Sverre Bagge
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION
IN EARLY MEDIEVAL NORWAY
The article deals with problems and directions of research in the study of the
Christianization of Norway. While scholars from the 19th century onwards largely
accepted the sagas’ account of the Christianization as the work of two missionary kings in
the late tenth and early 11th century, the recent trend has been in the direction of a long
and gradual process of Christianization, starting in the late ninth or early tenth century.
This interpretation seems to regard the Christianization as the direct consequence of
increasing contact with the new religion, thus neglecting the question of why the
conversion took place. The present contribution directly addresses this question. It
emphasizes the political aspect of the conversion and the importance of the Viking kings
coming from abroad for giving Christianity the religious monopoly. Further, it suggests
three lines of investigation for future research: (i) a thorough examination of the rich
archaeological material, (ii) a comparison with the whole area of Northern and East
Central Europe that was included in Western Christendom in the tenth and 11th
centuries, and (iii) a focus not only on the conversion period, but on the gradual
penetration of Christianity in the following period and its consequences for state
formation, the development of society, and cultural and ideological transformation.
The following article has its origin in a comparative project on the Christianization of
northern and east central Europe. Its aim is not to give a complete account on the
Christianization of Norway but to discuss some theories and approaches to the
problem and point out some directions for future research.
The historiography of the Christianization of Norway
The 19th century historiography of the Christianization of Norway can be under-
stood in the light of two considerations. On the one hand, Norway was an almost
exclusively Lutheran country with a strong anti-Catholic tradition. Jesuits were
forbidden to enter the country in the constitution of 1814, a provision that remained
in force until 1956 (!), and despite the liberal character of the constitution, freedom
of religion was not introduced until 1845. On the other hand, the Middle Ages were
regarded as the country’s age of greatness, whereas the introduction of the
Reformation coincided with its deepest humiliation, the loss of independence and the
beginning of nearly 300 years of Danish dominance. Two strategies were used to solve
Scandinavian Journal of History Vol. 30, No. 2. June 2005, pp. 107–134
ISSN 0346-8755 print/ISSN 1502-7716 online
ß 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/03468750510014088
this dilemma. One was to emphasize the common Christian rather than the
specifically Catholic character of the religion that was introduced at the time of the
conversion and point to the difficulties the Church had in carrying out its hierocratic
programme in the following period, notably during the struggle with King Sverre in
the late 12th century. The link to Anglo-Saxon England played an important part from
this point of view, as this country was also regarded as less specifically Catholic and
less subordinated to the Pope than most other countries. The second strategy was to
celebrate the pagan past, the Viking age and the saga heroes, and regard the
Christianization as relatively superficial. This forms the background of the idea of the
proud, independent, self-confident man of the north who refused to humiliate himself
before the priests had a lukewarm attitude to the Catholic ideals of celibacy,
asceticism, and belief in the constant intervention of the supernatural. The choice
between these strategies depended on the particular scholar’s religious affiliation.
Thus theologians and staunch Protestants, such as Rudolf Keyser, A.Chr. Bang, and
Absalon Taranger
1
would be likely to choose the former, whereas agnostics like Ernst
Sars and Edvard Bull chose the latter.
2
Bull’s claim for incomplete Christianization is
particularly striking, because he did not share the idea of a glorious medieval past. He
was a radical Marxist and strongly opposed to nationalism, and his point of view was
partly based on the materialist idea of continuity in religious belief as long as material
conditions remain constant. But it can hardly be understood without reference to the
romantic nationalism of the 19th century.
Both these interpretations of the Christianization of Norway fit in well with a
second element, the strong emphasis on the importance of the kings in the process.
This latter idea is ultimately derived from the 13th century sources, the sagas, where
the work of the two missionary kings, Olav Tryggvason (995–1000) and St Olav
Haraldsson (1015–1030), is described in great detail and often in the form of dramatic
and violent struggles between the old and the new religion.
3
To the saga writers, the
missionary kings were, of course, fighting on God’s behalf, whereas to modern
historians, their accounts lent themselves to a political interpretation: Christianization
was a political more than a religious process, the new religion served as a power base
for the monarchy, but the ‘‘hearts’’ remained the same. Or, according to the former
of the two interpretations, the introduction of Christianity by the kings gave the
hierarchy a more subordinate position, at least for a long time.
From a political point of view, this emphasis on the role of the kings differs
markedly from the attitude in Danish and Swedish historiography, where the
missionaries figure more prominently, together with the aristocracy or even the
common people. This difference has some connection with the picture presented in
the medieval narrative sources, but should probably also be understood against the
background of different attitudes among historians as well as within the intellectual
milieux in general in these countries, i.e. the greater importance of nationalism in
Norway than in Denmark and Sweden and particularly its connection with the
political left rather than the right. It is curious, however, that the widely different
accounts of the same process at the same time in neighbouring countries have given
rise to so little discussion.
4
In the most recent discussion of the problem, however,
Alexandra Sandmark pays great attention to the kings in all three countries.
5
There has been some reaction against the 19th-century attitudes in Norway
during most of the 20th century. The Marxist school, which was very influential
108
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
during most of the 20th century, somewhat reduced the importance of the kings in
favour of the idea of a solidarity between the king and the aristocracy. Thus Halvdan
Koht, in opposition to Ernst Sars, denied that the introduction of Christianity led to a
weakening of the aristocracy.
6
While to Sars, the king’s control of the Church marked
the first step in the direction of the elimination of the aristocracy and the introduction
of royal absolutism, Koht pointed out that most of the churches were actually
controlled by local magnates who thus continued their role as religious leaders. To
Koht and even more to his successors, notably Andreas Holmsen, the introduction of
Christianity was an important step in the formation of a state dominated by the great
landowners, in accordance with the Marxist idea of the state as ‘‘the executive
committee of the ruling class’’.
7
To Holmsen, this social process was even the direct
cause of the change in the ‘‘hearts’’: only when the peasants had been reduced from
landowners to tenants, were they able to grasp the Church’s message about sin, grace,
and salvation.
8
The religious aspect of Christianization was for a long time subordinated to
the social and political. Admittedly, it was emphasized in the beginning of the
20th century by the literary historian Fredrik Paasche who attacked Bull’s view of
superficial Christianization, finding profound Christianity as well as close connections
to European literature in the religious poetry.
9
Although later scholars have pointed to
the limitations of this particular source as evidence of popular attitudes, the majority
of those who have commented on the issue have supported Paasche rather than Bull,
but there has been relatively little discussion until the last decades of the 20th century,
when the ‘‘hearts’’ were reintroduced in scholarship on Christianization, partly as a
consequence of the introduction of the history of mentality and, more generally, the
greater interest in cultural history. Empirically most important are Fridtjof Birkeli’s
studies of the early stages of the Christianization process, mainly the impulses from
Anglo-Saxon England, and a number of archaeological excavations and studies,
notably of burials.
Birkeli’s main evidence is the stone crosses found particularly in Western
Norway, probably dating from the tenth and early 11th centuries which he interprets
as early Christian cult sites.
10
Moreover, he attaches greater importance to the reign
of King Ha˚kon the Good (c. 935–961) than most earlier historians have done.
According to the sagas, Ha˚kon, the youngest son of King Harald Fairhair, the first king
ruling the whole country, was sent to King Athalstan of England to be brought up
there. After his father’s death, he returned to Norway and tried to introduce
Christianity but failed. The people of Trøndelag killed the priests, burnt the churches,
and forced the king himself to take part in the pagan sacrifices, the blo´t. Against this
background, the saga writers regard King Ha˚kon as an apostate, although they admit
that he was a good and popular king. This account is confirmed by a poem apparently
composed shortly after Ha˚kon’s death, celebrating him as a pagan, but in a way that
indicates that he may earlier have offended the gods.
11
The sagas also admit that there
was a number of Christians in the southern and western part of the country and that
most of Ha˚kon’s successors were Christians, but still give the two Olavs the main
credit for the Christianization of Norway.
According to Birkeli, the saga writers have misunderstood the peaceful Anglo-
Saxon missionary methods. Ha˚kon remained a Christian his whole life and did much
to convert his fellow-countrymen. Birkeli points out that the main area of the stone
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
109
crosses corresponds to the realm under Ha˚kon’s control. There is also evidence of
Ha˚kon’s mission in Anglo-Saxon sources. Finally, it is striking that the sagas only refer
to opposition against Ha˚kon’s missionary efforts in Trøndelag where his political
control was probably weak. Although we shall probably never know Ha˚kon’s personal
attitude to the conflicting religions, it seems likely that Christianity held a stronger
position in the country during his reign than the sagas directly admit.
Birkeli thus regards the Christianization of Norway as a more extended process
than most earlier scholars have done. His conclusion seems partly to be confirmed by
recent archaeological evidence. Remains of a Christian cemetery from the mid-tenth
century have been excavated at Veøy (‘‘the holy island’’) in Romsdal,
12
i.e. in the
area where Ha˚kon is said to have built the churches that were later destroyed by his
pagan opponents. Further, Per Hernæs has dated the beginning of the Christianization
of Rogaland back to the late eight century on the basis of changing burial customs.
13
The runic inscriptions from the conversion period, which, however, are relatively few
in Norway, also seem to point in the direction of gradual Christianization.
14
Developing this reasoning further, several scholars have suggested that the
Christianization was more or less inevitable and that the pagan religion was slowly
dying. The question why Norway became Christian therefore seems superfluous. The
most extreme adherent of this view is Claus Krag who regards the organization of the
Christian Church in the early 11th century as the end of the Christianization process
rather than its beginning, as has been the more common point of view.
15
Two recent contributions, by Ka˚re Lunden and Gro Steinsland,
16
have challenged
this reasoning. Lunden regards the conversion as a paradigmatic change. While
accepting earlier conclusions about the gradual penetration of Christianity into
Norwegian society, he points out that this is unsatisfactory as an explanation for the
victory of Christianity. The establishment of a religious monopoly, as well the fact
that Christianity got this monopoly, need a specific explanation which Lunden finds in
Peter Berger’s sociological theory of religion.
17
Division in the attitude to the
supernatural meant a division in society which was intolerable. Once religious division
had occurred, it had to be overcome by one of the two religions eliminating the other.
The fact that Christianity won, is related to social change: the pagan religion appealed
to the old, ‘‘heroic’’ Viking aristocracy seeking glory through martial exploits and
facing death with equanimity. The new religion catered for the great mass of the
people who were reduced to poverty and dependence under great lords, by
encouraging them to patience and humility in the expectation of eternal life.
As a historian of religion, Steinsland’s main field is paganism. She does not reject
the idea of a long and gradual penetration of Christianity, but she refuses to regard it
as an inevitable process. Christianity and paganism were totally different religions, the
former based on a revelation, with a universal appeal and a systematic doctrine, the
latter a traditional ethnic religion, an integral part of the particular society to which it
belonged. The two religions also represented radically different attitudes on a number
of specific points: cosmology, the understanding of the supernatural, cult, and ethics.
Moreover, paganism was not a religion in decline. Most of the pagan poetry that has
been preserved probably dates from its last phase and shows sophisticated reflections
on the great issues of human life. There is also evidence of strong personal attachment
to the old religion and of its ability to satisfy contemporary people’s needs for
meaning in life and for maintaining the social order. The victory of Christianity thus
110
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
needs a specific explanation, an explanation that involves an explicit confrontation
between the two religions. The conversion must be understood as a cultural clash, a
revolution taking place in people’s minds.
Steinsland does not attempt to trace the ‘‘story’’ of this clash in any detail; she
leaves the ‘‘external’’ history of the conversion to the historians, focusing on the
purely intellectual level. Here she finds a ‘‘bridge’’ in the idea of sacred kingship,
which was admittedly different in the two religions, but which nevertheless allowed a
transition between them. There has been a long discussion about these ideas, in
Scandinavia as well as in other cultures. Sacred kingship is usually considered to have
consisted of three elements:
(1) The ruler is descended from the gods.
(2) He is identical with a god or represents him in cultic contexts.
(3) He has certain charismatic qualities, expressed in the idea of ‘‘luck’’ which makes
him promote fertility or gives him victory in war.
To these criteria, Steinsland adds a tragic dimension: luck and death are
intimately connected; the king usually suffers a violent death. The crucial text in this
connection is the Eddic poem ‘Skirnisma´l’, in which the god Frøy falls in love with a
beautiful Jotun woman, Gerd, and eventually forces her to marry him. According to
some later sources, the ruling dynasty of Norway was descended from this marriage.
Moreover, marriage between kings and women of low descent seems to be a common
pattern within the dynasty, to some extent even being deliberately emphasized by the
saga writers. This serves to explain another striking feature about the dynasty, notably
the ancient, ‘‘prehistoric’’ one listed in the poem ‘Ynglingatal’ and Snorri’s
‘Heimskringla’: most kings die a violent and often shameful death. On the one hand,
sacred kingship is expressed in the idea of luck: the king is responsible for good
weather and fertility, and he is successful in war against rivals inside or outside the
kingdom. However, luck is not permanent; sooner or later it will betray the king, the
more so as defeat or death is inherent in the blood he has from his mother.
This ‘‘bridge’’ is not of a purely intellectual character; it is expressed in dramatic
practice in the death of St Olav, the great missionary king, in the battle of Stiklestad
(1030). The Christian martyr and the pagan sacred king whose fate is to suffer a
violent death become one person, which leads to the decisive victory for Christianity.
We are thus back to the king, but this time in a new form, religious-cultural rather
than political.
The preceding sketch of the historiography of the Christianization shows widely
different interpretations of the process, from that of a gradual penetration to a
dramatic clash between the two religions and from a political to a religious
understanding. Finally, the official conversion has been understood as the beginning as
well as the end of a period of religious change. The scarcity of contemporary sources
and the problems in using the existing ones give rise to some pessimism about the
possibilities of getting any further. There are, however, some promising fields, the
most important of which are archaeology and comparative research.
Despite a number of recent studies, much remains to be done in the field of
archaeology, and a closer examination of this material will probably enable us to
narrow down the amount of alternative theories. Even this material, however, raises
considerable problems. It is difficult to draw a line in time between the practice of
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
111
Christian and non-Christian burial customs. Generally, grave mounds are conspicuous
as monuments of cultural heritage, whereas the more modest Christian graves are not.
Grave mounds are therefore overrepresented in archaeological records. Further, the
presence or absence of grave mounds does not only depend on religion. Only
landowners were apparently buried in this way. The reduction of the number of grave
mounds may therefore also be explained by increasing social stratification in the
Viking age.
18
Another problem is how to interpret Christian objects in non-Christian
burials. Do they express Christian affiliation, or are they simply jewellery intended to
honour the dead person, usually a woman?
19
Finally, Christian burial practices may
have influenced the pagans without conversion having taken place. Thus, although the
burial practices of the tenth century clearly show closer contacts with Christian
Europe, they are not necessarily evidence of Christianity. The archaeological studies
carried out so far indicate considerable differences between different regions,
generally with early Christianization in the south and along the coast and late in the
north and the inland, but also with variations within the same region. An examination
of selected regions that is now being carried out by Sæbjørg Nordeide at the Centre
for Medieval Studies in Bergen will hopefully give a more precise picture.
A comparative project on the Christianization of the northern and eastern
countries Europe (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, and Rus)
in the tenth and 11th centuries was begun in 2002 and has so far resulted in a book,
giving the status of research for each country, which is now under publication, plus
answers to a series of questions which will be available on internet. The following
observations are partly based on my participation in this project. The value of a
comparative study lies in the fact that the Christianization of the northern and eastern
periphery of Europe was largely the same process, originating in the same areas and
conducted with the same or similar methods. Moreover, the scarcity of written
sources is common to the whole area, and many of the problems connected with the
archaeological material are the same. A comparative approach may pose new
questions and enable us to exploit the existing material more effectively. I shall to
some extent draw on the comparative material in the following.
Mission, diplomacy, and politics
To what extent can we distinguish between religious and political reasons for the
conversion? Such a distinction is far less obvious in the Early Middle Ages than today.
What is religion and what is politics in a society that had no word for religion and
where the conversion was referred to as a ‘‘change in customs’’ (siðaskipti)?
20
We are
hardly discussing the opposition between an existential crisis on the one hand, in
which individual human beings after deep reflection leave their old system of belief to
embrace a new faith, and on the other, cynical politicians without any religious
conviction choosing the belief system that gives maximum political profit. It seems
pretty clear that we are dealing with a mixture of religion and politics, with
conversion as a collective more than an individual process and as a change in rituals
and external behaviour rather than in morality or intellectual conviction.
Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish between motives originating in the religion
itself or as a consequence of the missionaries’ preaching, and motives determined e.g.
by the need for alliances with Christian kingdoms.
112
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
The mission in the northern
21
and eastern periphery of Europe in the post-
Carolingian period had its origin in three centres: Byzantium, The German Empire,
and Anglo-Saxon England – Rome may be mentioned as a fourth centre, but in
contrast to the periods before and after, the papacy hardly played an independent part
in this context in the tenth and early 11th centuries – although there were contacts
between Scandinavia and Byzantine Christendom as well its extension to the north,
Russia,
22
Germany and England are clearly the most important in Scandinavia, as all
three countries were integrated in Western Christendom, apparently without Eastern
Christendom being a serious alternative. The two western centres were both
important but in different ways. The German Empire was the great power of Europe
in the tenth and 11th centuries. Depending somewhat on political conjunctures,
gaining the friendship or avoiding the enmity of its powerful ruler would make strong
incentives to adopt Christianity. In a similar way, Christianization of the neighbouring
countries formed part of imperial policy, whether it was pursued by military or
diplomatic means.
23
By contrast, Anglo-Saxon England was a relatively weak power,
united under one king in the late ninth century, largely as a reaction against the
Scandinavian attacks on England and in the early 11th century even conquered by
Denmark. In between, it had its periods of greatness as well as decline, but was never
strong enough to pose a threat to the Scandinavian countries. Thus, fear of Anglo-
Saxon power was unlikely to be a motive for conversion. It has been usual,
particularly in Norwegian historiography, to contrast the peaceful Anglo-Saxon
missionary methods to the more violent German ones. In so far as this is correct, one
might wonder if the Anglo-Saxons were not simply making a virtue out of necessity.
Of the Scandinavian countries, only Denmark had any reason to fear the German
Empire, and the conversion of this country may possibly have to do with German
influence, political as well as religious. Denmark apparently had a long and
complicated missionary history, going back to the early ninth century, when the first
Danish kings visited the Carolingian court, and ending with Harald Bluetooth’s
baptism around 965. After Charlemagne’s conquest of Saxony in the late eight
century, Denmark was vulnerable to German pressure along its southern border.
However, Denmark was a formidable sea power. A united Denmark was able to
conquer England in the early 11th century, and even without unity, Danish Vikings
were a great threat to Christian Europe. German pressure may have been a factor in
Denmark’s conversion, particularly against the background of greater German
strength after Otto I’s victory over the Hungarians in 955 and his intervention in Italy
in 962, but hardly the only one. The king’s need for allies against other countries or in
inner struggles would seem to be an equally likely motive. Norway and Sweden also
had German contacts, and it is still open to discussion how important German
missionaries were in the conversion of these countries. In any case, all Scandinavian
dioceses were subordinated to the Archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen until 1103.
This archdiocese, established in 831/34 with no suffragans, was apparently intended
to include the dioceses to be founded as the result of the future conversion of the
Scandinavian peoples. In the case of Norway and Sweden, however, this can hardly be
an expression of the political power of Germany. The most likely explanation of
Norway’s link to Hamburg-Bremen is that the Norwegian Church was organized in
the 1020s, at a time when England was ruled by the Danish King Cnut, the enemy of
the Norwegian King Olav, who consequently had to seek other ecclesiastical
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
113
connections. The English connection seems to have been strengthened in the
following period, to the great dismay of Adam of Bremen who depicts the ruling king
King Harald Hardrada as a tyrant who refused to respect the archbishop who had to
turn to the Pope for support. A letter from the Pope to King Harald is quoted in a
scolion to Adam’s text.
24
Obviously, however, there was not much the Archbishop
could do to assert his authority; Norway was too far away. Most Norwegian scholars
have regarded Anglo-Saxon England as the most important missionary centre and
source of influence on liturgy, ecclesiastical legislation, and religious terminology.
25
We cannot exclude the possibility that the Anglo-Saxon influence has been
exaggerated,
26
but it is likely to have been considerable.
This means that external pressure must have been relatively unimportant in the
conversion of Norway. If there was any such pressure, Denmark is a more likely
candidate than England. Actually, the sagas mention a failed attempt by Harald
Bluetooth to convert the Norwegians. Since the Danish influence was fairly strong in
this and the following period, we cannot exclude the possibility that Denmark may
have been more important in the Christianization of Norway, but so far, we have little
positive evidence.
We are then left with Anglo-Saxon England. From an Anglo-Saxon point of view,
converting the Norwegians and other Scandinavians would seem an attractive project,
as this might give some hope of peaceful relations with them and of putting an end to
their frequent raids on English territory – although we should not exaggerate the
effects of Christianity in this respect. The fact that Denmark was the great power of
the North Sea area during the Viking Age might easily lead to an alliance between
Norway and England as a defence against the Danish threat. Harald Fairhair’s alliance
with King Athelstan may possibly be understood in this light,
27
as might also Olav
Tryggvason’s and Olav Haraldsson’s return to Norway after fighting in England, both
probably with some kind of alliance or understanding with the English king who at the
time was threatened by the Danes.
28
The most important aspect of this ‘‘Anglo-Saxon
link’’ for the question of Christianization is that the main initiative did not come from
the Anglo-Saxons but from Norwegian kings. In contrast to Denmark and Sweden –
or at least to what we know about Denmark and Sweden – almost all Norwegian
kings between the death of Harald Fairhair (c. 930) and that of Harald Hardrada
(1066) came from abroad, i.e. they had spent most of their youth there, and ascended
to the throne because of the wealth and followers they had gained on Viking
expeditions or as mercenaries. This largely applies to the three main missionary kings,
Ha˚kon the Good and the two Olavs. All of them had been baptized abroad, and all of
them had met Christianity in England. Apparently the most genuinely Christian of
them was Ha˚kon who had grown up at Athalstan’s court and apparently received the
fairly thorough religious education customary for members of the royal household.
29
We know less of the education of the two Olavs. Most probably, not very much of
the sort was demanded before baptism. How much they learned from regular contacts
with priest and monks after their conversion is difficult to tell. Nor is it possible to say
very much about their motives and their degree of religious conviction – the
information about this in later historiography is too influenced by their position as
respectively the national saint and his forerunner to be trusted.
These kings may, however, illustrate a general point: The conversion of Norway
was not the result of Christian kings or missionaries from other countries invading
114
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
Norway but, on the contrary, of Norwegians invading other countries. It seems that
conversions often and fairly easily took place among Norwegians settling abroad,
possibly because of the widespread idea within ethnic religions that the gods belong to
a particularly country and that other gods rule among other peoples. Frequent
contacts, through Viking raids as well as more peaceful trading expeditions or as
mercenaries in the service of Anglo-Saxon or other kings must have made a number of
Norwegians familiar with Christianity, and to some extent, also have contributed to
their conversion.
Evidently, the chances of meeting Christianity and converting were greater
abroad than at home. But what can explain the fact that the converted kings also made
great efforts in importing the new religion to their home country? The sources
occasionally draw the parallel between the rule of one king and the belief in one God,
thus indicating the logical connection between the new religion and larger political
entities. There seems often, although not always, to be a connection between the
two. As far as we know, religion and political power were closely connected in the
pagan period. There was apparently no professional priesthood; the chieftains acted as
cultic and religious leaders. The cult consisted in large sacrificial parties where the
local population gathered for common eating and drinking on the estate of some
chieftain. The parties were financed by contributions from the participants, but the
chieftain sometimes paid the whole or parts of the expenses, which gave him great
prestige. The sacrifices were made to several gods, and most probably, different gods
had different importance in various parts of the country. The way in which the
sacrifices and the corresponding meals were celebrated probably also varied. We may
imagine that the position of chieftain was not particularly stable; there was probably
competition between several leading men for local power. Nor would it be impossible
for a newcomer, returning from abroad with booty and armed men from Viking
expeditions, to establish himself as the leader of some area. It would probably also be
possible, although more difficult, for him to become the overlord of a larger number
of such chieftains, as apparently Harald Fairhair did when he ‘‘united the whole of
Norway’’, or at least made himself the lord over the western coast. On the other
hand, nothing in the pagan religion gave any support to this kind of lordship, and to a
newcomer from abroad, the lack of firmly rooted political and religious leadership
over one area was clearly a handicap. By contrast, Christianity was a unitary religion,
with one cult, one God and a professional cult organization which immediately
abolished the religious importance of local chieftains. Although the king was not
necessarily the head of this organization, he had considerable control over it in the
early Middle Ages, notably in a country where Christianity was a new religion. This
means that Christianity had a centralizing effect, not only because of the character of
its organization and belief system but also in being a new religion. The struggle for
this religion gave the king the opportunity to replace a number of powerful chieftains
with men loyal to himself who, as protagonists of the new religion, needed his
support. In other words, the change of religion made it possible for the king to
emerge as the leader of a ‘‘party’’ with relatively strong loyalty to himself, in the
same way as under King Sverre by the end of the 12th century. This did not
necessarily weaken the aristocracy as such; the magnates probably continued to have a
strong position in local society by building churches and setting priests in them,
30
but
at least in the beginning, it made them more closely attached to the king.
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
115
An objection may be raised that this explanation completely ignores religious and
cultural factors and regards people at the time as acting solely out of rational self-
interest. The answer to this is that such considerations are fully compatible with a
religious attitude. First, there was hardly a sharp distinction between the religious and
the secular sphere in the early Middle Ages, certainly not in paganism and
considerably less in Christianity than in later ages. Consequently, success in the
secular field might easily be transferred to the religious one. Second, nor was
contemporary religion an objective system of dogma, but rather intensely personal, so
that there was a strong connection between attachment to a leader and attachment to
his gods. However, the kings’ attitudes can hardly be the whole explanation of the
Christianization of Norway. It is difficult to imagine that a king could get sufficient
support for introducing Christianity unless there already were a number of Christians
in the country. The Christianization of Norway was a gradual process, in which the
closer connection between Norway and Christian Europe, notably England, through
Viking and trading expeditions was an important factor. The kings, however, were
crucial in securing the end result, the emergence of an organized church and the ban
against pagan cult. So far, the sagas are probably right, although they exaggerate the
importance of the two main missionary kings, Olav Tryggvason (995–1000) and St
Olav Haraldsson (1015–1030). Actually, all rulers of Norway after the death of
Harald Fairhair in the 930s were Christian except one, and probably contributed in
various ways to the end result.
The first of them, Ha˚kon the Good, may have been more successful than the
narrative sources admit, but in one way or another, he was probably forced to make
compromises with the pagan religion. The difference between him and the Olavs may
partly have been a question of time; a larger percentage of the Norwegians had
probably become Christian between Ha˚kon’s death (c. 961) and the arrival of Olav
Tryggvason (995). It may also be related to the respective kings’ integrations into
Norwegian society, or rather, the relative importance of this integration and the
resources they were bringing with them from abroad. Ha˚kon was the son of King
Harald Fairhair, admittedly not the only one, but had, according to the sagas, the
good fortune that his elder brother, Eirik Bloodaxe, had become very unpopular.
Moreover, like his father, Ha˚kon had a close connection to the earls of Lade, the
rulers of Trøndelag. Sigurd, Earl of Lade, whose sister had been married to King
Harald, was apparently the mightiest man in the country next to the king. Ha˚kon may
also have been related through his mother to the mightiest family in Western
Norway.
31
Further, as it is uncertain how great resources Ha˚kon brought with him
from abroad, his future depended on his ability to gain popularity among the
Norwegian people and their chieftains.
By contrast, the two Olavs most probably did not belong to the dynasty,
32
although the sagas state that they did, and depended relatively more on the wealth and
followers they brought with them. Furthermore, there is the regional aspect. Ha˚kon
the Good had his main basis of power in Western Norway. His rivals, the Eirikssons,
the sons of Ha˚kon’s half-brother Eirik, probably controlled parts of Eastern Norway
and were supported by Denmark. It must therefore have been essential for Ha˚kon to
have a good relationship with the mighty ruler of Trøndelag and Northern Norway;
otherwise, he would have to fight a two-front war. Trøndelag was the centre of
paganism in the country, and its ruler, Earl Sigurd, is depicted in the sagas as ‘‘a great
116
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
blo´t-man’’. According to Snorri, Ha˚kon prepared an expedition against the people
of Trøndelag after they had destroyed the churches and killed the priests in Møre,
the neighbouring province to the south. This is probably a construction, but it
nevertheless illustrates a political reality: Ha˚kon could not afford to provoke the
people of Trøndelag. By contrast, the two Olavs both had their power base in the
south-east, and both gained the kingdom by challenging the earls of Lade. For them,
Christianity could be a means of conquering the enemy province of Trøndelag.
The same applies to the Eirikssons who succeeded Ha˚kon. They are depicted very
negatively in the sources and blamed for bad harvests, greed, and – curiously enough
– for destroying the ho´fs and banning pagan cult.
33
Apparently, their attack on
paganism is regarded as being caused by greed rather than Christian zeal, which
prevents them from receiving the praise extended to the two Olavs for doing the
same. Whatever their motives, their attack on the pagan religion makes sense in the
context of their change in policy towards the earls of Lade, from alliance to enmity.
This is in turn connected to their alliance with Denmark, which meant that they, in
contrast to Ha˚kon, had no reason to fear a two-front war when attacking Trøndelag.
On the contrary, they may even have had Harald Bluetooth, the Danish king’s active
support after his conversion to Christianity around 965.
The Eirikssons’ enemy and successor, Ha˚kon, Earl of Lade (c. 970–995) clearly
represents a pagan reaction, although he was, at least for some time, an ally or client
of Harald Bluetooth. Ha˚kon’s paganism is confirmed by a skaldic poem, but it is
uncertain whether his influence reached much further than Trøndelag. Furthermore,
the pagan revival is in itself an indication of the strength of Christianity; it is a defence
of the old values and customs against the new religion, not a confident assertion of
paganism. Ha˚kon was also the last pagan, even within his own dynasty. His sons Eirik
and Svein, who ruled the country under Danish overlordship (1000–1015), were both
Christian. Against this background, it seems likely that there was a more or less
continuous pressure in the direction of Christianity from the 930s rather than a
concentrated effort during the 20 years covering the reigns of the two Olavs. It is also
striking how little the sagas actually have to tell about the missionary activity of St
Olav, the national saint and martyr. His main achievement seems to have been to
convert some distant, mountainous, and thinly populated regions of the inland and –
most important – to organize the Church. The coast, where the great majority of the
population lived, was apparently already Christian, according to the sagas due to
the intense efforts of Olav Tryggvason, whereas in reality he probably has to share
the credit with his predecessors.
Religion, mentality, and the ‘hearts’
To some extent, at least, the conversion can be understood as a political process. This
does not, however, absolve us from discussing its religious and mental aspects,
whether as cause or as consequence of the conversion. In different ways, both Lunden
and Steinsland emphasize this aspect. Both point to the radical difference between the
two religions, but imagine the transition from paganism to Christianity in different
ways. To Lunden, partly following Berger, religion is an expression of social
structure, and the transition is therefore the result of social change.
34
By contrast,
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
117
Steinsland focuses on the religious systems themselves and tries to explain the change
by pointing to an intellectual ‘‘bridge’’ between them.
Following Berger, Lunden denies the possibility of religious pluralism in the
Middle Ages; a ‘‘market’’ where a number of religions compete freely is a specifically
modern phenomenon. Although the general pertinence of this observation may be
open to discussion, it is probably correct that the religious situation in the tenth and
11th centuries was very different from the modern one. The religions, Christianity as
well as paganism, were social rather than individual, closely linked to customs,
traditions, and collective loyalties. However, Nordic paganism – like most ethnic
religions – was also highly flexible. It was neither dogmatic nor exclusive; no
orthodoxy existed, nor was the cult of other gods a problem. The problem was that
the Christians refused to participate in the pagan cult. Consequently, a considerable
amount of Christian infiltration might occur without any major problems, as long as
the Christians did not attack the pagan cult or – at least in the case of the leaders of
society – refused to take part in it. Admittedly, this was exactly what the Christians
should do if they took their religion seriously according to the norms of the Church.
But what evidence is there that they actually did? The history of the mission contains
many stories of syncretism, such as one told about the Hungarian King Geza,
Stephen’s father and predecessor. When criticized by a bishop for sacrificing to the
pagan gods in addition to Christian worship, Geza answered that he was a rich man
and well able to afford sacrifices to all his gods.
35
Could Ha˚kon the Good be regarded
as a parallel to this, i.e. was he actually a syncretist whose adherence to both religions
was considered less problematic in his lifetime than in the later tradition?
Empirically, the example of Iceland at least partly supports Lunden’s view.
According to Ari the Wise’s account from the first half of the 12th century, the
popular assembly, the All ing, accepted Christianity after a short period of sharp
opposition between the Christian and the pagan party. The final decision was worked
out by the lawspeaker who was himself a pagan: Christianity should be accepted as the
official religion, but the pagans should not be prevented from practising their religion
in secret. The argument for this decision was that division in society over such a
matter would make life intolerable.
36
Admittedly, the Icelanders seem to have had a
more pragmatic attitude to the supernatural than Berger and Lunden suppose, but
religious division was clearly conceived as a major problem, a problem that eventually
led to the pagans sacrificing their own public cult in the interest of peace. Ari’s story
is, of course, no eyewitness account but is probably relatively trustworthy, based on
the narrative of Teitr, born around 1050 and the son of Iceland’s first bishop. The
pragmatism of the story is actually an argument in its favour, as it is difficult to
imagine that such a conversion story was invented in Christian times.
However, was Norway like Iceland? Norway is four times as large as Iceland and
must have been considerably more divided – as well as violent – in the early Middle
Ages. There was hardly individual choice of religion in the same way as in modern
society, but there may have been differences between regions, local communities, and
households. There is also archaeological evidence of Christian penetration in various
parts of the country from fairly early on (see above). Nor was there any need for a
common religion for the whole country as long as long as no political unity existed.
As we have seen (see above), Christianity might be an instrument for the king to
establish such a unity, but even after the official introduction of Christianity and the
118
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
unification of the country in the early 11th century, it is difficult to imagine that the
Norwegians thought of themselves as one people who had to have the same religion.
Denmark seems to form a parallel to Norway, with a long period of Christian
influence, starting in the early ninth century and the final conversion taking place in
the 960s. In both countries, like elsewhere, the decisive moment was not the
introduction of Christianity, but the expulsion of paganism, which gave Christianity
a monopoly and allowed the Church to build up its institutions. In this sense, the
two religions were clearly incompatible. The reason for this, however, was not a
sociological law about religious unity but the intolerant character of the new religion,
Christianity, which refused to coexist with or adapt to any other religion. And as we
have already seen, this intolerance made Christianity a better alternative than
paganism for political unification.
Concerning the second part of Lunden’s theory, the theodice´ argument, there
may be objections that it underestimates the pagan religion’s appeal to the common
people. After all, the extant poetry contains only a fragment of its ideas and practices
and is probably heavily biased in favour of the aristocracy.
37
Above all, Lunden is too
exclusively concerned with religion as philosophy as compared to religion as cult. The
cultic aspect of medieval Catholicism was far more prominent than in modern
Protestantism, and considerably more so than in modern Western Catholicism. Most
of the – admittedly limited – evidence we have from the missionary period focuses on
cult and behaviour rather than on existential problems. We cannot exclude the
possibility that the pagan gods were considered perfectly able to deal with the
problems facing ordinary people at the time, controlling nature, securing harvests,
defending them against enemies, and giving individuals a meaningful life by making
them part of a collective entity. In the long run, however, a change along the lines
sketched by Lunden probably took place: greater social stratification, greater poverty
among the common peasants, and possibly more individualism and reduced
importance of kinship and local communities may have made the individual more
concerned with his or her personal fate, including the problem of death and the
afterlife.
38
To some extent, these changes may have been the direct result of the
introduction of Christianity (see below).
Steinsland’s analysis of Skirnisma´l and her deductions from it have been subjected
to severe criticism by Claus Krag and her use of archaeology and general conclusions
about hierogamy by Lotte Hedeager.
39
The critics point to some real weaknesses in
Steinsland’s arguments. Skirnisma´l is open to many interpretations, and the royal
allusions in the poem are less clear than Steinsland maintains. On the other hand, her
arguments for sacred kingship in pre-Christian times are convincing. There is evidence
that kings and chieftains in the pagan period traced their descent from the gods, and
particularly Odin may be regarded as the protector of chieftains and the god of
political leadership. Concerning the idea of the king’s luck, some scholars have argued
that it is actually of Christian origin, because it is only found in sources from the
Christian period.
40
However, the amount of authentic material from the pagan period
is too limited for such an argument e silentio to be very strong. Moreover, it is striking
that the idea occurs almost exclusively in secular sources, mainly the king’s sagas, and
not in the – very extensive – religious literature, and that it is expressed in an
apparently well developed Old Norse terminology, showing no sign of Latin or
Anglo-Saxon influence.
41
Furthermore, although the idea of fortuna does occur in
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
119
European Christian sources, it was for a long time regarded as pagan and only fully
Christianized in the 11th and 12th centuries, by being closely linked to explicitly
Christian ideas.
42
In most agricultural societies, religion is linked to fertility and the
king’s or leader’s cultic function would make him likely to be regarded as responsible
for good weather and harvests.
43
It would also seem unlikely for the tradition of the
bad years during the reign of the Christian Eirikssons (mid-tenth century) and the
good ones under the pagan Earl Ha˚kon (c. 970–995) to have been invented during
the Christian period. In the highly competitive society of the Viking age, where
personal charisma and achievement were decisive for a leader’s authority, the idea of
luck would also fit in very well.
44
It must be pointed out that the pagan idea of sacred
kingship – as opposed to the Christian one – does not make the king inviolable. The
king’s sacrality is expressed in his good qualities and successes. When they fail him,
there is nothing to prevent his deposition and death. Krag’s objection to the idea of
sacred kingship that rulership and political power were unstable in the pre-Christian
period is therefore irrelevant.
Steinsland also makes a good case for the idea of fate and the unlucky king and
that this may form a link to Christianity. The fact that some 12th-century kings who
suffered a violent death were venerated as saints by the people may support her thesis.
The kings in question include Harald Gille, who was killed while sleeping with his
mistress (1136) and whose conscience was burdened by the execution of a bishop and
a number of cruel acts committed against his political rivals, and his son Øystein
(1157) whose life had also been far from exemplary in the eyes of the Church.
45
By
contrast, no such cult is reported in the case of apparently very pious and Christian
kings like Olav Kyrre (1066–1093) or Øystein Sigurdsson (1103–1123), who both
died from natural causes.
On the other hand, there may be other explanations of royal failure than the kind
of misalliance Steinsland finds in the story of Frøy and Gerd. It is doubtful whether
this marriage should really be understood as a misalliance, as it was apparently
acceptable in the Eddic poetry for male gods to marry women of lower rank than
themselves, while the reverse was outrageous. In other words, the gods were
hypergamous, as were apparently also their human worshippers in the early period.
46
This seems later to have changed, so that e.g. the king’s daughters or female relatives
were often married to local magnates, while the king himself almost always married
foreign princesses.
47
The problem in the story about Frøy and Gerd is therefore not
that Frøy wants to marry Gerd, but that she, who is of lower rank, rejects him.
48
Although Steinsland is right that most kings in the sagas have mothers of lower rank
than their fathers – mostly mistresses rather than wives – there is less to suggest that
this was considered a problem by the saga writers. With a few exceptions – notably
the missionary kings – the birth of most kings is referred briefly and in a matter-of-
fact way and little is said about their mothers. The many examples of kings suffering a
violent death may therefore be derived from a more general awareness of the
fickleness of luck, probably a common human experience, but particularly relevant in
the unstable and competitive society of Viking-age Norway.
Steinsland is probably right in regarding Olav as a ‘‘bridge’’ between paganism
and Christianity, but her argument for this point of view may be too narrow. A
further connection is expressed in the fact that most early saints in the newly-
converted countries were martyrs and mostly kings or members of the dynasty. Of
120
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
course, the martyr was the saint par excellence in early Christianity, but during the
following centuries a large number of confessors had been added in the established
Christian countries. The martyr saints then had a renaissance from the period of the
Gregorian reform and the crusades, but largely in a different form, in that death in
battle was considered as martyrdom. And here a link is easily established to traditional
aristocratic values, in the north as well as in the rest of Europe. From a secular point
of view, Olav and other royal saints die as heroes, fighting an overwhelming
numerical superiority, or they are treacherously killed by men they should have been
able to trust, while from a Christian point of view, they are martyrs. In later and
more hagiographic accounts, like the Passio Olavi, the military aspect of Olav’s
martyrdom is toned down in favour of his suffering for the sake of God, but in the
early period his death at Stiklestad could probably be regarded as an heroic death in
battle equally well as martyrdom.
49
Both aspects are present in the earliest skaldic
poetry about Olav’s death. While Torarin’s ‘GlÝlognskviða’ focuses on the saint,
Sigvat’s ‘Erfidra´pa’ celebrates the warrior.
50
Furthermore, the 11th century was the great period of royal saints, and most of
them belonged to the recently-converted countries.
51
Their canonization may be
regarded as an attempt by the clergy to strengthen the new religion by introducing
saints of local origin. An even more important motive seems to be to strengthen
the new dynasty, which in many cases gained power in connection with the
Christianization. Both motives may have applied in the case of Olav. The later
Norwegian dynasty came into being under his successors who strongly emphasized
their link to St Olav. An immediate factor was the unpopularity of the Danish regime
following Olav’s defeat and death in the battle of Stiklestad and the chieftains’
resentment for not having gained the rewards they had expected in return for their aid
against Olav. As for the clergy, there is every reason to believe that they supported
the cult of Olav and used it to strengthen their position and that of Christianity. They
also, already in the 11th century, introduced two other saints, St Hallvard and St
Sunniva. Hallvard was a high-ranking young man in the region around Oslo, related to
the royal family, who was killed around 1050, according to the most widespread
version of the legend, because he tried to save a completely unknown woman who
had been unjustly accused of theft. Sunniva was a Christian Irish princess who was
pursued by a pagan suitor, while she wanted to live in chastity. She left the country in
ships with her followers and became stranded on the coast of Norway, on the island of
Selja some 300 kilometres north of Bergen. They lived for some time in a cave there.
When they were attacked by pagans, stones fell down from the mountain and buried
them. This allegedly happened during the reign of the pagan Earl Ha˚kon, who was shortly
afterwards replaced by the Christian Olav Tryggvason. He was told that a strange light
had been seen from the island, went there, and found bones with a sweet smell,
indicating sanctity. He took care of them and made the island of Selja a sacred place.
All three cases can be regarded as the expression of the need for local saints to
strengthen the new religion, to some extent possibly also as continuity with the
polytheistic and multicentred pagan religion. However, the localization as well as the
character of the two latter saints, also point in a new direction. It is hardly a
coincidence that the three 11th-century Norwegian saints correspond to the three
dioceses that were eventually established in the second half of the century: Olav to
Nidaros, Hallvard to Oslo, and Sunniva to Selja (later moved to Bergen). Local
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
121
churchmen had been active in creating a cultic centre for their regions. Furthermore,
while Olav as a person may represent some continuity to pagan ideals and his sanctity
seems somewhat dubious from a strictly Christian point of view, the two others are
perfect examples of specifically Christian virtues. Hallvard fulfils the demand of the
New Testament about loving one’s neighbour by giving his life to save a completely
unknown person, while Sunniva is the classical Christian virgin and martyr. Generally,
it is therefore open to doubt to what extent the early saints form a link between
paganism and Christianity.
The dramatic contrast between Christianity and paganism is based on the ‘‘pure’’
Christianity of the New Testament or patristic period. Steinsland actually modifies it
considerably when dealing with the ‘‘Germanization’’
52
of Christianity in the early
Middle Ages, which had deeply influenced the religion introduced in Scandinavia from
the late eight century onwards. In other words, there may have been more ‘‘bridges’’
than the one described by Steinsland. It is also important to bear in mind that
Christianity was no radically new religion to the Scandinavian peoples – this is a point
where the analogy from 19th and early 20th-century missions may be misleading.
There must have been contacts between Scandinavia and Christian Europe for
centuries before the conversion, and the ancient poetry and mythology have probably
also been influenced by Christianity. Rather than one, solid bridge over an enormous
gap, we may imagine a number of bridges or other connections of various dates. Thus
Olav Tveito concludes from an examination of the early Christian skaldic poetry
that although Christianity was adapted to Norwegian conditions, the changes were
less than has often been thought.
53
Doctrine clearly played a different part in Christianity than in the pagan religion,
and its content was of course also different. Nevertheless, cult was far more important
in medieval Catholicism than in modern Christianity, Catholic as well as Protestant,
and the evidence from the conversion period generally emphasizes cult and behaviour
more than doctrine. The Christian laws deal with behaviour, fast, holidays, burials,
building of churches etc., and the religious discussions referred in the later sagas also,
to a striking degree, deal with doing. The pagan objections to Christianity in
Heimskringla concern fasts and holidays. How can the country be cultivated if people
are not allowed to work and eat? This is, of course, no authentic voice from the pagan
past but may reflect the extent to which Christianity, even in the early 13th century,
was associated with doing rather than thinking. The word ‘‘siðaskipti’’ for the
conversion (see Note 20) is also a significant expression of this attitude.
This should not make us underestimate the change that took place with the
introduction of Christianity. As Snorri wisely comments, it is hard to make people
change their customs. There are examples in history of people being willing to kill as
well as to be killed in order to prevent less radical changes in rituals and patterns and
behaviour than those that happened in Norway with the introduction of Christianity.
Against this background the ‘‘sociological’’ observations of the 13th-century sagas
may be of some interest, despite the fact that they are hardly based on authentic
evidence from the period of conversion. In Snorri’s picture of the Christianization,
dramatic confrontations are less prominent that is often thought. His narrative focuses
on such episodes, but he also admits that Christianity had firm roots in parts of the
country, notably in the south-east, before the great assault of the first missionary king,
Olav Tryggvason, in the 990s. Although Olav sometimes used drastic means, he often
122
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
succeeded fairly easily. It was largely a question of personal relationships. Friends,
relatives, and clients followed their leaders, and many converted in order to gain the
friendship of a popular and charismatic king.
54
Although based on 13th-century common sense rather than on firm evidence, this
generalization is probably better than its counterpart in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Thus, one of Birkeli’s arguments for a slow process of Christianization is based on his
own experience as a missionary. Neither individuals nor societies change religion in a
short time. However, the relevance of this experience for medieval conditions may be
doubted. Modern missionaries want to convert the ‘‘hearts’’. Some machine guns,
light artillery and other evidence of the missionaries’ technological superiority, plus
generous gifts, would probably have resulted in numerous and speedy baptisms.
Medieval missionaries had fewer qualms about using similar means, if available to
them. Baptism was a sufficient expression of Christianity; they did not worry too
much about the ‘‘hearts’’. This also means, however, that the formal introduction of
Christianity in the 1020 was only the end of the first stage of the conversion process.
There was, apparently, no open opposition against Christianity after this date, but its
influence must still have been limited, not only in the sense that few people had
experienced what would later be called a real conversion, but also in the sense that
society was still little affected by its norms, institutions, and rituals. Against this
background, it is difficult to accept Krag’s claim that the organization of the Church in
the 1020s was the end rather than the beginning of the process of Christianization.
The great merit of Lunden’s and Steinsland’s approach lies in replacing the usual
registration of Christian influence with an attempt to understand the social and
psychological processes in an early medieval conversion. These attempts should be
continued and greater attention should be paid to comparing the Christianization of
Norway to religious change in other cultures and periods. Both Lunden and Steinsland
may, however, be accused of exaggerating the difference between paganism and
Christianity; not necessarily their essential difference, but the difference as it appeared
to people at the time. At the present stage of scholarship, the mostly likely
explanation of the conversion of Norway seems to be a gradual penetration of
Christianity through greater contacts with Christian Europe, combined with the
intervention of successive Christian kings. The former was a necessary precondition,
whereas the decisive factor was the kings’ prohibition of pagan cult and establishment
of a Christian Church, which introduced a new phase in the Christianization of the
country. The greatest value in Lunden and Steinsland’s attempts to pinpoint the
mental and cultural change probably lies in the understanding of the following period,
from the formal conversion in the early 11th century until the full development of the
Church and Christian culture from the second half of the 12th century onwards. This
seems to be the aspect of the Christianization process most in need of further study, to
which only some limited observations can be offered here.
The decisive factor in this second phase of the Christianization was the
development of the ecclesiastical organization. In a comparative perspective, it is
striking how long it took in Norway from the introduction of Christianity to the fully
established Church. While Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia had dioceses and cathedral
chapters already during the first generation after the conversion, the two former also
archbishoprics, the ecclesiastical organization in Norway seems to have been
rudimentary until the late 11th century. The earliest dioceses date from around 1070,
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
123
while the parish organization is somewhat later, from the 12th century. The first
attempts to introduce the tithe dates from the early 12th century, but it hardly
became accepted over most of the country until the second half of the century. The
first monasteries were founded in the beginning of the 12th century, followed by a
large number of new foundations later in the century, including two Cistercian
monasteries, founded in 1146 and 1147, i.e. during Bernhard of Clairvaux’s lifetime.
The organization of the Norwegian church was completed with the foundation of a
Church province in 1152–1153, including five Norwegian dioceses and six in the
islands in the North Sea and the Atlantic. The pace in Denmark
55
and Sweden seems
to have been approximately the same as that in Norway, whereas Iceland was even
later. It seems a likely hypothesis that the earlier development of the top levels of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy in the eastern countries within Western Christendom is
connected to the German influence on these countries and to having the model of a
fully developed ecclesiastical organization just across the border. Moreover, the
ecclesiastical organization was considered more important in the German missionary
tradition than in the Anglo-Saxon one, which was mainly carried out by monks.
56
Against this background, however, it is curious that the introduction of monasteries
was so late in Norway, as well as in the rest of Scandinavia. This forms further
evidence of the importance of indigenous kings and magnates in the process of
Christianization. It may be worthwhile to examine whether there are other differences
between the regions in this field, e.g. regarding the distribution of ecclesiastical
wealth, the social background and status of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, its education
and international connections, etc.
Although there is little evidence of the religious attitudes of ordinary people in
Norway, like in most other countries in the Middle Ages, both the wealth of the
Church and the strength of its organization form strong evidence that, at least from
the mid-12th century onwards, Christianity must have managed make a deep impact
on people’s beliefs, customs, and behaviour, and thus that Norway did not differ
greatly from other Christian countries in this respect, with the likely exception that
the new and more personal forms of devotion of the Later Middle Ages had less
influence than in the more central and urbanized parts of Europe. Thus, despite the
limited importance of intellectual and religious considerations in the process of
conversion, there is every reason to discuss such questions in a long-term perspective.
The Christianization did lead to great changes in norms, behaviour, rituals,
worldview, and ‘‘probability structure’’, to use Berger’s term, which had important
consequences for individual human beings as well as for society, and which should be
examined more closely in future research. I shall end this article by focusing on one
aspect of these changes, i.e. the importance of Christianity for state formation, thus
partly reversing the chain of causation compared to most of the discussion above.
Christianity and state formation
On 15 December 1079, Pope Gregory VII wrote a letter to King Olav Haraldsson,
nicknamed ‘‘kyrri’’ (the quiet) of Norway,
57
actually the second Papal letter to a
Norwegian king that has been preserved. Having addressed a series of pious
considerations to this ruler and his subjects ‘‘in extremo orbe terrarum positi’’, the Pope
124
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
turns to the direct purpose of his intervention. He wants to link this distant country
more closely to the Holy See by inviting the king to send promising young men of
good family to Rome for education, and he warns him against intervening in the
rivalry between the late Danish king’s younger sons who wanted their elder brother to
share his power with them. The Pope’s first suggestion immediately seems to have led
to nothing, but is the first indication of an important trend in the cultural history of
the country, the formation of an educated elite in the service of the Church through
studies abroad. The second suggestion seems to have been more successful, as King
Olav did not intervene in Denmark and no open struggle for the crown broke out,
although the Pope’s importance for this result is more doubtful. In the long run,
however, neither Gregory VII nor other ecclesiastics managed to prevent civil wars
and interventions from the neighbouring countries in the Nordic countries.
Nevertheless, the letter illustrates the importance of the Church in the formation
of a common elite culture as well as a family of European kingdoms. In contrast to the
previous period, certain rules for legitimate succession and normal political
institutions developed all over Europe, as well as for the division of land and rights
between various legitimate powers. The rules might be vague or complicated and be
bent according to the will of powerful men, and there were frequent struggles over
succession within the countries as well as over the borders of the various political
units. Still, the Christianization of the northern and eastern periphery of Europe
contributed to the export of the system of a multiplicity of rulers of limited territories
that was gradually taking form in the core areas of Western Christendom and gave
these rulers the legitimacy of dynastic continuity, authority granted by God, and some
kind of bureaucratic organization.
This development is well illustrated in Norway in the mid-12th century. In 1163
or 1164, the full ideological support of the Church was mobilized in favour of the
ruling king. Magnus Erlingsson, then seven years old, was crowned and anointed – the
first royal coronation in Scandinavia – a law of royal succession was introduced,
stating that there should be only one king at the time, whereas joint succession had
been relatively frequent earlier. Furthermore, the law formalized the procedure for
the royal election and banned all attempts at rebellion or claiming the throne in
alternative ways. Actually, the Church went so far as to condemn the numerous
pretenders challenging Magnus in the following period and to promise eternal
salvation for those who fought against them, i.e. applying the crusading ideology,
derived from the idea of martyrdom, to the internal conflicts in Norway. The alliance
should not only be understood as an alliance between the Church and the monarchy
but also as an alliance between some prominent churchmen, notably Archbishop
Øystein Erlendsson, and a particular faction during the internal struggles. However,
despite the fact that this faction was eventually overthrown by another one and the
law of succession was later revised, the ideological legitimation of the monarchy by
the Church proved lasting.
This ideological support from the Church is also an indication of a more
fundamental change from the old to the new religion. The most famous of the Eddic
poems, ‘V
O
luspa´’, tells the story of the creation of the world in the distant past, its
decline and future destruction and finally the new, perfect world that will replace
the present one.
58
There are various opinions as to whether the poem is influenced
by Christianity, either at the time of its composition or during the period of
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
125
transmission. In particular, the idea of a new and perfect world might suggest such
an influence. As for the creation, however, the difference from the account in
Genesis is more striking than the similarity. Whereas in the latter, God is the sole
creator and proceeds in an orderly and systematic way, the creation in V
O
luspa´ is
the result of many forces intervening in a very complex way. There is no almighty
God, and conflict is present from the beginning. By contrast, conflicts of interests
are ultimately the result of sin in Christian thought. Evil was introduced through
two sinful acts, first by Lucifer and then by Adam and Eve. Both rebelled against
God, thus sinning through disobedience, which is consequently the fundamental
sin. This story is told in two important Old Norse texts, both originating in the
royal court, ‘The King’s Mirror’ (c. 1255) and ‘Stjo´rn’ (early 14th century), a
translation of Genesis and first half of Exodus with excerpts from theological
commentaries. But the story is used in political agitation before that, i.e. in a
speech attributed to King Sverre after his victory over his rival King Magnus in the
battle of Fimreite (1184).
59
Even the pagan gods demanded some kind of obedience from their followers, but
the relationship seems to have been more of a mutual contract than in Christianity:
the gods gave luck and prosperity in return for sacrifices. It was possible to favour one
of several particular gods and to seek an alternative protector if rejected by the first
one appealed to. Nor were the gods particularly moral. They were selfish like their
human worshippers; they acted, not according to objective principles but to their own
interests. By contrast, the Christian God represented an objective moral order. He
had laid down the rules governing the whole universe, including the moral rules
men had to follow. Obedience was therefore an expression of adherence to the
fundamental order governing the universe. Moreover, this universe was hierarchically
organized. The place in society and the world of individual humans did not depend on
their success or failure in furthering their interests, but on God’s plan.
The political consequences of the pagan worldview being replaced by the
Christian one are obvious: There is a clear parallel between the change from pluralism
and competition to power monopoly and hierarchy in the divine as well as the human
world. The period from around 1150 to 1300, when these doctrines were developed
and set down in writing, was also a period of expansion for the Church and the
monarchy and of the development of royal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and
legislation. The introduction of royal unction and coronation, which became
permanently established in 1247, the law of succession of 1163–1164 and the
following ones of 1260 and 1273 are all clear expressions of the Christian concept of
order, which is developed further by the Church in connection with the alliance with
Magnus Erlingsson and by the monarchy in ‘A Speech against the Bishops’ (c. 1200),
composed during the conflict between King Sverre and the Church, and ‘The King’s
Mirror’ (c. 1255). In the latter work, the king’s government over the realm is
compared to God’s over the universe, and not only the monarchy, but the social
hierarchy, expressed in the four estates, is regarded as instituted by God.
60
There is
thus a clear difference between the idea of estates in this work and that of the Eddic
poem ‘Rigs ula’. The estates of ‘The King’s Mirror’ work together to fulfil the aim of
mankind, whereas those of ‘Rigs ula’ are simply the expression of the physical and
social differences that can be observed by all.
61
However, like in other matters, the
change was a gradual process, and there was a considerable amount of compromise
126
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
between old and new. An example of this is the assimilation between the traditional
concept of luck and the idea of God’s providence. When the skald celebrates Harald
Gille’s victory as the expression of God’s will
62
and King Sverre in the saga constantly
refers to God as the explanation of his victories, there is very little mention of the
Christian concept of order. God is first and foremost a great patron who favours the
king in question. This attitude changes in mid-13th century sources like ‘The King’s
Mirror’ and ‘The Saga of Ha˚kon Ha˚konsson’, where God’s protection of the king
becomes the expression of an idea of objective justice.
63
These long-term changes in ideology and mentality within the elite are important
to the understanding of the changes in social organization, although we should not
underestimate the distance between ideology and practical politics. In assessing the
importance of the Church and Christianity for state formation in the latter field,
we should distinguish between unification and permanent unity. It is a normal
phenomenon that political units formed by conquest dissolve again, so normal that the
real question about state formation is not why the unit in question was formed but
why it continued to exist. For continued existence, institutionalization and ideology
are probably more important that direct physical power. Admittedly, warfare and
military mobilization are usually considered crucial factors in Early Modern State
formation. The costly and complicated military machinery of this period, with
artillery, elaborate fortifications, trained and organized professional soldiers, and large
and expensive warships, lead to an increased bureaucratization of society, while at the
same time favouring larger political units at the cost of smaller ones. By contrast,
medieval military technology did not favour large units or particularly strong
government. This applies both to the combination of castles and heavy cavalry current
in most other countries at the time and to the Norwegian system, based on broad
mobilization of the peasant population, mainly for naval warfare. In so far as
centralization did take place in the Middle Ages, ‘‘civilian’’ means, including Church
and religion, were probably more important than military ones. A comparison
between Christianity and the ancient Nordic religion indicates that the former had a
greater potential in this direction than the latter. From a materialistic point of view,
the conversion meant that a cheap and unbureaucratic religion was replaced by an
expensive and bureaucratic one. The pagan religion was not cheap in the sense that it
did not consume considerable resources, on sacrificial feast or burials, but in the sense
that it led to no systematic redistribution from the people to the elite. It might even
work in the opposite direction, making members of the elite spend their resources on
gaining popular support.
By contrast, Christianity meant that the faithful had to support a numerous and
wealthy class of religious specialists, which gradually came into being after the official
conversion in the early 11th century. From the mid-12th century, i.e. coinciding with
its intervention in favour of King Magnus Erlingsson, the ecclesiastical elite, bishops,
abbots, canons, and other high-ranking clerics, belonged to the top aristocracy of the
country, and the wealth and importance of the Church continued to grow in the
following period. The Norwegian church is believed to have been relatively wealthier
than the churches of most other countries, owning nearly half of the total incomes
from landed property just before the reformation and possibly as much as around 40%
around 1300.
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
127
The clergy in medieval Norway around 1300 – admittedly long after the
missionary period – is estimated at around 2,000 people, i.e. one per 175–225
inhabitants (depending on the size of the population which is very uncertain),
compared to one per 3,800 in 1970. Further, this class received a tax of one tenth of
the agricultural production. This wealth did not exclusively benefit the clergy; parts of
it were returned to broader strata of the population in the form of hospitals, alms, and
numerous opportunities for laymen to make a career in the service of the ecclesiastical
aristocracy. Nevertheless, the main benefit the laity received from the Church was of
a spiritual nature: by sacrificing material wealth, they gained the spiritual treasures the
Church could offer which gave them protection against the dangers facing them in this
life as well as in the life to come.
The rise of an ecclesiastical aristocracy was obviously a result of European
influence through Christianization; what is open to discussion is to what extent it led
to a more aristocratic society by increasing the amount of land belonging to great
landowners and to what extent the land given to this class came from the king and
the secular aristocracy. The answer to this question largely depends on one’s
understanding of landownership in the pre-Christian versus the Christian period. The
older theory, developed by the Marxist school, was that the majority of peasants
owned their own land in the Viking age and the early Christian period but that a great
change took place in the 11th and 12th centuries which reduced them to tenants
under great landowners. The main explanation of this was sought in demographic
growth combined with lack of arable land, which reduced the peasants to poverty, but
the implication is clearly that the growth of the ecclesiastical organization contributed
to the process. More recent scholarship regards the early period as very aristocratic
and is consequently less inclined to see the Church as a factor in the formation of a
landed aristocracy. However, the Church did not only own large estates but also
smaller farms or parts of farms which it is likely to have received as gifts, purchases,
or fines from ordinary people. A number of such transactions are also recorded.
Finally, Church property was rarely alienated and was not divided between heirs.
Consequently, ecclesiastical landownership contributed to a greater concentration of
land than secular landownership. It is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that
the Church did contribute to elite formation and the concentration of wealth on fewer
hands. In this way, it was also likely to contribute to political centralization.
From a materialistic point of view, the clergy might well be regarded as a parasitic
class, and even believers might think that they gave little in return for the wealth they
received. Nevertheless, they were not only parasitic, they constituted an organized
bureaucracy with a well-defined purpose – admittedly only partly conforming to the
Weberian ideal – in which office-holders were appointed and certain skills were
necessary for appointment. The establishment and expansion of the ecclesiastical
bureaucracy thus formed a major step in the direction of organized government. It is
doubtful whether it would have been possible to bureaucratize any other purpose than
religion to the same extent under contemporary conditions. As Halvdan Koht puts it,
the Church gained control over fields that had not earlier been under control of any
public authority, such as marriage and sexuality, thus not reducing the king’s power but
extending the field of the central authority. Consequently, the Church could gain
without the state losing.
64
A number of other examples may be added to those of Koht,
such as burials, holidays, the calendar and the duty of building and maintaining churches.
128
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
In light of the later development, the rise of this bureaucracy may seem to have
been a mixed blessing for the institution we tend to regard as the forerunner of the
modern state, i.e. the monarchy. After a period when the Church was relatively weak
and had to seek the king’s protection, it launched a process of emancipation from the
mid-12th century onwards, which led to periods of intense conflict between the two
powers. Nevertheless, it continued to be an important state-building power, by the
introduction of writing as an administrative tool and by offering the king educated
personnel, an ideological legitimation of public power, and a legal system. In a general
way, the Christianization of the northern and eastern periphery meant the export of
forms of government current in Western Christendom and contributed to stabilizing
the combination of cultural unity and multiple and relatively stable political units that
has characterized Europe until the development of the European Union in the second
half of the 20th century. The unification of the Scandinavian kingdoms or, more
correctly, the division of Scandinavia into three relatively stable kingdoms, is one
example of this process: centralization, greater concentration of economic resources
in the hands of the elite, bureaucratization, and a considerable amount of
correspondence between national borders and those of church provinces. The fall
of the Catholic Church meant the fall of the independent kingdom of Norway, while
the reformed ecclesiastical organization was taken over by the king and contributed to
the further development of Danish-Norwegian state.
There is thus a close connection between Christianity and state formation. How
close the connection is, should be discussed further by comparing Western
Christendom to other religious traditions, such as Eastern Christendom and Islam, and
not least, a main ‘‘test case’’, pagan Lithuania, which did not convert to Christianity
until 1386, but apparently had a well developed political organization since the early
13th century, which, however, to some extent may have been modelled on the
Christian kingdoms.
65
There are also many examples of failed state formation in
Christian Europe and of the prelates, together with the lay aristocracy fighting for
their privileges to the extent that it threatened the survival of the states in question,
e.g. in Germany, Hungary and Poland and in periods even in Denmark and Sweden.
Christianity was no universal recipe for smooth state formation, but it was probably
more successful in this respect than other religions.
Notes
1
R. Keyser, Den norske Kirkes Historie under Katholicismen (Christiania, 1856), pp. 19–
37, 117–21, 188–216; A. Chr. Bang, Udsigt over Den norske Kirkes Historie under
Katholicismen
(Kristiania, 1887); A. Taranger, Den angelsaksiske kirkes indflydelse paa
den norske
(Kristiania, 1890). See also T. Rasmussen, ‘‘Erkjennelse og interesse.
Middelalderen i norsk kirkehistorieskrivning’’, in S. Imsen (ed.), Kirkehistoriske
utfordringer
(Trondheim, 2005 – forthcoming).
2
J. E. Sars, Udsigt over den norske historie (3rd ed., Kristiania 1905), 1. part, pp. 294–
323, 2. part, pp. 33–57, 174–78; E. Bull, Folk og kirke i middelalderen (Kristiania,
1912).
3
These accounts are discussed in S. Bagge, ‘‘The Making of a Missionary Hero – the
Medieval Accounts of Olaf Tryggvason and the Conversion of Norway’’, Journal of
English and Germanic Philology
[forthcoming].
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
129
4
S. Bagge, ‘‘Kristendom og kongemakt’’, in N. Lund (ed.), Viking og hvidekrist.
Norden og Europa i den sene vikingtid og tidligste middelalder
(Copenhagen, 2000),
pp. 9–19 and ‘‘Middelalderens kirkehistorie i Skandinavia – ‘bindestrekshistorie’
eller samfunnshistorie?’’, Historisk tidsskrift fo¨r Finland (forthcoming).
5
A. Sandmark, Power and Conversion. A Comparative Study of Christianization in
Scandinavia
(Uppsala, 2004), pp. 75–83.
6
H. Koht, Innhogg og utsyn (Kristiania, 1921), pp. 142–55.
7
On the Marxist interpretation of Norwegian history in the Middle Ages, see
O. Dahl, Norsk historieforskning i det 19. og 20. a˚rhundre (Oslo, 1959), pp. 247–59
and S. Bagge, ‘‘The Middle Ages’’, in W. Hubbard et al. (eds.), Making a Historical
Culture
(Oslo, 1995), pp. 117–21 with ref.
8
A. Holmsen, Norges historie. Fra de eldste tider til 1660 (4th ed., Oslo, 1977),
pp. 217 f.
9
F. Paasche, Kristendom og kvad (Kristiania, 1914).
10
F. Birkeli, Norske steinkors i tidlig middelalder (Oslo, 1973).
11
F. Birkeli, ‘‘Hadde Ha˚kon Adalsteinsfostre likevel en biskop Sigfrid hos seg?’’
Historisk tidsskrift
(Norwegian) 40 (1960), pp. 113–36 and Tolv vintrer hadde
kristendommen vært i Norge
(Oslo 1994), pp. 65–101. See also references to the
sources in S. Bagge ‘‘A Hero between Paganism and Christianity. Ha˚kon the Good
in Memory and History’’, Poetik und Geda¨chtnis. Festschrift fu¨r Heiko Uecker zum 65.
Geburtstag
(Bonn, 2004), pp. 186–195.
12
B. Solli, Narratives of Veøy. An Investigation into the Poetics and Scientifics of Archaeology,
Universitetets Oldsakssamlings Skrifter, Ny rekke no. 19 (Oslo, 1996).
13
P. Hernæs, ‘‘Kristen innflytelse i Rogalands vikingtid’’, in H.-E. Lide´n (ed.), Møtet
mellom hedendom og kristendom i Norge
, pp. 80–120 (Oslo, 1995).
14
B. Sawyer, The Viking-Age Rune-Stones: Custom and Commemoration in Early Medieval
Scandinavia
(Oxford, 2000), see also B. and P. Sawyer, Die Welt der Wikinger
(Berlin, 2002), pp. 208–210 and O. Tveito, Ad fines orbis terrae. En studie i primær
trosformidling i nordisk kristningskontekst, Acta humaniora
no. 209 (Oslo, 2004),
pp. 199–222.
15
C. Krag, Vikingtid og rikssamling, vol. 2, in K. Helle (ed.), Aschehougs Norgeshistorie
(Oslo, 1995), pp. 106 ff.
16
K. Lunden, ‘‘Overcoming Religious and Political Pluralism. Interactions between
Conversion, State Formation and Change in Social Infrastructure in Norway c. AD
950–1260’’, Scandinavian Journal of History 22 (1997), pp. 83–97; G. Steinsland,
Den hellige kongen. Om religion og herskermakt fra vikingtid til middelalder
(Oslo, 2000).
17
P. Berger, The Sacred Canopy. Elements of a Social Theory of Religion (New York, 1969
[orig. 1967]); T. Jørgensen, ‘‘Religionsskifteprosesser – et skifte av plausibilitets-
struktur?’’, Norsk tidsskrift for misjon 3 (1995), pp. 169–176.
18
B. Solberg, Jernalderen i Norge. 500 før Kristus til 1030 etter Kristus (Oslo, 2000).
19
K. Gellein, Kristen innflytelse i hedensk tid? En analyse med utgangspunkt i graver fra
yngre jernalder i Hordaland
(Master thesis, the University of Bergen, 1997,
unpublished); Anne-Sofie Gra¨slund, Ideologi och Mentalitet. Om religionsskiftet i
Skandinavien fra˚n en arkeologisk horisont
, OPIA 29 (Uppsala, 2002).
20
Old Norse siðr covers a wide range of meanings, customs, ways of behaving,
morality, and what we would call religion, cf. the opposition between ny´r siðr and
forn siðr 5
paganism/Christianity. Thus the term does not necessarily imply that
people at the time regarded religion as purely external but nevertheless indicates a
more vague distinction between religion and other aspects of life than in later ages.
130
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
The frequent references to new customs, like holidays and fasts, in accounts of
missionary preaching and religious discussions point in the same direction (see
below).
21
I do not give detailed references for factual information about Norwegian history in
the following. However, there are several recent works in English which contain
references to earlier literature, e.g. Richard Fletcher, The Conversion of Europe. From
Paganism to Christianity 371
–1386 AD (London, 1997), pp. 369–416; M. Carver,
ed. The Cross goes North: Processes of Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300–1300
(York, 2003); K. Helle, ed. The Cambridge History of Scandinavia I (Cambridge,
2003); Sandmark, Power and Conversion.
22
See most recently Sandmark, Power and Conversion, pp. 76 f.
23
D. Trestik, ‘‘Von Svatopluk zu Boleslaw Chrobry. Die Entstehung Mitteleuropas
aus der Kraft des Tatsa¨chlichen und aus einer Idee’’, in: P. Urbanzyk (ed.), The
Neighbours of Poland in the 10th Century
(Warsaw, 2000), pp. 11–45 regards
missionary activity as an integrated part of a German imperial project: first
conquest, then Christianization. Consequently, the conversion of the neighbouring
countries becomes a response to German policy. Jerzy Strzelzcyk, ‘‘The Church
and Christianity about the Year 1000 (the missionary aspect)’’, in: P. Urbanzyk
(ed.), Europe around the Year 1000 (Warsaw, 2001), pp. 51 f. and passim also points
to other factors and is less certain about Germany’s role in the conversion of
Poland. Although the Ottonian and Salian Empire was hardly as monolithic as
Trestik seems to imply and diplomacy should to be added to military conquest,
there can be no doubt about the strength of the German Empire as a factor in the
conversion of its neighbouring countries.
24
Latinske dokument til norsk historie
, E. Vandvik, ed. (Oslo, 1959) no. 1, cf. Magistri
Adam Bremensis Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum
, B. Schmeidler, ed.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores in usum scholarum
[2] (Hannover, 1917)
III.17, pp. 160 f.
25
The most important study on this is still Taranger, Den angelsaksiske kirkes. See also
L. Abrams, ‘‘The Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia’’, Anglo-
Saxon Studies
24 (1995), pp. 213–49.
26
M. Myking, Vart Norge kristna fra˚ England? Ein gjennomgang av norsk forskning med
utgangspunkt i Absalon Tarangers avhandling Den angelsaksiske kirke indflytelse paa den
norske
(Oslo, 2001).
27
O. S. Tøtlandsmo, Før Norge ble Norge. Politiske forhold pa˚ Sørvestlandet i vikingtid
(Sola, 1996), pp. 40–43.
28
Abrams, ‘‘The Anglo-Saxons’’ pp. 220 f.; Sawyer and Sawyer, Die Welt der
Wikinger
, pp. 192–197; Tveito, Ad fines orbis terrae, pp. 98–110.
29
D. A. Bullough, ‘‘The Educational Tradition in England from Alfred to Ælfric:
teaching utriusque linguae’’, in his Carolingian Renewal: Sources and Heritage
(Manchester, 1991), pp. 297–334; K. Eilhardt, For Force is not of Good (master
thesis, University of Oslo, 2003, unpublished), pp. 41–48.
30
D. Skre, ‘‘Missionary Activity in Early Medieval Norway. Strategy, Organization
and the Course of Events’’, Scandinavian Journal of History 23 (1998), pp. 1–19.
31
S. Bagge, ‘‘A Hero’’, pp. 191–193.
32
C. Krag, ‘‘Norge som odel i Harald Ha˚rfagres ætt’’, Historisk tidsskrift 68 (1989),
pp. 288–301; S. Bagge, ‘‘Ætt, stat og politikk fra vikingtiden til 1200-tallet’’,
Norsk slektshistorisk tidsskrift
38 (2001), pp. 68 f.
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
131
33
Heimskringla
, ed. Finnur Jo´nsson (Copenhagen, 1893–1901), vol. I, The Saga of the
Eirikssons
ch. 2, with reference to a skaldic stanza.
34
Berger, The Sacred Canopy, pp. 3–101. However, Berger explicitly rejects the
assumption that religion is determined by or is a ‘‘reflection’’ of social processes
(ibid. p. 47 f.).
35
Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon
, R. Holtzmann, ed. Monumenta Germaniae
historica in usum scholarum IX
(Berlin, 1955) IX.4, quoted in Fletcher, The
Conversion
, p. 432.
36
Ari þorgilsson fro´ði, I´slendingabo´k, J. Benediktsson, ed. I´slenzk fornrit I.1 ch. 7,
pp. 14–18. See most recently Orri Ve´steinsson, The Christianisation of Iceland
(Oxford, 2003), pp. 17–19 with ref.
37
G. Steinsland, 2000b. ‘‘Ka˚re Lundens analyse av religionsskiftet i Norge’’, in Anne
Eidsfeldt et al. (eds.), Holmgang om førmoderne samfunn. Festskrift til Ka˚re Lunden
(Oslo, 2000), pp. 273–290.
38
We can here think of the materialistic assumption that deprivations in the present
life lead to greater belief in and longing for a life after death, as well Arie`s’s idea of
a change from ’’la mort apprivoise´e’’ to ‘‘la mort de soi’’, i.e. from the quiet
acceptance of death in primitive, collectivist society to individualistic man’s horror
of annihilation. See Philippe Arie`s, L’homme devant la mort (Paris, 1977), pp. 13 ff.,
97 ff.
39
C. Krag, ‘‘Trosskiftet og teorien om sakralkongedømmet’’, Collegium medievale 14
(2001), pp. 211–225; G. Steinsland, ‘‘Om Claus Krags syn pa˚ kilder og
metoder’’, Collegium medievale 14 (2001), pp. 233–241; L. Hedeager, ‘‘Religion
og herskermakt. [rev. of] G. Steinsland, Den hellige kongen’’, Collegium medievale 14
(2001), pp. 227–232.
40
Thus W. Baetke, ‘‘Yngvi und die Ynglingar. Eine Quellenkritische Untersuchung
u¨ber das nordische ‘Sakralko¨nigtum’’’, Sitzungsberichte der sa¨chsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Phil-hist. Kl.
109.3 (Berlin, 1964). For references to the
later discussion, see Bagge, Society and Politics, p. 219; Steinsland, Den hellige
kongen
, pp. 53–59 and most recently Olof Sundqvist, Freyr’s offspring. Rulers and
religion in ancient Svea society
(Uppsala, 2002), pp. 18–38. In his study of ancient
Swedish kingship, Sundqvist himself takes an intermediate position between the
two extremes (op. cit. pp. 365–370 and passim).
41
Old Norse gæfa, gipta, or hamingja, see Bagge Society and Politics, pp. 218–224 with
ref. and Steinsland, Den hellige kongen, p. 54.
42
H. Haefele, Fortuna Heinrici IV imperatoris. Untersuchungen zur Lebensbeschriebung des
dritten Saliers, Vero¨ffentlichungen des Instituts fu¨r o¨sterreichische Geschichtsforschung,
L. Santifaller, ed. vol XV (Graz etc. 1954); H. Wolfram, ‘‘Fortuna in
mittelalterlichen Stammesgeschichten’’, Mitteilungen des Instituts fu¨r o¨sterreichische
Geschichtsforschung
72 (1964), pp. 1–33; S. Bagge, Kings, Politics, and the Right Order
of the World in German Historiography c. 950
–1150, Studies in the History of Christian
Thought
103 (Leiden, 2002), pp. 328 ff.
43
E.g. F. Fuglestad, ‘‘Earth-Priests, ‘Priest-Chiefs’ and Sacred Kings in Ancient
Norway, Iceland and West Africa’’, Scandinavian Journal of History 4 (1979),
pp. 47–74, an interesting but largely neglected discussion on the general aspects of
sacred kingship based on African examples.
44
M. Douglas, Natural Symbols (New York, 1970), pp. 129 f.; Bagge, Society and
Politics
, pp. 218–224.
132
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
45
See most recently A. I. Røkeness, ‘‘…ok kalla menn hann helgan. Hellighets-
forestillinger og maktpolitikk i borgerkrigstidens Norge’’
(master thesis, Oslo, 2004) for
these and other examples.
46
T. Vestergaard, ‘‘Marriage Exchange and Social Structure in Old Norse
Mythology’’, R. Samson, ed. Social Approaches to Viking Studies (Glasgow, 1991),
pp. 21–35.
47
S. Bagge, ‘‘Ætt, stat og politikk’’, pp. 68, 72.
48
M. Clunies Ross, Prolonged Echoes. Old Norse Myths in Medieval Northern Society,
vol. 1, The Viking Collection, no. 7 (Odense, 1994), pp. 131–143.
49
H. Antonsson, ‘‘Some Observations on Martyrdom in post-Conversion
Scandinavia’’, Saga Book 28 (2004), pp. 70–94.
50
Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning
, F. Jo´nsson B I, ed. (Copenhagen, 1912), pp. 300
f. and 239–245; cf. L. B. Mortensen and E. Mundal, ‘‘Erkebispesetet i Nidaros –
Arnestad og verkstad for Olavslitteraturen’’, in S. Imsen (ed.), Ecclesia Nidrosiensis
1153
–1537. Søkelys pa˚ Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, Senter for
middelalderstudier, NTNU. Skrifter no. 15 (Trondheim, 2003), pp. 354–357.
51
E. Hoffmann, Die heiligen Ko¨nige bei den Angelsachsen und den skandinavischen Vo¨lkern.
Ko¨nigsheiliger und Ko¨nigshaus (Neumu
¨nster, 1975); G. Klaniczay, ‘‘From Sacral
Kingship to Self-Representation. Hungarian and European Royal Saints in the 11–
13th Centuries’’, in his The Uses of Supernatural Power. The Transformation of Popular
Religion in Medieval and Early Modern Europe
(Princeton, 1990), pp. 79–94.
52
‘‘Germanization’’ may not be the right term, as the idea of a specifically Germanic
version of Christianity has been subject to severe criticism; see Tveito, Ad fines orbis
terrae
, pp. 367–370 with ref. There can be no doubt, however, that Christianity
had been adapted to the needs of society in the Roman Empire as well as its various
successor kingdoms from the fourth century onwards.
53
O. Tveito, Kvite-Krist. En analyse av Gudsbildet i eldre norrøn skaldediktning, Centre for
Viking and Medieval Studies. Occasional Papers
3 (Oslo, 2002), pp. 191–227 and
passim
.
54
Heimskringla. The Saga of Olav Tryggvason
, vol. I ch. 53, pp. 360–63 and The Saga of
St Olav
, vol. II, ch. 60, pp. 87 f.; cf. Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 105–07 and
‘‘The Making’’.
55
Denmark may partly be an exception, depending on how much importance we
should attach to the decision to establish bishoprics in the country at the synod of
Ingelheim in 948. See most recently Sawyer and Sawyer, Die Welt der Wikinger,
pp. 181, 217 f. and ‘‘Scandinavia enters Christian Europe’’, in Helle, Scandinavia,
pp. 149 f., 154–156.
56
F. Barlow, The English Church 1000–1066. A Constitutional History (London, 1966),
p. 246.
57
Latinske dokument
, no. 2.
58
V
O
luspa´
, in NorrÝn fornkvæði, S. Bagge, ed. (Christiania, 1867, repr. 1965), vv. 1–
25, pp. 1–5; cf. The Poetic Edda, vol. II. Mythological Poems, ed. with transl., intr.
and comm. by U. Dronke (Oxford, 1997), pp. 7–13.
59
[The King’s Mirror] Konungs skuggsia´, L. Holm-Olsen, ed. (Oslo, 1945), pp. 75–
84; cf. S. Bagge, The Political Thought of The King’s Mirror (Odense, 1987), pp. 54–
59, 225–233; Stjo´rn. Gammelnorsk bibelhistorie, R. Unger, ed. (Christiania, 1862),
pp. 35–41; Sverris saga, G. Indrebø, ed. (Kristiania, 1920), ch. 99; cf. S. Bagge,
From Gang Leader to the Lord’s Anointed, Kingship in Sverris saga and Ha´konar saga
CHRISTIANIZATION AND STATE FORMATION IN MEDIEVAL NORWAY
133
Ha´konarsonar
(Odense, 1996), pp. 62–65 and Da boken kom til Norge 1000–1537,
Norsk ide´historie
I, T. B. Eriksen and Ø. Sørensen, eds. (Oslo, 2001), pp. 109–120.
60
S. Bagge, ‘‘Nature and Society in The King’s Mirror’’, Arkiv fo¨r nordisk filologi 109
(1994), pp. 5–42 and ‘‘Ideologies and Mentalities’’, pp. 465–468 with ref.
61
S. Bagge, ‘‘Old Norse Theories of Society. From Rı´gs ula to Konungs skuggsia´’’,
J. E. Schnall & R. Simek, eds. Speculum regale. Der altnorwegische Ko¨nigsspiegel
(Konungs skuggsia´) in der europa¨ischen Tradition (Vienna, 2000), pp. 7–45.
62
Antonsson, ‘‘Some Observations’’, p. 77.
63
S. Bagge, From Gang Leader . . , pp. 61–65, 80–88, 147–160. For a similar
development in Germany from the tenth to the twelfth century, see Bagge, Kings,
Politics
, pp. 389–407 and passim.
64
H. Koht, Innhogg og utsyn (Kristiania, 1921), p. 271.
65
S. C. Rowell, ‘‘Baltic Europe’’, in M. Jones (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval
History
VI (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 705–12.
Sverre Bagge (b. 1942) is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Bergen and
Director of the Centre for Medieval Studies. His books include The Political Thought of
The King’s Mirror (1987), Society and Politics in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla (1991),
From Gang Leader to the Lord’s Anointed. Kingship in Sverris Saga and Ha´konar Saga
(1996), Da boken kom til Norge. Norsk ide´historie I (2001), Kings, Politics, and the Right
Order of the World in German Historiography c. 950–1150 (2002). Address: Centre for
Medieval Studies, University of Bergen, PO Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. [email:
Sverre.Bagge@cms.uib.no]
134
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
The Vision of Christ and Teiresias
Religions Spread Through Conquest Islam, Christianity, and
Jayne Raisborough Lifestyle Media and the Formation of the Self (2011)
Nazism, Christianity and Political Religion; A Debate
[Mises org]Murphy,Robert Study Guide of Man, Economy, And State
christmas and new year a glossary for esl learners
Christianity and Roman Society by Gillian Clark
Cruz Jansen Ethnic Identity and Racial Formations
Cruz Jansen Ethnic Identity and Racial Formations
Lee Institutional embeddedness and the formation of allieance networks a longitudinal study
Rougemont D de, On the Devil and Politics, Christianity and Crisis 1941
Paul D Numrich The Faith Next Door, American Christians and Their New Religious Neighbors (2009)
christmas and religion discussion
christmas and the environment discussion
Breman And Subrahmanyam Investment Analysis And Price Formation In Securities Markets
Piotr Kołodziejczyk Lower Egypt in modern research on state formation in Egypt
China the whys of the conflict between church and state Vatican Insider
Mencej The christian and prechristian concept of the master of the wolves
więcej podobnych podstron