

combat Sven Estrison’s plans at the Vatican. Danish scholars have assessed Adalbert’s

patriarchal ambitions differently. Hal Koch68 and Aksel E. Christensen69 regarded it as sheer

self-defence and did not believe Adalbert at all wanted any patriarchate because it would

reduce his influence in the Nordic church province, while Carsten Breengaard has argued that

Adalbert stuck to this plan even after Svens plans had been averted.70

The archbishopric last had its privileges confirmed by Pope Clemens II (1046-47) in

1047,71 and the outcome of the battle between the king and the archbishop before the pope

was a resounding victory for the archbishop. His patriarchate did not go through but in 1053

66Adam iii, 33-34.

67Adam iii, 33; Horst Fuhrmann, Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterlichePatriarchate. Der Patriarchatsplan Erzbischof Adalberts von Bremen. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung, 41 (1955), 120-170.

68Danmarks Kirke i den begyndende Højmiddelalder, 45; ‘Den ældre middelalder indtil1241,' 108-09.

69Tiden 1042-1241', Danmarks historie 1: Tiden indtil 1340, red. Aksel E.Christensen m. fl. (København: Gyldendal 1977), 226-33.

70Carsten Breengaard, Muren om Israels hus (København: G.E.C. Gad 1982), 82-88.

71Diplomatarium Danicum 1:1, 492

Pope Leo IX not only confirmed Hamburg’s privileges in Sweden, Denmark, and between the

Elbe and Peene, he extended them to all Scandinavia and added much else. Adalbert was

made apostolic legat and papal vicar, he was permitted to wear his pallium more days than

usual, to have a cross carried before him in processions, to ride on a naccum and to wear a

mitre, otherwise the hat of a Roman bishop.72 According to Adam Pope Leo, who was bishop

of Toul before becoming pope, appointed by Konrad II, appreciated Adalbert so highly that

the archbishop could ask him almost anything. Sven had to realize that he was unlikely to get

an independent arbishopric in Leo’s papacy.

We might of course speculate that Adalbert may have used Sven’s incestuous

marriage in Rome as a means to explain the pope that it was unthinkable to award a country

whose king was so far from meeting ecclesiastical standards of morality it own archbishopric.

However, if the incest was Adam’s invention, the archbishop probably never heard of it. He

died before Adam composed his chronicle.

In the story about the incest of William of Normandy and Mathilde it was possible to find at

least one grain of truth: Leo IX did in fact threaten to ban their alliance. On close scrutiny it

has proved more than difficult to find even that much truth in Adam of Bremen’s story about

the incestuous marriage of Sven Estridson and Gunhild. The very incest was non-existent: the

parties did not have a common grandmother. Adam does not share this information with

other sources and even later sources that rely much on Adam, like the Chronicon Roskildense,

have not taken over this story from Adam.

The other elements in the story, first Sven’s success in winning Denmark, Norway

and England are mostly made up. Sven did not win any victories in England, and he was not

72Diplomatarium Danicum 1:2, 1.

designated heir to Edward the Confessor’s kingdom. The same applies to the divine

punishment for taking a consanguinea as his wife. He had neither Norway nor England to lose

and the many adversaries raised against him by the Lord come down to Harald Hardrada.

In the first place the incest served as a means of Adam’s ingenious humiliations of

Sven Forkbeard. Secondly, the intention with it may have been to depict archbishop Adalbert

as an uncompromising champion of canon law and of his church. The latter, says Adam in the

prologue to his work, was in such a bad state that «the hands of many builders were needed»

to restore its dignity. Incest was a very hot topic when Adam was writing and therefore well

suited to depict the archbishop as the polished knight of his church and of morality.

Postscript:

If we accept that only Sven Forkbeard, not Erik the Victorious, was married to the Polish

princess, this has some implications for the traditional assessment of the age of Sven’s sons

Harald and Cnut. This is based on the assumption that Sven could not marry her before the

death of her first husband in the mid 990s. We have only Adam’s word for it that she was

given away in marriage by her brother, i. e. after 992. If instead Sven married her around the

middle of the 980s, Harald and Cnut may have been ten years older than normally assumed.

Cnut would not, then, have been much younger than his future queen, King Æthelred’ widow

Emma of Normandy, who was probably born in the mid 980s; she was still of childbearing

age around 1020 when her daughter Gunhild was born (Pauline Stafford, Queen Emma and

Queen Edith : Queenship and Women’s Power in Eleventh-Century England (Oxford: Blackwell

2001), 211). And Cnut would not have been a mere teenager when he conquered England in

1016.

Bibliography

Abrams, Lesley, ‘The Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia,’ Anglo-SaxonEngland 24 (1995), 213-49.

Adami Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum. Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte,hrsg. Bernhard Schmeidler, dritte Auflage. Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum inusum scholarum (Hannover und Leipzig: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1917); Quellendes 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der hamburgischen Kirche und des Reichs, ed.Werner Trillmich & Rudolf Buchner. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschenGeschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe, 11 (Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961 or later); History of the Archbishops ofHamburg-Bremen, Translated with an introduction and notes by Francis J. Tschan,with a new introduction and selected bibliography by Timothy Reuter (New York:Columbia University Press, 2002).

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a revised translation ed. Dorothy Whitelock et al. (London: Eyreand Spottiswoode, 2nd impr. 1965).

Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. with Translation and Notes by Dorothy Whitelock (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1930).

Arup, Erik, ‘Kong Svend 2.s Biografi,’ Scandia 4 (1931), 55-101, repr. in Erik Arup, Udvalgteafhandlinger og anmeldelser, 2 vols. (København: Selskabet for udgivelse af kilder tildansk historie, 1977), ii, 297-343.

Barlow, Frank, Edward the Confessor (London: Eyre Methuen, 1979).Bates, David, Normandy before 1066, (London and New York: Longman, 1982).C. J. Becker, ‘The Coinage of Harthacnut and Magnus the Good at Lund c. 1040-c. 1046,

Studies in Northern Coinages of the Eleventh Century, ed. C. J. Becker. Det KongeligeDanske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter 9:4 (København:Munksgaard, 1981), 119-74,

— ‘Lund – Odense – Lund. Numismatiske bidrag til Danmarks historie i 1040'erne.’ hikuin11 (1985), 175-82.

Bolin, Sture, ‘Kring mäster Adams text,’ Scandia 5 (1932), 205-50.Bolton, Timothy, The Empire of Cnut the Great : Conquest and Consolidation of Power in

Northern Europe in the Early Eleventh Century (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009).Breengaard, Carsten, Muren om Israels hus : Regnum og sacerdotium i Danmark 100-1170

(København: Gad, 1982)Christensen, Aksel E., ‘Archbishop Asser, the Emperor and the Pope,’ Scandinavian Journal

of History 1 (1976), 25-42. — ‘Tiden 1042-1241', Danmarks historie 1: Tiden indtil 1340, ed. Aksel E. Christensen et al.

(København: Gyldendal, 1977), 211-399. — ‘Ærkebiskop Asser som nordisk kirkeleder indenfor europæisk politik og kultur,’

Danmark, Norden og Østersøen : Udvalgte afhandlinger (København: Den danske

historiske forening, 1976), 34-51.Damsholt, Nanna, Kvindebilledet i dansk højmiddelalder (København: Borgen, 1985).Diplomatarium Danicum, ed. Det danske Sprog- og litteraturselskab (København: 1938-)Douglas, David C., William the Conqueror : The Norman Impact upon England (London:

Methuen & Co Ltd, in association with Eyre & Spottiswoode, pb. ed. 1969).Encomium Emmæ Reginæ, ed. Alistair Campbell, with a supplementary introduction by Simon

Keynes. Camden Classic Reprints 4 (Cambridge UP 1998).Hermanson, Lars, Släkt, vänner och makt, Historsik Tidsskrift 98 (1998), 241-75.Chronicon Roskildense, in Scriptores minores i: 1-33.Fuhrmann, Horst, ‘Die «heilige und Generalsynode» des Jahres 948', Ingelheim am Rhein.

Forschungen und Studien zur Geschichte Ingelheims. Hrsg. von Johanne Autherieth(Stuttgart: Klett 1964), 159-64. Repr. in Otto der Grosse, hrsg. von HaraldZimmermann. Wege der Forschung 450 (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1976), 46-55.

— ‘Studien zur Geschichte mittelalterliche Patriarchate. Der Patriarchatsplan ErzbischofAdalberts von Bremen.’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte,kanonistische Abteilung, 41 (1955), 120-170.

Gelting, Michael H., Lund, Dalby og Bornholm : Politik og mission i biskop Eginos tid,Locus celebris : Dalby kyrka, kloster och gård, red. Stephan Borgehammar og JesWienberg (2012) 101-111.

— Elusive Bishops: ‘Remembering, Forgetting, and Remaking the History of the EarlyDanish Church.’ The Bishop: Power and Piety at the First Millennium, ed. SeanGilsdorf. Neue Aspekte der europäischen Mittelalterforschung, Band 4, ed. NatalieFryde et al. (Münster, LIT, 2004), 169-201

— ‘Poppo’s Ordeal: Courtier Bishops and the Success of Christianization at the Turn of theFirst Millennium’. Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 6 (2010), 101-133.

— Viborg stifts grundlæggelse - og den danske kirkes udvikling i 1000-tallet’, in Stiftet ogbyen: Viborg Stift 1060-2010, ed. Ole Degn et al.Viborg, Historisk Samfund forViborg-egnen, 2010 II (Fra Viborg-egnen 75, 2010), s. 11-31.

John of Worcester II: The Annals from 40 to 1066, ed. R. R. Darlington and P. Mc.Gurk(Oxford Medieval Texts, 1995)

Eric Knibbs, Ansgar, Rimbert and the Forged Foundations of Hamburg-Bremen (Farnham:Ashgate, 2011).

Knýtlinga Saga, Carl Petersen and Emil Olson. eds. Sogur Danakonunga. l: Sogubrot offornkonungum. 2: Knytlinga saga. Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisklitteratur. 46. (Copenhagen: Ohlsson. 1919-2, pp. 9-294; Trl. Hermann Pålsson andPaul Edwards, Knytlinga saga: The History of the Kings of Denmark (Odense:Odense University Press, 1986).

Koch, Hal, Danmarks Kirke i den begyndende Højmiddelalder (København 1972). — ‘Den ældre middelalder indtil 1241,' Den danske kirkes historie, red. af Hal Koch og Bjørn

Kornerup, 8 vols. (København: Gyldendal 1950ff), 1.Krag, Claus, Norges historie fram til 1319 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2000). Körner, Sten, The Battle of Hastings, England, and Europe 103-1066 Lund: CWK Gleerup,

1964).Lexikon des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 1977-99) 9 vols.Lund, Niels, De hærger og de brænder (København: Gyldendal 1993). — Harald Blåtands død – og hans begravelse i Roskilde? (Roskilde: Roskilde Museum, 1998). — Harald Bluetooth – a saint very nearly made by Adam of Bremen, The Scandinavians from

the Vendel Period to the Tenth Century: an ethnographic perspective, red. Judith Jesch(Woodbridge : The Boydell Press, 2002), 303-320.

— ‘Ville Knud den Store gøre Roskilde til ærkesæde?’ Historisk årbog for Roskilde amt 1994,3-12.

Malmer, Brita, Mynt och människor : Vikingatidens silverskatter berätter (Stockholm: Rabén ochSjögren, 1968).

— The Sigtuna Coinage c. 99-100. Commentationes de nummis saeculorum ix-xi in Sueciarepertis. Nova series 4. (Stockholm : Kungl. vitterhets historie och antikvitetsakademien, 1989).

Nicholas, David, Medieval Flanders (Harlow: Longman 1992). Refskou, Niels, ‘«In marca vel regno Danorum». En diplomatarisk analyse af forholdet mellem

Danmark og Tyskland under Harald Blåtand.’ Kirkehistoriske Samlinger 1985, 19-33.Sawyer, Birgit, ‘Sigrid Storråda – fanns hon?’ Forthcoming in NHT.Birgit & Peter Sawyer, Die Welt der Wikinger (Berlin: Siedler, 2002).Sawyer, Peter, The Making of Sweden. Occasional Papers on Medieval Topics 3 (Alingsås:

Viktoria Bokförlag, 1988). — ‘Swein Forkbeard and the Historians,’ Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages, ed. IanWood and Graham Loud (London: The Hambledon Press, 1991), 27-40.Schmeidler, Bernhard, Hamburg-Bremen und Nordost-Europa vom 9. bis 11. Jahrhundert.

Kritische Untersuchungen zur Hamburgischen Kirchengeschichte des Adam von Bremen, zuhamburger Urkunden und zur nordischen und Wendischen Geschichte (Leipzig:Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1918).

Scriptores minores historiæ Danicæ medii ævi, ed. M. Cl. Gertz, 2 vols. (1917-22).Series et genealogiæ regum danorum in Scriptores minores i: 145-94,Skovgaard-Petersen, Inge, ‘Oldtid og vikingetid,’ Danmarks historie 1: Tiden indtil 1340, ed.

Aksel E. Christensen et al. (København: Gyldendal, 1977), 15-209. Steenstrup, Johannes C. H. R., ‘Oldtiden og den ældre Middelalder’. Joh. Steenstrup et al.

Danmarks Riges Historie, 6 vols. (København: Det nordiske forlag), i. — Studier over Kong Valdemars Jordebog : Efter trykte og utrykte Kilder (Kjøbenhavn: Rudolph

Klein, 1874. Thietmar von Merseburg – Die Chronik des Bischofs Thietmar von Merseburg und ihre Korveier

Überarbeitung. Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi chronicon. Hrsg. von Robert

Holtzmann. (Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores. 6, Scriptores rerumGermanicarum, Nova Series ; 9) (Berlin, 1935).

Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Charles Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,repr. 1965)

Ubl, Karl, Inzest verbot und Gestezgebung : Die Konstruktion eines Verbrechens (300-1100).Millenium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschicht des ersten Jahrtausend n. Chr. 20(Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008).

Weibull, Lauritz, Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia omkring år 1000 (Lund, 1911).repr. in Nordisk historia : Forskningar och undersökningar, 3 vols. (Stockholm 1948), i:245-360,

Widukind, ‘Res gestae Saxonicae.’ Quellen zur Geschichte der sächsischen Kaiserzeit, ed. AlbertBauer und Reinhold Rau. Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte desMittelalters, Freiherr vom Stein Gedächtnisausgabe 8 (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1977).