ᴁᴕᴒͻᴀᴐᴕᴖᴠᴚͻᴡᴕᴎᴡͻᴛᴒᴣᴒᴟͻᴤᴎᴠⱠͻ꜠ᴙᴑͻꜚᴜᴟᴠᴒͻᴣᴖᴒᴤᴠͻᴜᴛͻⱨᴦᴧᴎᴛᴡᴖᴢᴚͻᴎᴛᴑͻϸᴢᴠᴠᴖᴎ

ᶥᴁᴕᴒͻᴀᴐᴕᴖᴠᴚͻᴡᴕᴎᴡͻᴛᴒᴣᴒᴟͻᴤᴎᴠⱠͻ꜠ᴙᴑͻꜚᴜᴟᴠᴒͻᴣᴖᴒᴤᴠͻᴜᴛͻⱨᴦᴧᴎᴛᴡᴖᴢᴚͻᴎᴛᴑͻϸᴢᴠᴠᴖᴎᶦ

ᶠᶷ͚ᶑᶴᶣᶰᶰᶧᶰ͚ᶈᶟᶩᶭᶠᶱᶱᶭᶬ

ᴀᴜᴢᴟᴐᴒⱠ
ⱨᴦᴧᴎᴛᴡᴖᴛᴜᴠᴙᴎᴣᴖᴐᴎͻԓͻϸᴒᴣᴢᴒͻᴖᴛᴡᴒᴟᴛᴎᴡᴖᴜᴛᴎᴙᴒͻᴑᴒᴠͻⱫᴡᴢᴑᴒᴠͻⱨᴦᴧᴎᴛᴡᴖᴛᴒᴠͻӾⱨᴦᴧᴎᴛᴡᴖᴛᴜᴠᴙᴎᴣᴖᴐᴎͻԓͻϸᴒᴣᴢᴒ

ᴖᴛᴡᴒᴟᴛᴎᴡᴖᴜᴛᴎᴙᴒͻᴑᴒᴠͻⱫᴡᴢᴑᴒᴠͻⱨᴦᴧᴎᴛᴡᴖᴛᴒᴠӿԒͻᴖᴠᴠᴢᴒⱠͻ᷇ԓ᷈ͻ᷅ͻ᷈᷆᷆ⅎԒͻᴝᴎᴔᴒᴠⱠͻ᷇⅍᷉ԓ᷇ⅎⅎԒͻᴜᴛͻ

ᴤᴤᴤ᷄ᴐᴒᴒᴜᴙ᷄ᴐᴜᴚ

᷄

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

Sverrir JAKOBSSON (Reykjavík)

In general works on European medieval history there frequently

appears a grand narrative about the friction and polarisation within
Christianity which reached a climax with ’the great schism’ of 1054. As of
that time, it has often been reiterated, Christians split into a western
branch which subscribed to Roman Catholic Christianity and an eastern
branch which came under the Greek Orthodox Church. Recently, histo-
rians have developed an interest in the genesis of Europe as a medieval
phenomenon but this Europe is usually equated with Roman
Catholicism. The powerful East Roman Empire is not regarded as a fully-
fledged European state, but as on a divergent path leading eventually to
a 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 the
Roman-Catholic world in the 12

th

century. This word is found in writings

about the appointment of the German Emperor and the potential con-
sequences of this for the Latin world.

1

Furthermore, at the time of the

Crusades, various scholars in Western Europe were hostile towards the
Greeks and some went so far as to say that Constantinople had ’no part
in Christianity except in name’.

2

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

as in 1955 by Stephen R

UNCIMAN

who claimed that it was ’impossible to

give a precise date for the schism’ and argued that the schism was not a
matter of conflicting ecclesiastical traditions, but of mutual dislike
between the peoples of Eastern and Western Christendom ’that arose out

1

R. B

ARTLETT

, The Making of Europe. Conquest, Colonization and Cultural

Change 950-1350, London 1993, 19.

2

’Ipsa rem Christianitatis non habet, sed nomen’, cf. R. B

ARTLETT

, Patterns of

Unity and Diversity in Medieval Europe, in: The Birth of Identities. Denmark and
Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. B. P. McGuire, Copenhagen 1996, 29-45 (37).
These scholars, however, may not represent the majority opinion among the
European elite, cf. J. F

RANCE

, Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the First

Crusade, in: Knighthoods of Christ. Essays on the History of the Crusades and
the Knights Templar, presented to M. Barber, Aldershot 2007, 3-16.

173

of the political events of the eleventh and twelfth centuries’.

3

In the last

10-20 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, Joan
M. H

USSEY

states that ’the real schism ocurred’ as a result of the embit-

terment engendered by the Latin crusading movement and the assault
on Constantinople in 1204.

4

In the middle of the 12

th

-century the Pope even came close to recog-

nizing the emperor of Constantinople as sole Roman emperor. Emperor
Manuel I Komnenos pursued an alliance with Pope Alexander III in the
1160s, and even as late as 1175 the Pope and the emperor were working
on the terms of a treaty.

5

During the 3

rd

crusade, 1189-1191, the

Byzantine establishment was split over the question whether to seek an
alliance with the Latins or the Islamic ruler Saladin, but the traditional
civil service wisdom prevailed, that peace with the Latins should be sought
at any price.

6

However, this was about to change. In the 13

th

-century, in

the aftermath of the 4

th

crusade, Byzantine identity was refashioned and

now defined against the Latins. Tia M. K

OLBABA

has studied polemical

texts 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); sandwiched
between 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 different
times, at Lyon in 1274, during the 14

th

-century and at the Council of

Florence in the 15

th

century.

8

According to Michael A

NGOLD

, the church

of Constantinople’s insulation from Latin influence only lasted from
1274 to the middle of the 14

th

-century, and was ’a consequence of the

reaction against the union of Lyons’.

9

Except from this, there was a

3

S. R

UNCIMAN

, The Eastern Schism. A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern chur-

ches during the

XI

th and

XII

th centuries, Oxford 1955, 160, 168.

4

J. M. H

USSEY

, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford History of

the Christian Church), Oxford 1986, 136. Cf. Also H. C

HADWIC

k, East and West:

The Making of a Rift in the Church. From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence,
Oxford 2003, 277.

5

P. M

AGDALINO

, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge

1993, 83-95.

6

M. A

NGOLD

, The Fourth Crusade. Event and Context, Harlow 2003, 31-37.

7

T. M. K

OLBABA

, The Byzantine Lists. Errors of the Latins, Urbana – Chicago

2000, 16.

8

Cf. M. A

NGOLD

, Byzantium and the West 1204-1453, in: Eastern Christianity

(= The Cambridge History of Christianity, 5), ed. M. Angold, Cambridge 2006,
53-78.

9

M. A

NGOLD

, Byzantium and the West, 69.

174

Sverrir Jakobsson

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

In addition to this, the concept of schism cannot be applied to all

nations which were part of the Roman-Catholic world. A completely dif-
ferent world view appears in sources from the western part of the Old
Norse cultural zone where one has to try hard to find any references to a
split in the Church. In this article I will deal mostly with material from
Iceland, although the overlap between Icelandic and Norwegian writing
and 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 have
similar 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 great

schism’ in medieval Icelandic sources. Its impact appears not to have
been felt in Iceland before 1274 when several annals recount that the
Greeks had turned from some kind of heresy. For example, the Saga of
Bishop Árni states: ’In the same year came tidings from the aforemen-
tioned assembly in Lyon that the Greeks had reverted to true
Christianity, from the contentious position that they had temporarily
adopted, on the wise counsel of Pope Gregory.’

10

This wording scarcely

suggests much knowledge of the disagreement. The prolonged fracture
of 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 … temporarily

adopted’ was deemed feasible by Icelandic chroniclers in the late 13

th

century, what reasons did Icelanders have to reject heretic priests from
the East in the 11

th

century? That they did so is suggested by the

Icelandic law-code Grágás which differentiates between priests who know
Latin and bishops or priests who ’are not learned in the Latin tongue’,
naming people from Armenia (or Warmia on the Baltic Coast) and the
Rus in particular.

11

This has been interpreted as clear endorsement of

10

Árna saga biskups (= Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, 2), ed. Þ. Hauks-

son, Reykjavík 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 Íslands 3), ed. Á. Björnsson, Reykjavík 1969, 7.

11

Grágás. Lagasafn íslenska þjóðveldisins, ed. G. Karlsson – K. Sveinsson –

M. Árnason, Reykjavík 1992, 19.

175

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

the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

12

However, it is not clear

that this provision was adopted on the initiative of Icelanders or that it
reflects their awareness of ’the great schism’. The notion of the unique
status 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 of
efforts to impose order in the Icelandic church by making Latin the only
accepted language of priests.

This provision has often been linked with reports in the Old Norse

historical works Íslendingabók and Hungurvaka of people ’who claimed to
be bishops’ and of foreign bishops who offered ’more leniency than
Bishop Ísleifr’ (Gizurarson, 1056-1080).

13

But information about these

clerics is sketchy. The church in Scandinavia in the 11

th

century was still

a missionary field where many might call themselves bishops. One may
infer from the Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, written by Adam
of Bremen in the 1070s, that Ísleifr had been appointed Bishop by the
Archbishop of Hamburg–Bremen and could be regarded as his repre-
sentative in Iceland.

14

Bishops ordained somewhere else were not

regarded as having the same authority as Ísleifr, who was a precursor to
later bishops at the see of Skálholt. In this context there is no reason to
assume that these bishops were also considered heretical.

Nor is it certain that the superiors of the first Icelandic bishops

would have objected to acephalic bishops on account of disagreement in
religious matters or differing customs. For example, in the early years of
Nordic Christianity in the 11

th

century, the aforementioned Adam of

Bremen describes with great interest various Greek church customs
which the Archbishop of Hamburg–Bremen adopted. Adam appears not
to know of a great schism, even though his work was composed after
1054.

15

In Veraldar Saga, an Icelandic work on universal history written in the

mid-12

th

century, the discord between the Greeks and ’Romans’ is

defined as political. From the 8

th

century, the ’Romans seceded from the

Emperor in Constantinople… From then on the Byzantine Emperor in

12

M. M. L

ÁRUSSSON

, Um hina ermsku biskupa, Skírnir 133 (1959) 81-94 (esp.

85-88).

13

Ari Þorgilsson hinn fróði, Íslendingabók (= Nordisk filologi A.5), ed. A.

Holtsmark, Oslo 1952, 25; Byskupa sögur (= Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A
13), 2 vols, ed. J. Helgason, Copenhagen 1938-1978, II, 77. Cf. S. L

ÍNDAL

,

Upphaf kristni og kirkju, in: Saga Íslands I, Reykjavík 1974, 225-288 (252).

14

Cf. Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der hamburgischen Kirche

und des Reiches (= Ausgewählte 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 in

Scandinavia at the time cf. H. J

ANSSON

, Templum nobilissimum. Adam av Bremen,

Uppsalatemplet och konfliktlinjerna i Europa kring år 1075 (= Avhandlinger från
Historiska institutionen i Göteborg 21), Gothenburg 1998, 152-162, 167-711.

176

Sverrir Jakobsson

Constantinople and the Emperor in Saxony have claimed authority over
one other’.

16

This is an interesting point of view coming from a work that

as a rule epitomises the clerical view of world history.

17

Morkinskinna and other 13

th

-century Kings’ sagas recount the dis-

putes of the Norwegian Harald Hardrada with troops in the service of
the East Roman Emperor led by George Maniakes (d. 1043), a kinsman
of Empress Zoe. According to these sources, there was a power struggle
between Maniakes and Harald which only ended when Harald left the
army ’and with him, all the Varangians and other Latin people but
Gyrgir [George] and the others went with the Greek army.’

18

This could

be interpreted as deriving from a conflict between members of the
Roman 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 were
lacking. The Old Norse Saga of Edward the Confessor tells of the Anglo-
Saxons who went to Constantinople some years after the fall of Harald
Godwinsson 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 the
names of other major cities in England’. In this unusual narrative, the
religious schism emerges when the Anglo-Saxon settlers refuse to use
Pálsbók (The Book of Paul) ’then current in Constantinople; instead they
sought 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. J

AKOBSSON

, Við og veröldin. Heimsmynd Íslendinga 1100-1400, Reykjavík

2005, 56, 112.

18

Morkinskinna (= Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 53), ed.

F. Jónsson, 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 11

th

-century text known as the Strategikon of Kekaumenos, cf.

Kekavmen, Soveti i rasskazy. Pouchenie vizantiniiskogo polkovodtsa

X

i veka (= Serija:

Vizantiiskaja biblioteka. Istochniki), ed. G. G. Litavrin, 2nd ed., St. Petersburg
2003, 298-301; G. S

TORM

, Harald Hardraade og Væringerne i de græske Kejseres

Tjeneste, Historisk Tidsskrift 2, 4 (1884) 354-386. Many stories about Harald
have parallels in Norman literature, cf. J. D

E

V

RIES

, Normannisches Lehngut in den

isländischen Königssagas, Arkiv för nordisk filologi 47 (1931) 51-79 (63-68).

19

The ethnic term ’latinoi’ is rare in Greek historical sources beforethe 12

th

century, when it became common, cf. A. K

AZHDAN

, Latins and Franks in

Byzantium: Perception and Reality from the Eleventh to the Twelfth Century, in: The
Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed. A. E.
Laiou – R. P. Mottahedeh, Washington, D.C. 2001, 83-100 (86).

20

Flateyjarbók. En samling af norske konge-sagaer med indskudte mindre fortællinger

om begivenheder i og udenfor Norge samt annaler, ed. G. Vigfússon – C. R. Unger, 3
vols, Christiania 1860-1868, III, 470-472. On the sources of this story cf.

177

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

Notwithstanding an interdiction of Armenian and Greek bishops

there is not much in Icelandic or West Nordic sources which points to an
East-West schism in the Church. One may infer that little was heard of
this 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 the
schism were amorphous in contrast to the importance assigned to ’the
schism’ in modern historiography. This represents an exaggeration of
20

th

-century historians who found in this dissension a resonance with the

polarity of Eastern and Western Europe in their day.

The Figure of the Emperor

Flateyjarbók and other 14

th

-century manuscripts contain a Christian

travelogue called the Saga of Eiríkr Víðförli. It is about a prince from
Trondheim who heads east to search for Paradise (’Ódáinsakr’). He
adopts Christianity in Constantinople and the Byzantine Emperor edu-
cates him in the Christian world view. He eventually travels further East
and reaches the end of his road, though he never manages to enter
Paradise 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 young
Nordic prince in the fundamentals of Christianity.

22

In this particular

source, the Christian world view is described according to learned writ-
ings such as Imago mundi and Elucidarius. A Nordic man is thus made to
seek his education about the Christian world view in Byzantium.

The narrative of the Saga of Eiríkur can be compared with the Saga

of Charlemagne: this Old Norse chivalric romance recounts the famous
King’s crusade to the Holy Land where he fights by the East Roman
Emperor’s side. When Charlemagne asks for permission to travel home,
the Byzantine Emperor offers to give him Constantinople and to be his

Ch. F

ELL

, The Icelandic Saga of Edward the Confessor: Its version of the Anglo-Saxon

Emigration to Byzantium, Anglo-Saxon England 3 (1974) 179-196 (esp. 181-189).
See also Ch. F

ELL

, A Note on Pálsbók, Medieval Scandinavia 6 (1973) 102-108.

21

Cf. S. J

AKOBSSON

, On the Road to Paradise: ’Austrvegr’ in the Icelandic

Imagination, in: The Fantastic in Old Norse/Icelandic Literature – Sagas and the
British Isles. Preprint papers of the 13

th

international Saga Conference,

Durham and York, 6

th

-12

th

August 2006, ed. J. McKinnell – D. Ashurst – D.

Kick, Durham 2006, 935-943.

22

On the role of the Byzantine emperor as didaskalos, cf. G. D

AGRON

, Emperor

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

178

Sverrir Jakobsson

vassal. Charlemagne answers: ’God forbid me to do that because you are
Emperor and lord of all Christendom.’

23

Even if the aim of the story is

to aggrandise Charlemagne, this concept of ’the leader of all
Christendom’ is consistent with what Icelanders at the time probably
believed.

In descriptions of the world, Constantinople is usually considered

one of the chief Christian cities alongside Jerusalem and Rome. In the
13

th

-century Biblical retelling Stjórn’s description of the world, Con-

stantinople is ’that city which Norsemen call Mikligarðr […] which in its
great power and merit is in many ways equal to Rome itself.’

24

In Snorri

Sturluson’s Edda, Christ is the King of the heavens and the sun and the
angels ’and of Jerusalem and Jordan and Greece ... [author’s emphasis]’.

25

Christ is called ’stólkonungr’ 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, holy
remains in Constantinople are documented and Constantine the Great
and other Emperors are mentioned.

27

The relationship between the East Roman Empire and the

Scandinavian ’Varangians’ who served in the imperial guard until the
11

th

century is well-known and has often been commented upon.

28

For

a later period, however, the evidence for continuing relations is not so
overwhelming but nevertheless quite substantial. During the Age of the
Crusades, Nordic people travelled increasingly to Constantinople and
Jerusalem, though never as frequently as they did to Rome. King Eiríkr

23

Karlamagnús saga. Branches I, III, VII et IX, ed. A. Loth, Copenhagen 1980,

95. Tales of the Eastern adventures of Charlemagne were popular in Europe
from the 12

th

century onwards, cf. C. E

RDMANN

, Die Entstehung des

Kreuzzugsgedankens (= Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte 6),
Stuttgart 1935, 276-277.

24

Stjórn. Gammelnorsk biblehistorie fra verdens skabelse til det babyloniske fangen-

skab, ed. C. R. Unger, Christiania 1862, 83.

25

Snorri Sturluson, Edda, ed. F. Jónsson, 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. E

GILSSON

, Lexicon

poëticum antiquæ lingua septentrionalis, Copenhagen 1931 [2. ed. by F. Jónsson;
original ed. Copenhagen 1854-1860], 539.

27

Cod. mbr. AM. 194, 8vo. Alfræði íslenzk: Islandsk encyklopædisk litteratur, 1 (=

Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 37), ed. K. Kålund,
Copenhagen 1908, 25-26.

28

Cf. S. B

LÖNDAL

, Væringjasaga. Saga norrænna, rússneskra og enskra hersveita í

þjónustu Miklagarðskeisara á miðöldum, Reykjavík 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. B

IBIKOV

, Byzantino-

scandica, in: Byzantium. Identity, Image, Influence. XIX

th

International

Congress of Byzantine Studies University of Copenhagen, 18-24 August 1996.
Major Papers, ed. K. Fledelius – P. Schreiner, Copenhagen 1996, 201-211.

179

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

Sveinsson (1055-1103) of Denmark, and King Sigurðr Magnússon (1090-
1130) of Norway were the first to go. Markús Skeggjason’s (d. 1107)
Eiríksdrápa describes Eiríkr’s travels south and how his honour reaches its
zenith when he goes to Constantinople and is received by the Emperor.

29

Depictions of the crusading kings’ travels have in common that they

dwell on the reception they get in Constantinople and their dealings with
Emperor Alexios, while less is said about their religious experiences in
Jerusalem. In Knýtlinga Saga the Emperor’s gifts are explicitly used to
compare the valour of the kings.

30

This emphasis on the reception of

monarchs in Constantinople is a key feature of narratives of kings’ pil-
grimages and it eclipses everything else.

31

Earl Rögnvaldr of the

Orkneys (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

This

turns 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 respect

gained by the Earl and his companions in Constantinople is described in
much more detail than the salvation that pilgrimage brings.

The deference that the Emperor in Constantinople shows the Kings

and 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 be

interpreted in multiform ways. In the 12

th

century the Emperor in

Constantinople seems to have regarded Nordic kings as his vassals. In
1196 ’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. Jónsson, Copenhagen 1912-1915.

800-1200, B. Rettet text, I, 414-420.

30

Sögur Danakonunga. 1. Sögubrot 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; Ágrip af Nóregs konunga sögum (= Altnordische Saga-bib-

liothek 18), ed. F. Jónsson, 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. J

AKOBSSON

, Upphefð að utan, in: Sæmdarmenn. Um heiður á þjóðveld-

isöld, Reykjavík 2001, 23-39.

35

Sverris saga etter Cod. AM 327 4o, ed. G. Indrebø, Kristiania 1920, 133.

180

Sverrir Jakobsson

request for continued support, which Scandinavians had usually provided
in the previous century, and it shows that the links between Scandinavians
and 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 Emperor’s army.

36

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

There are various indications that the Byzantine Emperor had more

prestige than other monarchs, even the Emperor of the Holy Roman
Empire. Serving such a leader added to a person’s honour, as often
emerges in the Sagas of Icelanders. Barði Guðmundarson, the protagonist
of Heiðarvíga Saga (Saga of the Heath Slayings), redeems himself by
defending the Emperor’s realm whereas in Brennu-Njáls Saga Kolskeggr
Hámundarson, brother of the brave Gunnar of Hlíðarendi, ends his life
as ’God’s knight’ and leader of the Varangian Guard.

37

A similar senti-

ment is found in Icelandic chivalric romances. In the Saga of Konráð the
son 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 to
Constantinople’.

38

In romances it is common for excellent leaders to be

counted among the most famous men ’north of the Greek Sea’, but there
is no attempt to compare their glory with the Byzantine Emperor or
other 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) and Flateyjarbók recount the Icelandic missionary
Þorvaldr víðförli’s efforts to promote Christianity in the East. The 14

th

-

century The Greatest Saga of Ólafr Tryggvason recounts that Þorvaldr had
been honoured as glorious confessor of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the
Emperor of Constantinople and all his magnates and not least by all
bishops and abbots throughout Greece and Syria. Above all else, he was
revered in the Eastern lands where he was sent by the Emperor as a chief
or ruler, appointed above all the kings of Rus and in all of Garðaríki
[Rus].

39

36

K. C

IGGAAR

, Denmark and Byzantium from 1184 to 1212. Queen Dagmar’s cross,

a chrysobull of Alexius III and an ‘ultramarine’ connection, Mediaeval Scandinavia 13
(2000) 118-143.

37

Cf. B. G

UÐNASON

, Túlkun Heiðarvígasögu (= Studia Islandica 50), Reykjavík

1993, 65.

38

Fornsögr Suðrlanda. Magus saga jarls, Konraðs saga, Bærings saga, Flovents saga,

Bevers saga, ed. G. Cederschiöld, Lund 1884, 48.

39

Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta (= Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A

1–3), 3 vols, ed. Ó. Halldórsson, Copenhagen 1958-2000, I, 300.

181

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

Embroidered tales of this kind say little of factual value about

Þorvaldur’s life at the end of the 10

th

century but they show what great

things 14

th

-century Icelanders believed could have awaited their coun-

trymen in the East at that time. It is interesting that despite Þorvaldr’s
religious achievement, his promotion is also shown to be of a secular
nature.

Stories of the widely-travelled Eiríkr and Þorvaldr reveal that at the

end of the 14

th

century Icelanders still looked upon the Byzantine

Emperor as ’leader of all Christendom’ who was in a position to grant
Nordic men worldly and spiritual eminence. The Emperor appears to
occupy a unique position among Christian rulers. The power received
from 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 12

th

century on, there was a common opinion

among Icelandic historians that the Norwegian king Ólafr Tryggvason
(d. 1000) played a big part in the Christianisation of Iceland.

40

Due to

this groundbreaking event, Ólafr Tryggvason was a pivotal figure in the
Icelanders’ retelling of their own past and the history of Scandinavia.
Oddr Snorrason, a monk at Þingeyri in the north of Iceland, wrote the
oldest preserved saga about Ólafr in the last quarter of the 12

th

century.

In the saga, Ólafr had already promised to adopt Christianity after a
close 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 Lord
will be made known to you.’ In Greece he meets ’glorious and devout
scholars and he is taught the true faith and God’s commandments.’ Then
he asks a Bishop called Páll to ’go with him to Rus and preach God’s
word to all heathen nations’.

41

According to Monk Oddr, the land of the

Rus was thus Christianised from Greece through Ólafr’s intercession.
Other accounts of the Christianisation of the Rus were probably known
in Iceland, although the notion that Ólafr brought Christianity to the
Rus via Greece was clearly most prevalent.

42

40

This may have been a reaction against the prevalent tradition in which the

role of St. Olaf was more important, cf. L. L

ÖNNROTH

, Studier i Olaf Tryggvasons

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

Jahrhunderts, 486. This has been pointed out by H. L

AXNESS

, cf. Vínlandspúnktar,

Reykjavík 1969, 27.

41

Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar af Oddr Snorrason munk, 40-42. On this character, cf.

Ch. F

ELL

, A Note on Pálsbók.

42

Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, I, 158; Flateyjarbók, I, 119.

182

Sverrir Jakobsson

Contemporary sources about Ólafr Tryggvason lend little support to

this account of his adventures in the East. But the idea that Norwegian
and Icelandic missionaries played a part in the Christianisation of the
Rus may derive, in part, from the close links between the courts of Rus,
Norway and Denmark before 1200. The Norwegian King had close and
friendly relations with the princes of the Rus in the 11

th

and 12

th

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 the
daughter of the Swedish King Ingi, and his daughter was later married
to both the Norwegian and the Danish kings.

These connections influenced Nordic politics in the 12

th

century.

The Danish King Valdemar the Great (1157-1182) was the grandson of
Prince Vladimir Monomakh (d. 1125) in Kiev. Magnus, son of King
Nicholas (1104-1134), a rival of Valdemar’s father Lord Knud, married a
daughter of the King of Poland and thereby became connected with the
royal family from Polotsk, which was at war with Vladimir’s family in Kiev
and Novgorod. As Valdemar Knudsson and Knud Magnusson were rivals
for the throne in Denmark in the 1150s, each as a candidate of a respec-
tive Danish house, they also represented different branches of the ruling
family which had formerly vied for power in Rus.

44

Valdemar’s sons came

from both of these families, as he married Sophie, Knud’s sister, who was
descended 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 12

th

century.

When Oddr Snorrason wrote his Saga of Ólafr Tryggvason at the end

of the 12

th

century, relations between Nordic and Eastern powers had

been close and friendly for many years. The religious schism or conflict
was hardly discussed, if at all. When Oddr describes the achievements of
Ólafr Tryggvason in the East, his missionary accomplishments were
accentuated. Oddr adhered to the view that Christianity had come to Rus
from Greece but made Ólafr Tryggvason an intermediary. It is clear that
Oddr would not have written in this way about the achievements of the
Missionary King in the East if he thought that the Rus subscribed to
heresy or if he had a grudge against the Orthodox Church.

43

J. H. L

IND

, De russiske ægteskaber. Dynasti- og alliancepolitik i 1130’s danske

borgerkrig, Historisk tidsskrift 92 (1992) 225-263 (228).

44

J. H. L

IND

, De russiske ægteskaber, 248.

45

J. H. L

IND

, The Martyria of Odense and a Twelfth Century Russian Prayer. To the

Question of Bohemian Influence on Russian Religious Literature, Slavonic and East
European Review 68 (1990) 1-21.

183

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

Oddr’s depiction of Ólafr Tryggvason’s missionary work in the East

became predominant in Icelandic historical writing about Ólafr. When
the Greatest Saga of Ólafr Tryggvason was written at the end of the 14

th

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 Great
schism.

From the same period we have Eymundar þáttr Hringssonar in

Flateyjarbók which depicts politics in Rus and power disputes between the
rulers in a story that supposedly takes place in the early 11

th

century.

46

This tale bears witness to how Icelanders viewed both the lie of the land
and 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 Kiev
and Polotsk. In Eymundar þáttr it is assumed that the lands of the Rus are
Christianity’s outpost and beyond its borders are ’evil peoples’ such as
Perms, Turks and Vlachs.

48

Attitudes were different in Eastern Scandinavia, as the Danish and

Swedish monarchs sought influence and dominions in the region of the
Baltic rim. Religious disputes between the Rus and Swedes were on the
increase in the 13

th

century. In sources emanating from the Rus it is stat-

ed that Prince Jaroslav of Novgorod instigated extensive and widespread
missionary work among the Karelians in 1227 and subsequently among
the 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 and

the Swedes campaigned against enemies in the East in 1240, with the
support of the Pope.

50

A crusade was preached against the Rus as

46

Flateyjarbók, II, 118-134.

47

On the source value of the þáttr and its congruence with Russian sources, cf.

R. C

OOK

, Russian History, Icelandic Story, and Byzantine Strategy in Eymundar þáttr

Hringssonar, Viator 17 (1986) 65-89 (68-71).

48

Flateyjarbók, II, 124-127. On Vlachs (Blökumenn) cf. S. B. F. J

ANSSON

,

Runinskrifter i Sverige, Uppsala 1984 [3. ed; original ed. 1963], 66-68.

49

Finlands medeltidsurkunder, I. -1400, ed. R. H

AUSEN

, Helsinki 1910, 25-26. J.

L

IND

has raised doubts about the validity of these sources, cf. De russiske krøniker

som kilde til kontakter i Østersøområdet, in: Det 22. nordiske historikermøte Olso
13.-18. august 1994. Rapport I: Norden og Baltikum, ed. K. Tønnesson, Oslo
1994, 35-46 (esp. 42-45).

50

J. K

ORPELA

reckons that the papal letters of the time are not specifically

directed against the Russians, cf. The Russian Threat Against Finland” in the

Western Sources Before the Peace of Nöteborg (1323), Scandinavian Journal of
History 22 (1997) 161-172 (esp. 162-168). Cf. also J. H. L

IND

, Early Russian-

Swedish Rivalry: The Battle on the Neva and Birger Magnusson’s Second Crusade to

Tavastia, Scandinavian Journal of History 16 (1991) 269-295 (esp. 284-294).

184

Sverrir Jakobsson

heretics.

51

The original intent of the Papacy may have been to use the

crusade as a lever to bring to an end the quarrels of different parties who
had invested in the Baltic mission. Not only would the crusade relieve
domestic 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 Sweden

and Rus, prompted by religious and political rivalries in the Baltic
region. Their defeat at the hands of the Rus in 1240 would colour
Swedish perceptions of their neighbours in the East for centuries to
come. 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 fort
Landskrona at the mouth of the Neva, not for from the site of St
Petersburg in later times, but the Rus laid siege to it and captured it in
1301. These events marked the beginning of centuries of hostilities
between the Swedes and the Rus, based on the perceived threat to the
Swedish territories in Finland.

54

The Swedish Erikskrönika (Chronicle of Erik), written around 1330,

uses the terms ’the crisno’ (the Christians) and ’the hedno’ (the Pagans)
when recounting the mid-13

th

century clashes between Swedes on one

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

55

This

could 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 Pope

Hadrian gave King Henry II of England permission in 1155 to expand
the borders of the Christian church by conquering Ireland.

57

The Rus

51

Cf. E. C

HRISTIANSSEN

, The Northern Crusades, London 1997 [2. ed., original

ed. 1980], 116-117.

52

W. L. U

RBAN

, The Baltic Crusade, De Kalb 1975, 161-169.

53

J. F

ENNELL

, A History of the Russian Church to 1448, London – New York

1995, 33, 101-102; S. F

RANKLIN

– J. S

HEPARD

, The Emergence of Rus 750-1200 (=

Longman history of Russia), London – New York 1996, 308.

54

Cf. J. K

ORPELA

, The Russian Threat Against Finland, 168-171.

55

Cf. R. P

IPPING

, Kommentar till Erikskrönikan, Helsinki 1926, 495-496; S.-B.

J

ANSSON

, Medeltidens rimkrönikor. Studier i funktion, stoff, form (= Studia litterarum

Upsaliensia 8), Stockholm 1971, 185-187.

56

T. L

INDKVIST

, 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. D

AVIES

, Domination and Conquest. The Experience of Ireland, Scotland, and

Wales, 1100-1300 (The Wiles Lectures given at the Queen’s University Belfast),
Cambridge 1990, 111.

185

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

were called heathens in Papal edicts from the 13

th

century onwards, but

it is novel to see this concept appear in secular works.

58

This terminolo-

gy came into regular use in Sweden in the 14

th

century. According to the

Revelationes of St. Brigid, Magnus Eriksson’s campaign against Rus was
aimed against heathens (paganos) and heretics (infideles). Swedish texts,
however, only talk about ’hedhninga’ (Pagans).

59

Nordic vocabulary for

religious dissent appears to have been limited: whatever that was not
impeccably Christian was viewed as heathen.

Norwegians and Icelanders had no part in this political rivalry, until

they became involved in these conflicts through their joint monarchy
with Sweden (1319-1355). Another cause of antagonism which had newly
arisen was periodic raiding in Finnmark. In the Icelandic chronicle
Gottskálksannáll it says that the Rus had campaigned ’north in
Hålogaland and burned the island of Bjarkø belonging to Sir Erling
Vidkunnsson’ in the year 1323. This Erling, who was governor (drottsete)
of Norway at the time, consequently wrote to Archbishop Eilif in
Trondheim and called Finns, Rus and Karelians enemies of God.
Another chronicle, Lögmannsannáll (1386), says: ’The Rus campaigned in
Norway from the North and killed men and captured women and chil-
dren and pillaged.’

60

In Iceland, Magnús Eiríksson’s warfare in Rus was seen in terms of

territorial and religious objectives.

61

In 1348, according to the Fragments

of the Annals of Skálholt he headed for Rus. That was for two reasons: he
wanted to regain a large area of Sweden that the Swedes had lost control
of and, because the Norwegians were unwilling to wage war on another
king’s kingdom, the king sought support from the Pope and promised to
convert 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 Ólafr, the King
of Rus and many inhabitants adopted the faith.

62

58

J. H. L

IND

, Consequences of the Baltic Crusades in Target Areas: The Case of

Karelia, 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-

skriftsällskapet. Ser. 2. Latinska skrifter, VII:8), ed. H. Aili, Uppsala 2002, 163;

Heliga Birgittas uppenbarelser (= Samlingar utgifna af Svenska fornskrift-säll-
skapet, 14), ed. G. E. Klemming, 5 vols, Stockholm 1857-1884, III, 397.

60

Islandske Annaler, 283, 346; Diplomatarium Norvegicum. Oldbreve til Kundskab

om Norges indre og ydre Forhold, Sprog, Slægter, Sæder, Lovgivning og Rettergang i

Middelalderen, 32 vols, Christiania 1847-1995, VIII, 99-100; Regesta Norvegica, 7
vols, Oslo 1989 etc., IV, 149.

61

On the crusades of King Magnus cf. C

HRISTIANSEN

, The Northern Crusades,

189-197.

62

Islandske Annaler, 223.

186

Sverrir Jakobsson

The religious argument thus seems to be a ruse to persuade the

’Norwegians’ to agree to an unpopular war. However, not all contempo-
rary chronicles present the episode in these terms. In Flateyjarannáll
Magnús 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.’ In
Lögmannsannáll, on the other hand: ’King Magnús went to Rus and cam-
paigned against the Rus and conquered a big city.’

63

From this, it might

be supposed that Magnús’ ’crusade’ was of marginal interest to the
Icelanders, who equated it with any other territorial war.

Very little is known about the premises of this war.

64

But it is clear

that discussion of the paganism of the Rus at the King’s court would have
been 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 indirect

effect 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 Roman
and Greek Catholicism find their way into Icelandic annals, that an
understanding of the nature of the dispute seems to have been limited
and no awareness of a prolonged religious dispute is evident. Accounts
of clashes between Greeks and ’Latins’ can be found once in a while, but
little about what was the issue and there is nothing to indicate that the
Icelanders writing about it saw it as deeply-rooted.

In the Saga of Ólafr Tryggvason and in the accounts of the missionary

king which followed, Icelandic annalists look upon the Christianisation
of Rus and West Nordic countries as part of a series of events showing
Ólafr 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 of
the foremost rulers of Christianity, or even the ’head of Christendom’, as
it says in the Saga of Charlemagne. It is perhaps not surprising that this
sentiment was prominent in the 12

th

century, when the way Nordic kings

and nobles were received in Constantinople really does seem to have
been of the utmost significance to them. At the far end of the North,

63

Islandske Annaler, 276, 405

64

M. N

ORDBERG

, I kung Magnus tid. Norden under Magnus Eriksson 1317-1374,

Stockholm 1995, 100.

187

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

however, this perception seems to have persisted into the 14

th

century,

despite a marked change of attitude in neighbouring countries. In
Icelandic works dating from the late 14

th

century the Emperor in

Constantinople 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 Magnús Eriksson’s ’crusade’ against the

Rus in the mid-14

th

century, not least their ostensible aim of ’converting

people to Christianity’, jarred with the dominant version of the history
of the Christianisation of Rus just before 1000, which Icelandic histori-
ans had recorded thoroughly. No sagas were written about this campaign
and in Flateyjarbók, composed in honour of Magnus’ grandson, the old
tales about Ólafr Tryggvason retain their force. Nor does this ’crusade’
seem to have made Icelanders aware of the existence of any ’great
schism’. They still believed in a unitary, catholic world.

188

Sverrir Jakobsson