PART TWO

THE CONTEXT

2.1. The Elevation at Birsay and the Translation to

Our knowledge of the immediate events relating to the emergence of the cult of Earl Magnús of Orkney is almost entirely based on .1 In turn OS saga relies here on a Translatio et mira- cula which was presumably composed, but not necessarily along with the Vita, shortly after the translation of his bones to Kirkwall in 1136/1137. This section in OS and MSS begins with a miracle that involves Bergfinnr Skatason, a Shetlander, which leads into a descrip- tion of how Bishop Vilhjálmr of Orkney was converted to the cause of Magnús’ sanctity, elevated his remains at Birsay and finally trans- lated them to Kirkwall.2 The MSL account of the translation to Kirkwall is incomplete for there is a lacuna at this point in the prin- cipal manuscript witness, ÁM 350 4to.3 Considering the formulaic structure and the hagiographic com- monplaces which distinguish a genre like translatio et miracula, it may seem a forlorn and not to mention hazardous undertaking to mine such literary specimens for historical information. However, it should be noted that it is precisely accounts of translations which are the most likely to preserve genuine historical information. Unlike saints’ Lives proper the translatio is not occupied with reflecting eternal and thus necessarily imitative patterns of saintly conduct. Rather the trans- latio is for all intents and purposes concerned with describing a single event that took place in historical, and in our case relatively recent, time. Accordingly, there is scant reason to distrust our texts when it comes to the fundamental questions I am interested in: at what point in time was Magnús’ sanctity first officially recognised and, more importantly, who was responsible for this development?

1 There is no difference of any significance between the testimony of MSS and OS in this respect. 2 OS, pp. 131–132. MSS, pp. 334–335. 3 MSL, pp. 374–375. 70 part two

The accounts of the earliest stages in the development of Magnús cult follow a common pattern in translatio narratives:4 • Magnús’ corpse is neglected. • Removal of relics through the intercession of a women, perhaps here mirroring Joseph of Arimathea’s role following Christ’s crucificion. • A miraculous sign (a light above the grave and a sweet smell) testifies to Magnús’ sanctity. • Miracles of healing take place at Magnús’ grave. • The bishop (Vilhjálmr) is skeptical at first, but having received a heavenly sign he is convinced of Magnús’ sanctity. • The relics are elevated, tested by fire, and enshrined. • Through a dream-vision the saint makes it known that he wants to be moved to another place (Kirkwall). • The bishop, in the face of the ruler’s (Earl Páll’s) opposition, trans- lates the shrine and instals it in a church. This schema represents a progressively greater recognition of Magnús’ sanctity: from neglect to the translation of his relics to Kirkwall, their final resting place. Crucial in this process are the healings that take place at his shrine. The first cure is that of the aformentioned Bergfinnr Skatason, a blind man from who has his sight restored at Magnús’ resting place. This marks the beginning of conversion of the general populace to earl’s sanctity. The second breakthrough in the cult’s recognition occurs when Bishop Vilhjálmr is cured of a temporary blindness which had been inflicted on him as punishment for doubting the saint’s authenticity. As mentioned, OS tells that after pleading by Magnús’ mother, Hákon allowed the corporal remains of the murdered earl to be buried at Birsay. Earlier Hákon is said to have refused to grant him burial in a church.5 It is known that a church was situated on , the isle was in fact an episcopal residence,6 and thus it may not sim- ply have been the wish to bury Magnús in hallowed ground that lay behind the decision to have his corporal remains moved to Birsay. Christ Church had been built there by Earl ∏orfinnr Siguräarson around the middle of the eleventh century and in his reign it became the main residence of both the bishop and earl. ∏orfinnr himself is

4 See, for example, Heinzelmann 1979, pp. 52–66. On translatio—the retrieval of relics and their enshrinement—as a genre in Danish hagiography (mostly translated from Latin) see Gad 1961, p. 126. 5 OS, p. 119. 6 Radford 1982, p. 27.