Power, Deception, and Lies

Háskóli Íslands Hugvísindasvið Viking and Medieval Norse Studies

A Case Study of Conflict and Social Bonds in Jómsvíkinga saga.

Ritgerð til M.A.-prófs í Viking and Medieval Norse Studies

Shanly Sullivan Kt.: 311095-3669

Leiðbeinandi: Anita Sauckel May 2019

Abstract

In the following thesis, the issue of conflict as it appears in Jómsvíkinga saga is explored in relation to social hierarchy and the roles of members of specific social ranks. Conflict within the saga is intrinsically linked to political power, and thus forms the basis of the social strife portrayed within the saga. The idea of social bonds and the obligations associated with them are explored in relation to achieving political success, mainly through the manipulation of such bonds. I argue that it is this manipulation that forms an underlying motif within the saga and results in both social and political achievement. Whereas the main focus of scholarship on Jómsvíkinga saga has been either that of genre or the origins of the work, in this thesis however, Jómsvíkinga saga will be approached from a cultural studies perspective. This thesis provides an extensive interpretation of the events within the saga, so as to organize an understanding of the differing roles of the differing social classes as they interact and play off one another. With a close reading of Jómsvíkinga saga, one is able to assess the contention that develops as prominent characters from differing social levels interact and vie against one another for success.

Ágrip Rannsókn Jómsvíkinga sögu hefur aðallega verið tengd við uppruna og bókmenntaform; í þessari ritgerð er því fjallað um túlkun sögunnar: Verkefnið snýst um þemaið átök í Jómsvíkinga sögu með tilliti til samfélagslegs stigveldisins og hlutverk manna, sem eru með sérstaka þjóðfélagsstöðu. “Átök” í sögunni eru nátengd við pólitískt vald; þau móta grundvöllin ósættisins eins og lýst er í sögunni. Auk þess eru hugmynd um félagstengsl og skyldur rannsakaðar með tilliti til pólitísks árangurs; í þessu samhengi skiptir baktjaldastjórnun miklu máli. Í ritgerðinni er þess vegna haldið fram að baktjaldastjórnun sé mikilvægt viðfangsefni Jómsvíkinga sögu, sem beri árangur bæði í stjórnmálum og í samfélaginu.

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Anita Sauckel for her support throughout the writing of this thesis, as well as her role in managing this year’s thesis program. I would also like to thank the professors at the University of Iceland and Aarhus University who were involved with the program and to whom I have gained valuable knowledge from. A special thanks to my fellow VMNs for their support and friendship. Finally, my endless thanks goes to my parents for their constant support and love.

iii

Contents 1. Introduction …....……………………………………………………………………..1

2. Friendship, Social Order, and Conflict in Jómsvíkinga saga …….……………………4

3. Analyzing Jómsvíkinga saga ...……………………………………………………...17

3.1 Historical Background ..…………………………………………………....17

3.2 Redactions ..………………………………………………………………..20

3.3 Genre …..…………………………………………………………………..21

4. Case Study ……..…………………………………………………………………....24

4.1 A Brother’s Conflict ….…………………………………………………....24

4.2 Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson’s Bid for Power ….………………………………..25

4.3 Jarl Hákon against the Conversion .………………………………………...28

4.4 Fjǫlnir’s Deception ….……………………………………………………..30

4.5 Conflict between Father and Son;

Conflict between Foster-Father and Foster-Son…………………………...31

4.6 Conflict between Sveinn’s Liegemen ……………………………………...34

4.7 Conflict between jarlar and bœndr ………………………………………...37

4.8 The Kidnapping of King Sveinn …………………………………………...39

4.9 Oath-Making Vengeance ………………………………………………...... 43

4.10 A Peasant’s Ticks …………………………………………………………46

5. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………..…47

Bibliography .…………………………………………………………………………..50

1. Introduction

In an early declaration made in Jómsvíkinga saga, it was predicted that there would be missætti stóreflismanna hér innan lands, ok munu þar af gerask stórir bardagar ok mikil styrjǫld, (“a conflict of important men in this land, and from that will come great battles and an age of tumult.”)1 Prominent men of differing social standing vie for power throughout the saga, which consequently ends in conflict. In this thesis, I will examine the relationship between social ranks in Jómsvíkinga saga, particularly the contention that arises when differing social levels compete for power. While it can be said that the overarching theme of Jómsvíkinga saga is conflict between kings and vassals, I will take this idea a step further by looking at what is occurring behind the conflict, which includes both the motivation and the means for stirring up contention. This is marked by duplicity by each level of the social class as they vie for power. I will argue that the repeated plot element of manipulation and duplicity is the main tool used to create conflict and that it is a vital aspect of attaining a position of power within the saga.

Scholarship on Jómsvíkinga saga has increased expeditiously within the past few years, however, the main focus has been either the historicity of the saga, mainly based on the location of Jómsborg; or where Jómsvíkinga saga falls into the genres of the sagas. While both areas of scholarship are interesting and offer insight to the saga, it is the aim of this thesis to explore the text of the saga itself and the content presented. Torfi Tulinius has analyzed the saga in this regard, and it is his work that I will rely on when examining the social relations present within the saga.2

The aim of this paper is to discuss the ways in which the differing levels of the social order interact with one another in the saga and the conflict that such interactions can cause. While not all interactions in the saga between differing classes ends in conflict, most do, as will be observed. A careful examination of the social bonds and relationships

1 Jómsvíkinga saga in Jómsvíkinga saga, ed. Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson, Íslenzk fornrit vol. XXXIII. (Reykjavik: Hið íslenska fornritafélag, 2018), 13. Finlay, Alison, and Þórdís Edda Jóhannesdóttir, trans. The Saga of the Jómsvikings: A Translation with Full Introduction. (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2018), 74. 2 Torfi Tulinius. The Matter of the North: The Rise of Literary Fiction in Thirteenth-century Iceland. (Odense: Odense University Press, 2002), 193–197.

1 between kings and vassals will be carried out to reveal a saga strained with conflict and rife with instances of manipulation and duplicity all for the aim of attaining influence and authority. Each episode will be examined and analyzed in order to understand which levels of the social class were involved; how the social bonds and relationships were affected; the motivations behind each case; and what form, if any, of manipulation took place.

Some scholars have simplified Jómsvíkinga saga as just “pure fantasy,”3 or “an entertaining fiction,”4 which is a disservice to the nuances and themes present in the saga. While its primary aim is to entertain, Jómsvíkinga saga offers a deep look at the interplay between social levels and the importance of social bonds and friendship. It deals with the fluidity of power, which is in large part dependent on social networks. As social bonds are formed or destroyed in the saga, so too does the political structure change, as both are constantly in flux.5 Thus, this constant changeability leads the saga to portray “social discourses concerning power,”6 and social bonds formed on the basis of political intrigue.

When speaking of medieval social bonds, the notion of friendship cannot be dismissed. Research on friendship in medieval society is divided into two approaches.7 One deals with ethics involved which heavily relys on the spiritual aspect, while studying the function of social networks through intellect and emotions involved in medieval friendship.8 The other studies its political functions, wherein social bonds are constructed as an instrument or tool to be used to form advantageous alliances.9 Both forms of

3 Blake, N. F., trans. The Saga of the Jomsvikings. (London: T. Nelson, 1962), vii. 4 Ólafur Halldórsson. “Jómsvíkinga saga.” Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. Phillip J. Pulsiano and Kirsten Wolf. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993), 344. 5 Hermanson, Lars. “Holy Unbreakable Bonds: Oaths and Friendship in Nordic and Western European Societies, c. 900–1200. Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia c.1000–1800, eds. Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, and Thomas Småberg. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 18. 6 Sverrir Jakobsson. “The Territorialization of Power in the Icelandic Commonwealth.” Statsutvikling i Skandinavia i Middelalderen, ed. Sverre Håkon Bagge. (Oslo: Dreyer, 2012), 101. 7 Hermanson, “Holy Unbreakable Bonds,” 15. 8 For more on the spiritual and emotional aspect of medieval friendship see, McGuire, Brian Patrick. Friendship & Community: The Monastic Experience, c. 350–1250. (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1988). 9 Hermanson, “Holy Unbreakable Bonds,” 15.

2 medieval friendship deal with social networks and communication, however, the role of each form vastly differs. While the spiritual approach deals with emotional ties, the political approach is concerned with the creation of social bonds as a method of power, and it is this approach in which this thesis forms its basis.10

10 Hermanson, “Holy Unbreakable Bonds,” 15.

2. Friendship, Social Order, and Conflict in Jómsvíkinga saga

In the middle ages, one’s political life was heavily shaped and influenced by the bonds one had with others. The bonds of kingship, friendship, and lordship were considered to be the most important in attaining a political life.11 Likewise in Jómsvíkinga saga, one can see this idea as the bonds and relationships formed are driving influencers behind political motives. When one speaks of politics in the saga, however, one must be careful as it does not reflect a true baring on the circumstances and reality of real-world politics. The politics as they appear in Jómsvíkinga saga do not represent the politics that were occurring in ninth and tenth century Denmark, nor do they reflect a complete representation of contemporary politics, although it can give us a vague understanding.12 It is not the aim of this thesis, however, to examine real-world politics, rather, it is the goal to understand the social relationships constructed in the saga and the interactions among them. If these interactions are mainly driven by political factors, then it is necessary to examine politics in a comprehensive manner.

When speaking of medieval politics, one cannot dismiss the importance of bonds or obligations, which we nowadays would consider “private.”13 These are bonds of friendship and in medieval Europe were formed on the basis of personal ties of men. Unlike our modern notion of friendship, this relationship was highly political in nature as it sought stability in societies without clear political structures of statehood.14 The idea of a medieval “state,” so to speak, was thought to have existed by early scholars, however, recent scholarship has pointed to the idea of groups of people rather than

11 Althoff, Gerd, Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Medieval Europe. Translated by Christopher Carroll. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), i. 12 For more on politics, see Sawyer, Birgit, and Peter H. Sawyer. Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to Reformation, circa 800-1500. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 70–74.; Sawyer, Peter. “Svein Forkbeard and the Historians.” Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to John Taylor, eds. G.A. Loud, John Taylor, and Ian N. Wood. (London: Hambledon Press, 1991), 27–40. 13 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 1. 14 Viðar Pálsson. Language of Power: Feasting and Gift-giving in Medieval Iceland and Its Sagas. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Library, 2017), 4–5.

4 institutions occupying the position of our modern notion of a state.15 It was this grouping that people received aid and backing, and owed obligations to, and which consisted of social bonds such as kinship and lordship. However, some form of state may have existed, as there was a hierarchy of bonds. Such hierarchy may have been developed due to the different nature of social bonds. Ones “private” ties, generally being less formal and including ties of family and friends, would give way to “public” ties of bonds to a king or lord.16 These relationships were used in lieu of a proper political order, which was not yet sophisticated, and a strong value was placed on personal and social ties.

Political friendship in the medieval political sense was not something born of emotion or feeling, rather it was constructed in order to strengthen one’s position. It was based on obligations and rights, and generally oaths were sworn.17 Fredric Cheyette designates the term “oath-taking societies”18 for characterizing Scandinavian and western European social organizations as an alternative to the concept of “feudal society.” 19 The role of oaths were intrinsic to social order and acted as a basic foundation for social organization, and as friendship was formed through oath-making, relationships formed through such an exercise constituted an important element in the formation of social order.20

Oath-making was not something unheard of within the saga corpus, Jómsvíkinga saga included. Another common practice of solidifying a political relationship was the practice of gift-giving and feast-making. While gifts were exchanged in the saga, it was

15 For more on this perspective, see Fichtenau, Heinrich. Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders. Translated by Patrick Geary. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Vollrath, Hanna. “Konfliktwahrnehmung und Konfliktdarstellung in erzählenden Quellen des 11. Jahrhunderts.” Die Salier Und Das Reich, eds. Stefan Weinfurter, Hubertus Seibert, and Helmuth Kluger. (Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1992), 279–96. 16 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 2. 17 Althoff, Gerd. “Friendship and Political Order.” Friendship in Medieval Europe, edited by Julian Haseldine. (Stroud: Sutton, 1999), 92. 18 Cheyette, Fredric. “Some Reflections on Violence, Reconciliation, and the Feudal Revolution.” Conflict in Medieval Europe: Changing Perspectives on Society and Culture, eds. Warren Brown, and Piotr Górecki. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 259. 19 Hermanson, “Holy Unbreakable Bonds,” 16. 20 Hermanson, “Holy Unbreakable Bonds,” 17.

5 feasts that occupied a predominate role in forging and testing bonds. In an early episode, Gormr inn gamli sought the hand of Þyri, daughter of Jarl Klakk-Haraldr. If he was refused, he promised to ravage the land. In order to protect themselves, the father and daughter implemented a clever plan. They would open their home to Gormr and offer him great hospitality as well as a splendid banquet. After the promise of a decision at a later date for the marriage, Gormr went heim með mikilli sæmð ok virðiligum gjǫfum, (“home with great honor and valuable gifts.”)21 Father and daughter were able to stave off a possible attack and instead of becoming enemies, they were able to form a tentative relationship with Gormr inn gamli that would only strengthen with time.

While positive outcomes could come from feasting, there was also the possibility to offend one’s host. This can be seen in another episode involving Gormr inn gamli and his father-in-law. During this episode, Klakk-Haraldr was three times invited to a feast by his son-in-law, however, each time an omen prevented the party from making the journey. This offended Gormr, as he did not yet know the reason for Klakk-Haraldr’s refusal to join him, so much so that:

Þá ætlaði Gormur konungr at herja upp á Harald jarl, mág sinn, þótti hann mjǫk hafa drabbat í móti sínu virðiligu boði er hann hafði ekki sinn komit þá er á var kveðit, ok þótti honum jarl svívirðan sik hafa mjǫk í þessu. (King Gormr intended to make an attack on his father-in-law Jarl Haraldr; he thought he had greatly sullied his honorable invitation by not coming on any of the occasions that had been stipulated, and he thought the jarl had greatly disgraced him in this.)22 To offend one of a higher rank could have dire consequences and feasting presented the opportune occasion for a potential slip-up. Social occasions like feasts were an important part of society and it was during these events that one’s position was undeniable. Feasting was not only an occasion to celebrate a friendship, but also acted as a reminder to where one stood in the social hierarchy. Public order was fundamentally based on rank, which is demonstrated within the saga as King Gormr is of a higher rank than Jarl Haraldr and acts as this hierarchy dictates. While initially the two men seem to be equals, this is not the case. When Klakk-Haraldr did not answer the king’s invitation, Gormr suspected

21 Jómsvíkinga saga, 6. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 69. 22 Jómsvíkinga saga, 12. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 73.

6 possible treachery. By not attending to the king when summoned, Klakk-Haraldr placed himself under suspicion as Gormr suspected him of impertinent ambition. Gormr believed Klakk-Haraldr was acting under the assumption that they were equals and that Klakk-Haraldr had the desire to usurp his authority.23 The dynamics present demonstrate the power structure present within the saga and shows how each level is not on an equal footing.

This episode, however, raises a problem regarding the fundamentals of friendship and alliances. In principle, cooperative alliance is a connection between equals in rank. However, the reality of a situation can become quite strained from the underlying foundation principles. Friendship was used as a stabilizing factor and implemented correctly could be used to control lordship.24 Lords and kings became friends with their vassals, especially in crisis situations where the more friends (namely persons now obligated to a lord) the better. The opposite may be true as well, in that a vassal may seek the friendship of their king in order to control them or gain something from them. While a tentative connection, one may argue that the relationship between Pálnatóki and Sveinn Haraldsson mirrors this sentiment. Pálnatóki raised Sveinn as his foster-son knowing that he would eventually succeed his father as king. Throughout his younger years, Sveinn obeyed the commands of his foster-father – seeking ships from his father King Haraldr Gormsson and then ravaging his land yearly at the behest of Pálnatóki.25 These actions were done so that conflict would arise between father and son, with the hope that Sveinn would be victorious, which he was, and the result was the death of King Haraldr by Pálnatóki. It would therefore appear that Pálnatóki’s aim was to control the young new king, however, his blatant admission of the killing counteracts the possible motives he had for controlling the new king. Why would he raise the king’s son and help him achieve the throne, if only to sever the bonds of friendship they had by admitting to killing the king’s father, and doing it in such a way that was disrespectful and humiliating for Haraldr and would only lead King Sveinn to anger? What his motives were, it is difficult to say. Beatrice La Farge has commented on this scene in questioning the motives of

23 Torfi Tulinius The Matter of the North, 195. 24 Althoff, “Friendship and Political Order,” 93. 25 Jómsvíkinga saga, 52–57.

Pálnatóki. While it is possible the motives may have been to aid Sveinn, she argues that the fact the action occurred at night and Pálnatóki did not relate the news to anyone, but rather kept it a secret, suggests that his motives were one of revenge for the king’s killing of his uncle Áki.26

Pálnatóki’s possible aim to control the king is shrouded in uncertainly and questions of motives and therefore difficult to assess, however, Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson presents a clear case in his desire to befriend a king in order to use that friendship to his own gain. When Hákon approached King Haraldr seeking an alliance, he did so in order to strike against his enemy Haraldr gráfeldr and his mother Gunnhildr, and in doing so becoming the sole ruler of Norway. He entered into an alliance with Haraldr with the goal of using him to achieve this end and promised to pay tribute to him in exchange for his aid.27 However, becoming a vassal of Denmark was never his intentions, and when an opportunity arose in the form of a foreign army invading Denmark, Hákon took advantage of the situation and waived his obligations of paying tribute, thus succeeding in becoming sole ruler of Norway with no obligations to outside rulers.28

Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson presents an image of an ambitious man who plays the situation to his favor. He entered into an alliance with a suzerain yet broke off this agreement when it suited him. The king-vassal agreement is one that operates on oaths taken, however, Hákon played these oaths to his advantage. Hákon states:

“Mik áttu heimilan til fylgðar við þik ok ráðagerðar ok þat lið sem nú hefi ek, þessa tólf menn, en eigi fleira lið nema ek vilja, því at ek hefi komit áðr of sinnsakar með leiðangr at veita þér lið, sem við áttum mælt með okkr fyrir ǫndverðu.” (You were entitled to have me for following and advice, and the company I now have, these twelve men, but no more company unless I wish it, because I have come before on one occasion with a levy to give you support as we had spoken of between us in the beginning.)29

26 La Farge, Beatrice. “Preben Meulengracht Sørensen. Norrønt nid: Forestillingen om den umandige mand i de islandske sagaer.” Skandinavistik 13:1 (1983): 59–64. 27 Jómsvíkinga saga, 18–22. 28 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 195. 29 Jómsvíkinga saga, 29. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 84

Generally, in the medieval world oaths were undefined. All bonds brought with them certain obligations and rights, yet these are not outlined to a vast degree. Gerd Althoff provides the example of how a lord had to give vague assurances of protection, and provide loyalty and favor, while a vassal was obliged to offer support and counsel.30 However, what these notions actually represented are vague. One would therefore have to assume that these oaths were common and the expectations they held were known. However, it was not uncommon to see a wariness associated with bonds and oaths, as people in the middle ages seem to have understood the possibilities of bonds being abused and not reliable. Thus, a vassal may bind themselves to two lords in order to play them off of each other.31 Likewise, the interpretation of bonds and oaths could be bended to fit the needs of a vassal. A vassal was expected to give support and counsel, yet what exactly did this mean? In a letter written by Fulbert of Chartres to Duke William of Aquitaine (ca. 1020) the details of a suzerain’s claims on his vassal are given, with striking resemblance to what appears in the saga. The letter details how a vassal owed conseil and aide. Conseil was attendance at court, assistance in administration, and solidarity in all events. Aide was considered to be militaristic yet could also be considered monetary.32

As seen with Hákon’s statement, the obligations required were support and counsel, which he is ready to give. However, the issue is that King Haraldr expected more from what Hákon was willing to give. Hákon claimed the only thing he was required to give the king was support in the form of himself and his twelve men and to advise him in this time of crisis. As he had already given the king an army at an earlier time, he believed he was not obliged to give any more.33 Althoff makes notice of how aid and counsel was not given blindly and with full devotion when one entered into an alliance or friendship. He claims that medieval friends may have refused aid as the conflict which they were called upon to help with did not meet their sense of justice.34 It was not justice that Hákon took issue with, however. Hákon manipulated the contractual obligations between himself and the king in order to further his own agenda. He needed

30 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 8. 31 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 9. 32 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 196. 33 Jómsvíkinga saga, 29. 34 Althoff, “Friendship and Political Order,” 96.

9 the kings support to rid Norway of Haraldr gráfeldr, and once this was done he no longer had need of the king’s support.

He manipulated his way out of paying tribute and once this was accomplished, he lost his need to respect King Haraldr. Torfi Tulinius makes the connection that while in the king’s service and in need of his aid and favor, Hákon regularly addresses the king as herra (“Lord”), as a sign of submission. However, once his tribute obligations have ended, the term is never again used by Hákon when he addresses King Haraldr.35

Jarl Hákon was able to play the field and manipulate his way into a more powerful position. However, his actions would have the consequential result of forming conflict between the kings of Denmark and the former vassal. Neglecting and dismissing formal obligations would cause conflict and lead to greater strife between the two. The conflict between King Haraldr and Jarl Hákon, however, only represented one small episode in a larger work rife with conflict. Conflict in the sagas is nothing new, rather it is a prominent theme of many of the Íslendingasögur. However, unlike Jómsvíkinga saga, the conflict usually arises between two groups such as households and is “expressed as a sequence of one killing and at least two subsequent killings in revenge.”36 Honor is the main driving factor behind the characters actions, and these actions “arise from a retaliatory killing which is not resolved, and concludes through a permanent resolution in the form of a settlement, judgment or predominance on one side.”37 While there is conflict within Jómsvíkinga saga, it is not of the feuding nature. It arises from something besides honor, and that is the desire for power and to increase one’s social and political standing.

Torfi Tulinius, in his The Matter of the North, proposes that the issue of conflict between king and bóndi as the prevalent theme of Jómsvíkinga saga, in which I am inclined to agree with to an extent.38 Strife and conflict flood the text as vassals and kings attempt to gain or maintain power. The organization of the saga is dependent on this

35 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 196. 36 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, Viking Friendship: The Social Bond in Iceland and Norway, C. 900–1300. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017), 108. 37 Hansen, Elise M., “En undersøkelse av drap, hevndrap og feide I Heimskringla og seks iselndingasagaer,” (MA-thesis, Universitetet i Oslo, 1999), 24. 38 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 194.

10 issue, as it progresses the plot and ultimately leads to the final climax of the saga, wherein all prior conflicts culminate in an epic battle between varying parties. The theme of conflict between king and vassal is not unknown at this point and is found in several medieval French chansons de geste, in which the noble revolts against royal authority. This is a cycle within the corpus known as the cycle of the rebel barons, which deals with an unsuitable king who meets his match in a noble lord. As some chansons de geste were known in Iceland by 1200, it may be possible that the author of Jómsvíkinga saga was inspired by the motif.39 Before examining the motif of conflict further, however, it is important to gain an understanding of the social situation that is present within the saga, as it is these social groups who interact and conflict with one another. Social ranking within Jómsvíkinga saga is divided into three strata: the king and royal family; wealthy and prominent bœndr; and the jarl, who encompasses an intermediary position between the two. The jarlar occupy a delicate position as they are figures who are obligated towards the king yet do not have the same functions as others who are obligated towards their king, as they have noble blood which sets them apart.40 It is this noble attribute that can make a jarl dangerous and as such, pose a challenge towards royal authority. This can be seen in the figure of Gull-Haraldr, nephew of Haraldr Gormsson and son of Knutr Gormsson, therefore potentially the rightful heir to the Danish throne. For this reason, Haraldr Gormsson did nothing to aid his nephew when he was threatened and eventually killed. As seen, another dangerous jarl was Hákon Sigurðarson, de facto king of Norway and main causer of strife throughout the saga. However, it is not just conflict between kings and jarlar that cause the main action within the saga. There is conflict between all three social levels, and even conflict amongst persons of the same group. The conflict of the saga can fall into several categories: the relationship between king and bóndi; the bond between king and jarl; those that depict the relationship between bóndi and jarl; and those that depict conflict between the same group.41 It is the interactions between these groupings that causes conflict in the saga. However, the reason for conflict remains to be discussed.

39 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 192. 40 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 192. 41 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 196.

The underlying conflict in Jómsvíkinga saga is one based upon power; either achieving more power or maintaining one’s current level. Looking at the ideology of power – specifically royal power – it greatly differs from what is displayed by the Danish kings of the saga. If a king is to be fondly remembered, they are praised in skaldic poetry and the sagas for their charisma and great achievements. There were key features understood to signify that a king was good and powerful: he was brave and generous; merciless to his enemies, yet courteous to his followers; he was lucky in battle and brought fortune to those under his control. These attributes were not only important in signifying a powerful king, they also were important when legitimizing royal claims.42 If the kings in Jómsvíkinga saga display these characteristics, they are brief and fleeting moments. King Haraldr Gormsson was especially discredited as being a coward and lacking in kingly fortitude, and while Sveinn Haraldsson is not disparaged as greatly as his father, he still falls flat when compared to the ideal king. It is more fitting that the Jómsvíkingar fall under this notion of ideal power rather than kings and even the jarlar. Their leader Pálnatóki especially follows the characteristics of an ideal powerful man. Under Pálnatóki’s leadership, the Jómsvíkingar are regarded as ideal warriors who abide by a strict code of regulation and act almost as if they are a brotherhood of chivalric knights. This brotherhood is unique among the sagas and thus the source for such an occurrence may be gleamed from the continent. The concept of chivalry embraces a vast number of aspects, however, when one thinks of such a notion, images of handsomely dressed knights doing moral work for their liege are conjured. One does not think that such a notion could be placed upon a band of Viking warriors. However, the term chivalry is difficult to define. In some instances, it can mean no more than a group of heavily armed horsemen; or perhaps as vague as an order; or as a social class; it can even be described as a code of values.43 When understood as this, the Jómsvíkingar can be somewhat called a chivalric brotherhood. However, as Keen outlines, chivalric orders were typically connected to notions of Christianity and were tied extensively with

42 Morawiec, Jakub, and Rafał Borysławski, eds. Aspects of Royal Power in Medieval Scandinavia. (Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego, 2018), 9. 43 Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 2.

12 romances. The Jómsvíkingar do not fall into this category, however, their law code is surprisingly chivalric in its nature.

Law codes were necessary in the positive function of orders. Like the orders of knighthood, the Jómsvíkingar were excepted to be loyal to their leader and to their comrades.44 As outlined in their code:

Hverr maðr er þangat rézk í þeira fǫruneyti skyldi því heita fastlega at hverr þeira skyldi hefna annars sem mǫtunauts síns eða bróður síns. Ok alls engi skyldi þar róg kveykja á milli manna.

(Each man who came there to join the fellowship must promise faithfully that each of them must avenge the other like his messmate or his brother. And no one at all must stir up strife among men.)45

The Jómsvíkingar under Pálnatóki acted in a manner befitting of men of high status; they were a brotherhood that obeyed the regulations and possessed an honorable attitude. Not only were their attitudes ones of high status, but likewise were their physical appearances. Typically, a king was meant to manifest high nobility, both in manner and outward appearance.46 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson argued that certain traits attributed to the differing groups of secular leaders, such as kings and jarlar, showed significant differences between the groups.47 Positive physical descriptions were indicators of noble birth and symbolic power, wherein the king was typically described with the most promising details, as well in a more verbose manner and generally given a handsome physical appearance. While those of a lesser class could have some of these attributes, they did not possess them all.48 This is not the case in Jómsvíkinga saga, where the physical appearance of major kings such as Haraldr Gormsson and Sveinn Haraldsson are not even mentioned. Rather, it is those of the lowest social level portrayed in the saga, the bœndr, who are given the most physical details and described in a positive light. Vagn

44 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 13. 45 Jómsvíkinga saga, 68. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 111. 46 Fichtenau, Living in the Tenth Century, 167. 47 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson. “The Appearance and Personal Abilities of gođar, jarlar, and konungar: Iceland, Orkney and Norway.” West over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-borne Expansion and Settlement before 1300, eds. Beverley Ballin Smith, Simon Taylor, and Gareth Williams. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 95. 48 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson. “The Appearance and Personal Abilities of gođar, jarlar, and konungar, 96.

Ákason especially represents this disruption from the typical model, in that he is described as being allra manna vænstr ok fríðastr sjónum ok inn mesti atgǫrvismaðr ok bráðgǫrr um hotvetna, (“the handsomest of all men and best looking, and a man of many skills, advanced for his age in every way”).49 It is positive attributes such as these that give credence to the Jómsvíkingar. They are not praised for any grand deed preformed prior to the battle of Hjǫrungavágr, rather it is their shared identification with their brotherhood that make these warriors well-known.50 However, for all their good attributes, were these men considered powerful? Certainly, they displayed great power and strength as warriors, but as leaders of men were they on par with the kings and jarlar who they were interacting with?

The Jómsvíkingar become subservient to the king of Wendland, Búrizláfr, and in doing so acted as a buffer between the Danish and Baltic powers.51 Later during their career, they fall somewhat unwillingly as a pawn between the rulers of the Danes and Norwegians. They were not an independent faction that operated on their own accord, rather, they adhered to the regulations and expectations of social hierarchy and answered to those of a higher station. Though they exercised their own discretion in certain situations, the Jómsvíkingar were essentially dependent on royal authority.52

Melissa Berman makes the argument that Jómsvíkinga saga is “dominated by issues of independence and struggle for leadership – in other words, issues of political power.”53 While I agree with her assessment on both fronts, I disagree in which group of characters are bidding for independence. Berman claims it is the Jómsvíkingar, who after fleeing from Denmark set up their own independent “colony.” I would argue that it was not the Jómsvíkingar who sought independence, rather, it was jarlar like Hákon Sigurðarson and kings such as Búrizláfr who wished to be free of Danish influence. There

49 Jómsvíkinga saga, 71. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 113. 50 Finlay, Alison. “Jómsvíkinga Saga and Genre.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 63–80, 70. 51 Berman, Melissa A. “The Political Sagas.” Scandinavian Studies, Spring, 57, no. 2 (1985): 113–129, 116. 52 Morawiec, Jakub. “Danish Kings and the Foundation of Jómsborg.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 125– 42, 125. 53 Berman, “The Political Sagas,” 133.

14 is a matter I have yet to discuss fully which gives credence to this issue of independence and that would be the matter of tribute. Like Hákon Sigurðarson, Búrizláfr was obligated to pay tribute to the king of Denmark. Not only is this a monetary setback, but it also places Búrizláfr as subservient to King Sveinn Haraldsson. He wished to at koma af landinu ǫllum skǫttum, þeim er vér hǫfum hingat til goldit Danakonungi,54 (“rid this country of all the tributes we have paid to the king of the Danes up to now.”) In doing so, Búrizláfr sought a bid for independence, which would enhance his political power. I have already discussed the account of Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson’s dealings in forcing King Haraldr to give up his claims for receiving tribute. However, it is interesting to note that while King Haraldr demanded tribute from Norway, the situation was understood in terms of a man-to-man relationship, wherein contractual bonds between lord and vassal predominate over agreements between nations.55 Relationships and the formation of bonds were used in the exercise of political power; however, this did not give a sense of security or absoluteness. Politics, and to an extant power, within the saga comes in the form of social hierarchy and rank, as well as suzerainty, yet this did not mean that those of a lesser rank would not be able to exert some power or influence over higher groups, or even control or manipulate the existing social bonds.

Melissa Berman’s rather disheartening statement sums up the sentiments of achieving political power within the saga: “In general, the author of Jomsvikinga saga used the king-retainer relationship to dramatize his exaggeratedly bleak idea of how men achieve political power: through ruses and traps.”56 Manipulation is not an unknown tool used by the characters in the saga and they implement it readily when required or desired. Duplicity makes its way through nearly every generation outlined in the saga and culminates in the later generations as the necessary means to political ends. Manipulation, lies, duplicity, and even treachery are used by the characters of the saga as a means for promoting self-power. Jómsvíkinga saga uses the idea that those who are the trickiest and most manipulative will come out on top. This does not necessarily

54 Jómsvíkinga saga, 90. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 126. 55 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 198. 56 Berman, “The Political Sagas,” 117.

15 suggest that those with the most political power will succeed, rather, it is those willing to enter underhanded dealings for their own sake and preform dishonorable and questionable deeds that will help raise their standing. Whether it be kings, jarlar, or bœndr, the characters of Jómsvíkinga saga were not shy in implementing manipulative and duplicitous actions for the sake of achieving greater influence and exerting more control over a situation or group.

3. Analyzing Jómsvíkinga saga

3.1 Historical Background

In his book Bloodtaking and Peacemaking, William Ian Miller presents his idea on how the sagas should be handled as sources:

“The sagas for the most part ring true. Their accounts of disputes rarely exceed the parameters by which we judge plausibility; their narratives fit admirably the limits of social possibility as determined by the large sociological and anthropological literature. All surviving artifacts, whether art or coprolite, have their tale to tell.”57 While Miller is discussing the Íslendingasögur, his idea can be used somewhat when discussing Jómsvíkinga saga. Perhaps the content of the saga is not all entirely plausible – there are numerous fantastical elements – however, the saga does fall into a reasonable scope of social interactions. And while the saga itself is a literary creation, several characters and events are grounded in historical reality. I will present the saga as a work of literature rather than look at the historical aspect of the saga, which is quite limited to begin with, as the saga does not aim to relate true history, but rather incorporate a more entertaining outlook of the events. However, in order to understand the content of the saga, the historical reality and characters should be briefly assessed.

Those of a higher rank, specifically kings and jarlar appear in other sources and are well attested in Icelandic works from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries as well as early European sources, whereas such characters as the lower ranking Jómsvíkingar are less likely to appear in other sources.58 King Haraldr Gormsson, whose nickname in other texts is blátǫnn (“Bluetooth”), appears in several sources and is well attested to in archeological evidence, namely the two famous rune stones at Jelling, wherein he is described as bringing Christianity to Denmark, as well as winning all of Denmark and Norway. The conversion is detailed within the saga; however, it is Emperor Ótta of Saxland and Peitulǫnd, along with his invading army, who brings Christianity to

57 Miller, William Ian. Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 46. 58 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 7.

Denmark.59 Haraldr is also attested in several sources as being connected to the fortress at Jómsborg, believed to be on the Polish island of Wolin. In his Gesta Danorum, Saxo Grammaticus mentions Haraldr’s rule over a garrison in Wolin.60 Sven Aggesen also connects Haraldr to Jómsborg and as the founder of the fortress in his Gesta Regum Danorum, in which Haraldr flees to Jómsborg when he is attacked in a rebellion of his subjects.61 Within Jómsvíkinga saga, Haraldr is not the proprietor or founder of Jómsborg, thus differing from the earlier texts. Rather than conflicting origins, this difference reflects anti-royal sentiments against King Haraldr. His ill-favored view and negative connotations may have led the saga author to give the role of the founder of the great Jómsvíkingar to Pálnatóki, who was considered to be a promising man and thus worthy of leading the men of Jómsborg.62 However, while Haraldr is not the founder of Jómsborg within the saga, his dynasty is intrinsically connected to it and engages with its members.

Haraldr’s son Sveinn, known elsewhere as tjúguskegg (“Forkbeard”) and known for his invasion of England in 1013, occupies a strange position within the saga, as he is not disparaged like his father and exhibits kingly attributes at times, yet he is also viewed negatively for his dealing with Pálnatóki and the Jómsvíkingar. His involvement with the Jómsvíkingar is clear in other sources, yet it has been argued that episodes in the saga were taken and changed from material found it both works by Thietmar of Merseburg and Adam of Bremen.63 The origin of the kidnapping episode, while possibly an ancient oral tale, may be derived from references made by both men. In Adam of Bremen’s Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum he notes that, Nam cum bellum susciperet contra Sclavos, bis captus et in Sclavaniam ductus tociens a Danis ingenti pondere auri redemtus est, (“For while he was waging war against the Wends he was twice captured and taken to Wendland, and as many times ransomed by the Danes for a huge weight in

59 Jómsvíkinga saga, 31–41. 60 Morawiec, Jakub. Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings in Old Norse Tradition. (Wien: Fassbaender, 2009), 36. 61 Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings, 38. 62 Morawiec, “Danish Kings and the Foundation of Jómsborg,” 128. 63 Olafur Halldórsson. Danish Kings and the Jomsvikings in the Greatest Saga of Oláfr Tryggvason. (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2000), 70.

18 gold.”)64 Olafur Halldórsson argues that the author of Jómsvíkinga saga took liberties with this account and made it a part of the saga. However, Sven Aggesen’s Historia, written in the early thirteenth century, thus in the same period as Jómsvíkinga saga, has a man named Pálnatóki as one of Haraldr’s counselors and in the feud between father and son, it is Pálnatóki who kidnaps Sveinn and brings him to Jómsborg, which is highly reminiscent of Sigvaldi’s role in the saga. Such an occurrence suggests that this episode was likely to be a common legend.65

Both father and son have dealings with Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson of Norway, who is also attested to in numerous works. He is known for being the most powerful of the jarlar of Hlaðir, who throughout the ninth to the eleventh centuries fought with the descendants of Haraldr hárfagri for control over Norway. He is detested in the literature as he fought the conversion and was the last of the pagan rulers of Norway.66 His dealing with Haraldr are attested to in literature outside of the saga, namely skaldic poems. For example, Einarr Helgason’s Vellekla, composed approximately in the middle of the 980s, details the conflict between Haraldr and Hákon against Emperor Ótta.67 Contemporary sources, as well as later traditions, emphasizes caution at the hands of Haraldr in regard to his Norwegian counterpart and indicate that Haraldr Gormsson attempted to gain influence in Norway by interfering with conflicts of leadership.68 This can be seen frequently within the saga and corresponds to the political attitude Haraldr Gormsson held.

Unlike those of royal or aristocratic blood, characters of a lower status rarely appear outside of the saga. Those that are addressed typically have brief appearances or are mentioned in passing. The Jómsvíkingar themselves are rarely mentioned in other saga texts, and those that are mentioned are men such as Pálnatóki, Sigvaldi, Búi, and Vagn are well known members of the Jómsvíkingar. While Pálnatóki’s association with the Jómsvíkingar in sources outside of Jómsvíkinga saga are sketchy at best, Sigvaldi is

64 Olafur Halldórsson, Danish Kings and the Jomsvikings in the Greatest Saga of Oláfr Tryggvason, 70. 65 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 11. 66 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 8. 67 Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings, 19. 68 Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings, 22–13.

19 named in a number of skaldic poems that link him to the battle of Hjǫrungavágr and thus linked to the Jómsvíkingar.69 He also appears in Heimskringla wherein he participates in the battle of Svǫlðr, where he shows his treacherous attitude by luring Óláfr Tryggvason into an ambush.70 Búi and Vagn appear in sources linking them to the Jómsvíkingar, namely Fagrskinna, Heimskringla, and the sagas of King Óláfr Tryggvason.71

Another Jómsvíkingur to be mentioned is Þorkell hávi, who does not have a central role in the saga, and yet can be attested as a historical figure. He is known for his alliance with King Æthelred against King Sveinn tjúguskegg and his son Knútr, and later as a retainer for Knútr. His appearance in the saga suggests that his historical persona was used to justify and enhance the other Jómsvíkingar, namely his brother Sigvaldi.72

3.2 Redactions Jómsvíkinga saga is among the oldest Icelandic texts and is believed to have been written in the first third of the thirteenth century, at a time when the konungasögur were already in production and while other saga genres were just starting out.73 The saga is extant in four early manuscripts: AM 291 4to, Flateyjarbók, Stock. Perg. 4to no. 7, and AM 510 4to. Problems arise, however, due to the likelihood of two redactions of the saga existing, and which were used as a model in both Fagrskinna and Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla. One is to assume that there was originally one written saga based on oral tradition, however, it would seem that this source split into two distinct redactions relatively soon after its composition. Another likely possibility is that two separate versions of the saga were produced based on an earlier oral tradition or unknown source.74 Regardless, two redactions of the saga exist. What is interesting is that within the same redactions there are a multitude of differences throughout the differing MMS, and while not entirely important to the plot of the saga as a whole, do have certain consequences, which will be discussed briefly.

69 Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings, 97–99. 70 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 11. 71 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 11. 72 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 11. 73 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 29. 74 Ólafur Halldórsson, “Jómsvíkinga saga,” 343.

AM 291 4to75 is the oldest of the preserved manuscripts, written around or before 1300 and may be a copy of an earlier work written sometime between 1220–30.76 The manuscript, however, is slightly defective with two leaves missing from the ending, and some pages are damaged.77 Regardless, the saga is readable and considered to be the better of the versions, as it is considered to be the closet to the lost original text.78 It will be this version of the saga which this thesis will examine. Unlike the other versions of the saga, 291 exhibits a greater number of details of the events and has a negative attitude towards certain characters, such as King Haraldr Gormsson and Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson, that will play into my analysis of the saga.

3.3 Genre

Jómsvíkinga saga is still heavily scrutinized and debated. The two main reasons for this is: 1) the literary style is difficult to place within the genre debate, and 2) its early dating makes it difficult to assess its source value as either historical or pure fiction.79 The saga itself is not outstanding compared to others, however, it is vivid in its storytelling and offers a certain ridiculous and grotesque humor that is entertaining. Scenes including the Jómsvíkingar are especially enjoyable, such as the oath-making episode as well as the beheading scene. Jómsvíkinga saga is difficult to classify in terms of genre and those who attempt to place it are vague in their reasonings.80 Ármann Jakobsson classifies Jómsvíkinga saga as “not quite kings’ sagas,”81 while Theodore Andersson calls the saga

75 Henceforth, AM 291 4to will be indicated as 291. 76 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 26. 77 77 Ólafur Halldórsson, “Jómsvíkinga saga,” 343. 78 Veturliði Óskarsson and Þórdís Edda Jóhannesdóttir. “The Manuscripts of Jómsvíkinga Saga: A Survey,” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 9–32, 12. 79 Aalto, Sirpa. “Jómsvíkinga Saga as a Part of Old Norse Historiography.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 33–58, 33. 80 Finlay, Alison. “History and Fantasy in Jómsvíkinga saga.” International Saga Conference: The fantastic in old Norse/Icelandic literature: sagas and the British Isles: preprint papers of the Thirteenth International Saga Conference, Durham and York, 6th-12th August, 2006, eds. John McKinnell, David Ashurst, and Donata Kick. (Durham: Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Durham University, 2006), 249. 81 Ármann Jacobsson. “Royal Bibligragpy.” A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture, ed. Rory McTurk (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011), 391.

“a cross between a kings’ saga and a legendary saga.”82 While it does contain elements of the fornaldarsögur, due to the environment and action of kings and jarlar during the Viking Age, it has fallen in with the konungasögur.83 When viewing the saga as a part of the konungasögur corpus, however, several differences emerge when compared to the other king’s sagas. While the saga centers around a royal family, the underlining focus is on vassals rather than the kings themselves, who take a secondary position to the Jómsvíkingar. The treatment of events are unlike the other konungasögur, but rather deal more heavily on fantasy elements, which is cause for scholars to debate its genre placement.84 It can therefore be said that Jómsvíkinga saga occupies a crossroad position between the konungasögur and fornaldarsögur, as it exhibits features of both genres. Interestingly enough, Jómsvíkinga saga to an extent also displays features typical of the Íslendingasögur in that it is stylistically similar to this genre.85

It is not, however, the aim of this thesis to add to the genre debate, yet it is important to note that while Jómsvíkinga saga “defies genre classification,”86 as modern readers, our perceptions of saga literature are based upon and ingrained to genre classification. Genre defines how texts are approached and understood while giving comprehension of the context of the saga.87 In regard to Jómsvíkinga saga, this can be understood as the approach made when dealing with issues of kingship and social order, which are compared to other types of kingship and social relations within the saga corpus. One inherently compares how the situation in one saga differs or is comparable to others of its kind. However, for the purpose of this thesis, I will attempt to disregard this notion and solely look at Jómsvíkinga saga as a work on its own and try to distance this work from the genre debate. As it is the content of the text rather than the context or

82 Andersson, Theodore. “Kings’ Sagas (Konungasögur).” Old Norse-Icelandic Literature a Critical Guide, eds. Carol J. Clover, and John Lindow. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press in Association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1985), 215. 83 Sävborg, Daniel. “Búi the Dragon: Some Intertexts of Jómsvíkinga Saga.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 101–120, 107. 84 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 29. 85 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 41. 86 Finlay, “Jómsvíkinga saga and Genre,” 77. 87 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 33.

22 circumstances which interest me, I will focus on the literature present and analyze the text not with the context of the saga in mind, but rather with the goal of understanding the subject and ideas that the saga expresses.

4. Case Study

Up to this point, I have made an attempt to summarize social hierarchy and conflict within the saga, however, now I will turn to the major bulk of the thesis: that is, analyzing the specific episodes within the saga that deal with social conflict. My aim is to present certain episodes in a chronological and logical manner that deal with conflict and analyze the components of each case: such as which levels of the social order are involved; the motivations behind those causing strife; whether or not manipulation or deceit is implemented as an accelerant for conflict; and the implications made for social bonds and relationships.

4.1 A Brother’s Conflict

An early episode of conflict in the saga provides the foundations for the worries and attitudes of kingship, while calling to attention the role of social hierarchy. This episode, while brief and seemingly trivial, is one of fratricide involving the sons of King Gormr inn gamli. Gormr’s eldest son Knutr was the epitome of an heir as he was well accomplished and wise, while Gormr’s second son Haraldr was difficult to get along with and thus unpopular among his father’s men. Knutr lived with his grandfather Klakk- Haraldr and received men of his own. Haraldr asked his father to give him such possessions and power to own and control such as what his brother had received. However, he was denied this, and resentment grew between the brothers so much so that þótti Haraldi þeira gǫrr mikill mun í hvívetna ok grunaði at eigi mundi síðarr minni, (“Haraldr thought that they had been treated very differently in every way, and he suspected that this would not happen less afterwards.”)88

It was Haraldr’s fear that once his brother became king, he would not get any recognition. Though not stated in the text, it can be gathered that Haraldr would become a jarl and be answerable to the king, something he did not want for himself.89 The murder of his brother, while not deceitful or manipulative like so many other disputes in the saga, was treacherous and unscrupulous, and not least of all soaked in a desire for power. As stated, Haraldr most likely was to become a jarl, yet even if his position brought him

88 Jómsvíkinga saga, 15. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 75. 89 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 196.

24 status and wealth, he would still be under the royal authority of his older brother, something that was not acceptable to him. The king was the highest social position and Haraldr in his want for power would accept nothing less, thus demonstrating how status and power was perceived by the characters as a hierarchical order. Those at the top, the king, possessed influence and control and those below were under his authority. While a brief and swift conflict which ended in the death of Knutr and the ascension of Haraldr to the throne, it marks several key features of the main episodes of conflict within the saga. Namely, the idea of social hierarchy as a representation of power and influence. However, there also marks the issue of a king’s fear. One’s position was never solidified or grasped with certainty. Like Haraldr’s treatment of his brother, there may be someone under him who could usurp his power like he did to his elder brother. Kings fear powerful men for they possess the possibility to replace and usurp. The kings in Jómsvíkinga saga were surrounded by such men and in many cases, it was their fear and uncertainly that lead to rash decisions that ended in conflict.

4.2 Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson’s Bid for Power

While kings can create conflict due to their distrust and desire to maintain their power, this is not so in every instance of conflict within the saga. Rather, the saga is marked by kings, jarlar, and bœndr competing against each other and engaging one another in opposition. As I have discussed, jarlar occupy a troublesome position in the saga and act as a threat towards royal power. This can be observed most through the actions of Jarl Hákon Sigurðarson. Briefly mentioned was the conflict between Jarl Hákon and Haraldr gráfeldr and his mother Gunnhildr, however, here I will analyze the episode in depth and present the image of a man who sought power and did so through cunning and manipulative actions on all fronts.

While in Norway, Haraldr gráfeldr would not allow Hákon to rule or have possession of his dominions in Lade, which he would not accept. Hákon believed he was entitled to rule and have power over all his lands, and he would do so and more. Thus, he set about making alliances in order to go against the King of Norway and his mother. Jarl Hákon approached the King of Denmark with the intentions of forming a friendship and using this alliance for his own purposes. While in the hall of King Haraldr Gormsson, Jarl Hákon insinuated that Haraldr gráfeldr was the better king, which angered Haraldr

25 and prompted him to eliminate such a man who may be more powerful than him.90 This, of course, was the intention of Hákon. In order to eliminate his enemy in Norway, he would have to manipulate the King of Denmark to fight his cause for him as he did not possess the means to do so alone. Hákon was renowned for being a ráðugr maðr…ok vitr, (“resourceful man… and clever,”)91 so much so that Haraldr Gormsson tasked him with implementing a plan to defeat Haraldr gráfeldr and bring renown to all involved.

Those involved included King Haraldr, his nephew Gull-Haraldr, and Jarl Hákon. These men therefore entered into a cooperative bond in which they had a common goal. A cooperative bond can be defined as “a group for the fulfillment of the cherished religious, cultural, economic, social, legal, and political aims of its members.”92 Typically this sort of bond is long lasting, however, it can be short-termed as well. The members have a common goal: the defeat of Haraldr gráfeldr. Yet, each member has a different motivation for doing so and therein lies the future degradation of this bond. King Haraldr’s desire for the defeat of Haraldr gráfeldr was due to his honor as a king being questioned, as well as a promise made with Jarl Hákon if they were to succeed. Hákon was assured half of Norway with the promise of paying tribute to the Danish king. Gull-Haraldr was promised the other half of Norway. Each man therefore had his own reasons for entering into this alliance, however, there is more at play than what was originally agreed upon.

Before examining the deceit involved in this alliance, it is important to note the manner in which King Haraldr, Gull-Haraldr, and Jarl Hákon drew Haraldr gráfeldr into battle. The means was marked with lies and trickery and was unsurprisingly thought up by the cunning Jarl Hákon. Men were to be sent to Haraldr gráfeldr with the invitation to settle financial matters between the two kings, as well as a proposal of marriage between Haraldr Gormsson and the Norwegian king’s mother, Gunnhildr.93 This was a trap, one in which Haraldr gráfeldr fell for along with his mother. However, it was not only a trap for them, but also a trap for Gull-Haraldr.

90 Jómsvíkinga saga, 18–21. 91 Jómsvíkinga saga, 21. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 79. 92 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 65. 93 Jómsvíkinga saga, 20–22.

As the nephew of King Haraldr, Gull-Haraldr had the potential to usurp his uncle and become king. He was well-liked as well as powerful, thus a danger to the Danish throne. Perhaps Haraldr saw in his nephew what he was to his older brother: a man willing to kill his kin to obtain royal authority. Regardless of Gull-Haraldr’s future moves against King Haraldr, he forestalled any problems that may have arisen due to his nephew. For Jarl Hákon, Gull-Haraldr presented an obstacle for his desire to become sole ruler of Norway due to the deal brokered between the three men to split Norway in half. The means to rid themselves of Gull-Haraldr was even more duplicitous than the arrangement with Haraldr gráfeldr, as he was a member of their cooperative bond. To go against one that was a part of an agreed upon alliance and friendship (not to mention kinship) was a dishonorable and shameful maneuver.

The means to bring about Gull-Harald’s demise was also filled with deceit and treachery. Both Gull-Harald and Jarl Hákon had ships to engage the enemy, yet Hákon did not join the fight against his kinsman Haraldr gráfeldr as was his plan. Instead, Gull- Haraldr fought against him and their exchange should be noted:

Ok er Haraldr konungr gráfeldr var í þessum mannháska ok varð þá þess varr at eigi var allt svikalaust ok þóttisk þá vita hversu fara mundi leikrinn, þá mælti hann: “Þat hlœgir mik nú,” segir hann, “at ek sé þat, nafni, at sigr þinn mun eigi langr vera þóttú fellir mik, fyrir því at ek veit at þetta eru ráð Hákonar jarls er hér fara nú fram, ok hér kemr hann þegar á hendr þér er ek em dauðr ok drepr þik á fœtur oss ok hefnir vár svá.”

(And when King Haraldr gráfeldr was in this mortal danger and became aware that there was no absence of betrayal, and thought he knew how the game would turn out, then he said: “It makes me laugh now,” he says, “to see, namesake, that your victory will not last long if you bring me down, because I know that it is the plans of Jarl Hákon that are being followed now, and he will come here after you at once, as soon as I am dead, and kill you at my feet and so avenge me.”)94

So as Haraldr gráfeldr predicted, Gull-Haraldr was killed due to the express wishes of both Haraldr Gormsson and Jarl Hákon. The two men defiled the bond of alliance created and in doing so achieved more renown for themselves. While bonds of friendship and allegiance are not emotive, there are specific negotiated positions and their obligations

94 Jómsvíkinga saga, 23. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 80–81.

27 attached to such bonds that link those a part of it together.95 And while this relationship was based on deceit, those involved were obligated to one another. It was not expressly the breaking of the bond that was the issue, rather it was entering into it with the knowledge that deceit was already in place. To falsify one’s intentions in a relationship and bond based on mutuality, while not unheard of or even uncommon, gave those involved in the deceit a lack of credence and sullied their character. While King Haraldr and Jarl Hákon both achieved what they desired and gained considerable power and influence, they were marked as cunning and disreputable, which played out in the saga as a fault in their characters.

4.3 Jarl Hákon against the Conversion

While I have already discussed in detail Jarl Hákon’s dealing with Haraldr Gormsson and the issue of tribute, several aspects of this episode need further clarification. As a vassal and under the suzerainty of the Danes, Jarl Hákon was obliged to offer both aid and counsel to the Danish king. When the time for paying tribute arose, Jarl Hákon claimed that:

“Svá er nú farit, herra, at vér þykkjumsk eigi lagi á koma at gera yðr greiða um skattana sem vér vildim fyrir sakir starfs þessa ins mikla ok fékostnaðar er vér hǫfum fyrir yðrar sakir. En fyrir hotvetna fram vilju vér gjalda yðr skattana þá er þessu léttir af oss.” (“As it has turned out, my lord, I find I am not in a position to make the payment of the tribute to you as I would like, because of this great work and the expenses we have had on your account. But above all I wish to pay you these dues when this eases for me.”)96 This, of course, was a mere attempt to put off his obligations, which would not be fulfilled as Jarl Hákon never had any intentions of acting under the suzerainty of the Danish king. When he did provide King Haraldr with aid and counsel, he did not raise a levy out of a sense of obligation or respect for King Haraldr, rather he did it for his own benefit. The first and prime reason for Jarl Hákon supporting King Haraldr was his desire to use the king to rid Norway of Haraldr gráfeldr and his mother. Once this was complete, one would suspect that the jarl no longer had need of the Danish king. However, the

95 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 70. 96 Jómsvíkinga saga, 28. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 84.

28 unforeseeable appearance of Emperor Ótta curbed this lack of need. The Saxland emperor was bringing something more dangerous to the jarl than an army, Christianity and the forthcoming conversion.97

Jarl Hákon was a stout believer in the old pagan ways and saw the encroaching conversion as a threat to his position. The ensuing conflict has no duplicity or manipulation, but rather says something about the social positions of the jarlar and bœndr. Jarl Hákon and King Haraldr were both baptized after witnessing a miracle by the emperor’s bishop. However, unlike Haraldr whose sentiments were sincere, Jarl Hákon had no intention of remaining a Christian for long.98 He became a fierce practitioner in the pagan ways and used his connection to sacrifice to call forth Þorgerðr Hǫrðatrǫll in the battle of Hjǫrungavágr.

Torfi Tulinius makes note of the similarities of the Christian Emperor Ótta and Ólafr Tryggvason’s attack on Danavirki and the final battle between Jarl Hákon and the Jómsvíkingar. The two conflicts are decided by the factor of religion and faith.99 While Danavirki fell due to Christian intervention, the battle of Hjǫrungavágr ended with the pagan goddess Þorgerðr Hǫrðatrǫll’s interference. It is the jarlar who are most susceptible to paganism. In the final battle, it can be seen how the sons of bœndr defiantly faced off against the great foe that is Þorgerðr Hǫrðatrǫll and her storm, while jarlar such as Sigvaldi fled. It can be said, therefore, that those who were bœndr were the most able to resist paganism, while jarlar were the most inclined to revert, or at least not be able to put up a fight.100

The conflict between paganism and Christianity, though occupying a small section of the saga and offering a different kind of conflict, was still able to show the

97 For more on the Danish conversion, see Winroth, Anders. The Conversion of Scandinavia: Vikings, Merchants, and Missionaries in the Remaking of Northern Europe. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 145–160; Lund, Neils. “Harald Bluetooth: A Saint Very Nearly Made by Adam of Bremen.” The Scandinavians from the Vendel Period to the Tenth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, ed. Judith Jesch. (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2002), 303–315. 98 Jómsvíkinga saga, 35–37. 99 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 212. 100 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 212.

29 characteristics typical of members of certain social levels. The sons of bœndr were courageous and capable in such a conflict, whereas the jarlar displayed cowardly and errant attributes.

4.4 Fjǫlnir’s Deception

While Haraldr was king, there was a man named Áki Tókason who was considered great in both wealth and propriety so much so that at engi maðr þótti þvílíkr í Danaveldi sem hann í þann tíma, sá er eigi bæri tignarnafn, (“no man was considered his equal in the Danish realm at that time, of those who had no title of nobility.”)101 Áki was a bóndi with no noble blood, yet he still was a perceived threat against the king of the Danes. It was Áki’s illegitimate half-brother Fjǫlnir who brought the possible danger of his brother to the king, claiming that while Áki lived, Haraldr would never be considered the sole ruler of Denmark. Fjǫlnir’s manipulation ended with the murder of Áki by King Haraldr’s men.102

While it was never the intention of Áki to usurp the king, he had the means to do so, thus Haraldr was led by his fears and Fjǫlnir’s counsel to eliminate a possible danger. What is interesting in the episode is the fact that Áki was not a jarl, but rather a bóndi who had the means to pose a challenge to the king. In this instance, nobility does not matter, rather it was support and being valued by the people which gave credence to Haraldr’s fears. Áki was said to have been invited to feasts and been presented with gifts and honors no less than the king himself.103 Regardless of Fjǫlnir’s manipulation, Áki was playing a dangerous game with the bonds of friendship he was making. Exchanging gifts and engaging in feasts were public signs of friendship and made to affirm bonds being formed or maintained. As Gerd Althoff has argued, medieval rituals like feasts and gift-giving were forms of communication:104 public acts meant to convey a message or

101 Jómsvíkinga saga, 43. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 83. 102 Jómsvíkinga saga, 43–44. 103 Jómsvíkinga saga, 43. 104 Althoff, Gerd. "The Variability of Rituals in the Middle Ages." Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, and Histography, ed. Gerd Althoff, Johannes Fried, and Patrick Geary. (Cambridge, 2002): 71– 88, 86.

30 messages to those watching.105 Therefore, what can be said about the message Áki was making by engaging in feasts and making bonds of friendship to rival that of King Haraldr? Was he actively aware that he was posing a threat, or was something else at work within this episode?

It can be argued that this episode highlights the oncoming issues of this particular family of bœndr and their relationship to the royal family of Denmark. Áki was simply the first in a line of prominent men who represented a challenge against the royal family and would cause conflict and strife. Typically in Jómsvíkinga saga, it is the jarlar who cause problems, however, this episode shows the importance of wealthy bœndr who rival those of aristocratic blood, including kings.

4.5 Conflict between Father and Son; Conflict between Foster-Father and Foster- Son

On the surface, the conflict that arose between King Haraldr and his son Sveinn seems to be just that, a conflict between kin. However, Sveinn was being pressed by Pálnatóki to go against his father and raid his kingdom for three summers. It was through Pálnatóki’s advice that Sveinn took up a position against his father and through Pálnatóki’s guidance that Sveinn knew how to conduct himself in meetings with Haraldr. The smaller raids that Pálnatóki advised, therefore, were a prelude to Pálnatóki’s greater goal of an armed conflict with the king that would lead to his death.106 A death that he would conceal and lie about so as to continue influencing Sveinn.

It can be said that Pálnatóki inherited a grudge against King Haraldr for the death of his uncle, thus Pálnatóki’s actions and manipulations of Sveinn were for the sake of revenge. Like his father before him who realized it would be futile to go up against the king as he lacked the means to do so, so too had Pálnatóki realized that he alone would not be able to bring down King Haraldr and thus gain his revenge. However, with the king’s son as a tool and the lack of inheritance as a means to acquire and justify

105 Slitt, Rebecca. "Acting Out Friendship: Signs and Gestures of Aristocratic Male Friendship in the Twelfth Century." The Haskins Society Journal 21 (2009): 147–64, 148. 106 Jómsvíkinga saga, 52–55.

31 demanding the king’s ships, Pálnatóki would be able to use the king’s ships and his own son against Haraldr, which he did so with cunning precision.

However, it can be argued that Pálnatóki’s actions had a duel motive. Not only to take revenge for the murder of his uncle, but also to raise a new leader to the throne, one who would be grateful for the assistance in gaining his newfound authority. However, after this deed is done and Sveinn is named king, Pálnatóki was careless in his actions towards the young king. In a sequence that mirrors the earlier episode in which Haraldr Gormsson invited his father-in-law Klakk-Haraldr to a feast wherein three times he was absent, so too did Pálnatóki ignore the invitation of King Sveinn to attend the funeral feast for King Haraldr. However, unlike Klakk-Haraldr who would not attend due to ominous omens, Pálnatóki faked illness and when he eventually did show, it was after the event has started and his lateness was highly noticeable.107 Therefore, the question is whether Pálnatóki was acting as King Haraldr thought Klakk-Haraldr was, devious and with overreaching ambition. Haraldr Gormsson misconstrued Klakk-Haraldr’s intentions, yet the same cannot be said for the behavior of Pálnatóki. His actions suggest that he thought himself above his foster-son the king and his treatment of Sveinn was belittling at best. The ill-intentions of Fjǫlnir began a sequence wherein this sentiment can be observed.

Fjǫlnir, in his typical conniving fashion, produced the arrow which killed King Haraldr and told Sveinn that the deed was committed by someone present at the feast. When asked if the arrow was his, Pálnatóki agreed and bragged about where he had left it:“Ek skildumsk við hana á bogastrengnum, konungr,” segir hann, “þá er ek skaut í rassinn fǫður þínum ok eftir honum endilǫngum, svá at út kom <í> munninn, (“I parted with it from my bowstring, King,” he says, “when I shot it into your father’s arse and all the way through him until it came out into his mouth.”)108 His bragging attitude did nothing but enrage Sveinn even more and his words were taunting to the young king. Sveinn justifiably called for the death of Pálnatóki and his men, yet because Pálnatóki

107 Jómsvíkinga saga, 62–64. 108 Jómsvíkinga saga, 64–65. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 109.

32 had so many friends among Sveinn’s men, none saw it right to go up against him and thus he got away.

The most important bond a person in the middle ages could possess was that of kinship.109 This bond is tested within this episode as Sveinn must chose whether he acknowledges the bond of his father and thus take revenge as a proper son would or remain loyal to the man who raised him. When placed in opposition, the obligations of kinship outweigh those of friendship. Sveinn declared nú er niðr slegit allri vináttu milli okkar Pálna-Tóka ok ǫllum góða, þeim er með okkr hefir verit, (“now all the friendship between Pálnatóki and me is destroyed, and all the good feeling that has been between us.”)110 Sveinn was further forced to act in this manner because not only was he a son seeking retribution against his father, but he was also a king and therefore must fulfill his duties. It is stated several times that Sveinn would not be a “proper king” until he held his father’s funeral feast, and until he had avenged his death.111

It has been argued that Sveinn was in the wrong when he called for the death of Pálnatóki and his men and that the audience turns against him after this deed.112 However, he was fulfilling his obligations of kinship, not to mention it was Pálnatóki who first brought about the conflict and tension between the two. Therefore, Sveinn correctly fulfilled his duty as both a king and a son, even if that meant cutting ties with his foster- father Pálnatóki.

While the bond of kinship slightly outweighed that of friendship, possessing bonds of friendship was socially beneficial, as seen in Pálnatóki’s escape from King Sveinn’s hall. Not many in the hall would go against him as they considered him to be a friend and did not want to sully that relationship, even under the king’s orders. Having many bonds of friendship enacted leaders to build up a power base with strong obligations of loyalty owed, something that Pálnatóki had and used to his advantage.113

109 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 23. 110 Jómsvíkinga saga, 65. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 109. 111 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 10. 112 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 10. 113 Jón Viðar Sigurðsson. “The Appearance and Personal Abilities of gođar, jarlar, and konungar, 99.

This furthers the image of Pálnatóki and likeminded bœndr being able to confront a king, and more pointedly, succeed in doing so.

4.6 Conflict between Sveinn’s Liegemen

While most episodes in the saga that deal with the strained relationship among jarlar, wealthy bœndr, and their king end with conflict and fighting, there is always an exception. This exception occurs in an episode that is not a part of the main action of the saga yet is nonetheless important in shaping the social concerns of the aforementioned social groups, namely their relationships to each other.114

The potential conflict arose from the sons of Jarl Strút-Haraldr, Sigvaldi and Þorkell, when the two brothers left for Jómsborg to join Pálnatóki. Their father did not provide them with the funds they needed, so the brothers went to Borgundarhólmr and raided the farms of the bóndi Véseti, much to his anger. Véseti dissuaded his sons, Búi and Sigurðr, from a violent retaliation and instead he approached the king for redress. King Sveinn told Véseti to be patient while he handled matters and would attempt to get compensation from Jarl Strút-Haraldr. The jarl refused any deals of compensation and dismissed the king’s advice that a failure to comply now would only lead to further strife.

The sons of Véseti heard of this news and decided to take their own retaliation by raiding three of the jarl’s richest farms, as well as stealing two chests full of gold and the jarl’s outfit that marked his nobility. Once the jarl heard of this, he sought out the king who refused to offer aid, for Jarl Strút-Haraldr refused his advice when given. The jarl then set out to raid three of Véseti’s farms. Having enough of this conflict, Véseti persuaded the king to hear out the cases of both men and put an end to this conflict at the assembly Íseyrarþing. However, as the assembly was beginning, the sons of Véseti arrived and Búi was donned in the jarl’s robes of state, including his golden cone hat worth ten marks of gold. The threat of violence was heavy, and realizing he would lose his authority, King Sveinn stepped in to stop his liegemen from fighting and offered a solution to the conflict: Véseti’s sons would compensate for the riches stolen from Strút- Haraldr’s farms. While Búi could keep the two chests of gold, he would have to give

114 The following can be found on pp. 71–79 of Jómsvíkinga saga.

34 back the outfit (tignarklæði).115 In turn, the jarl’s daughter would be offered in marriage to Sigurðr kapa. This was agreed upon and the conflict was put to an end through peaceful means.

This episode can be placed in the category of jarl/bóndi relations. Strút-Haraldr represents the noble and aristocratic jarlar who possess wealth and status. This wealth and status, however, is threatened by the wealthy bœndr, represented by Véseti and his sons. Véseti is equal to Strút-Haraldr in nearly everything; his farms are just as rich, he has men that will fight for him. However, he does not have noble blood which sets the jarl apart. In this episode, the concept of nobility is threatened. This is represented by the theft of Strút-Haraldr’s robe of nobility and the flaunting by Búi of wearing it. While Strút-Haraldr can accept the lack of his chests of gold being returned, he cannot accept his noble outfit being in the hands of someone else, and more so someone who was of a lower status than him. Thus, when Sveinn dictates that the items should be given back there is a returning to the status quo.

It is interesting to note that during this episode Búi makes a comment regarding the jarl that fyrir því at lengi hefir þú stórt berkt við oss frændr, (“for you have long browbeaten our family.”)116 This suggests that there had been prior strife among the two families and further suggests that the jarl was threatened by the engrossing power of the family of bœndr in order to feel the need to cause trouble in the first place. Society itself is threatened by the wealth and power of a social rank that is below nobility and yet possessed enough power that they are not intimidated by that nobility. Thus, society is at risk and at the severest point there is the possibility of a civil war if the issues between the two parties were not sorted as they were.117 The existing order is threatened by an encroaching rank who tests and challenges those of a higher social class.

Jómsvíkinga saga’s social and political atmosphere can be observed in the thirteenth century Norwegian court and the new developments in kingship taking place there. Social advancement was possible for those outside of nobility, and wealthy bœndr

115 Jómsvíkinga saga, 78. 116 Jómsvíkinga saga, 77. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 117. 117 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 202.

35 took advantage of this as they were able to progress through the social hierarchy.118 One can envision a character such as Vagn Ákason, who possessed noble attributes and was well-respected by the audience, to be an ideal of this notion. Not only does the saga parallel Norwegian politics, it also resembles the situation in Iceland. While it is not the aim of this thesis to explore real-world politics, it is interesting to note the similarities present within the saga. The aspect of the assembly is especially reminiscent of the dealings of thirteenth-century Iceland and the role of King Sveinn in the proceedings mirror that of a hǫfðingi.119

It is the role of King Sveinn I will now turn to in regard to the role of royal authority and the duty of a king. In this episode, Sveinn embodies the responsibilities of kingship as he manages the dispute between his liegemen and acts as a mediator. Sveinn realized that he would lose his authority if violence were to occur in a dispute he had a hand in solving, and on a deeper level this dispute was a threat against the stability of the Danish kingdom.120 So much so that if Sveinn did nothing, ófriðr myni af gerask sjálfra landsmanna í milli ef þér eigið ǫngan hlut í með oss, (“strife will set in among the people of the country themselves if you do not intervene between us.”)121 King Sveinn:

…þykisk þat sjá að hann fær eigi haldit sinni tígn ef hann lætr þá berjask þar á þinginu ok gingi eigi á milli þeira, er hann hafði svá mikit af tekit at þeir skyldu þar sættask á þinginu, ok tekr konungrinn nú þat ráð at hann gengr á milli þeira ok lætr þá eigi ná at berjask, ok kemr þar nú því máli loks við atgǫngu konungsins ok afla at nú verða hvárirtveggju því at játa at konungrinn skipi einn á millum þeira, eftir því sem hann vill. En þat skorar Búi í sættina at hann læzk aldrigi mundu lausar láta gullkisturnar, þær er hann hafði fingit af jarli, ok ǫnga gripi hans, en bað konunginn ráða ǫðru sem hann vildi.

(…realizes that he will not be able to maintain his dignity if he allows them to fight there at the assembly without intervening between them, since he had placed such weight on their being reconciled there at the assembly, and now the king decides to go between them and not let them come to blows, and now in the end

118 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 210. 119 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 202–203. 120 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 10. 121 Jómsvíkinga saga, 76. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 116.

it comes about there through the help and authority of the king that they are both obliged to agree that the king alone should decide between them as he likes.)122

It is in this manner that Sveinn fills his role and duty as a king to act as a mediator and bring peace to his men, thus showing the importance of a king in a society such as this.123 While not only looking out for the good of his people, Sveinn was also concerned with his own image as a king who was capable of maintaining order and stability. This dispute threatened Sveinn, yet he was able to control it. Therefore, he represents a capable king who follows the ideal role of kingship. This contradicts the opinion that Jómsvíkinga saga is a work that is distrustful of royal power. Rather, this episode points to the opposite in that it underlines the importance of a king to maintain social order. The idea that Jómsvíkinga saga is an anti-royal work needs to be reevaluated, as King Sveinn demonstrates essential qualities of kingship.124

4.7 Conflict between jarlar and bœndr

In an episode that continues the conflict between the families of Jarl Strút-Haraldr and the bóndi Véseti, it is their son and grandson who challenge one another when the young Vagn challenged the son of a jarl Sigvaldi to a fight in order to prove he was man enough to become a Jómsvíkingar. The two fought and it was clear when Sigvaldi fled that hafði Vagn einn virðing þeira beggja af þessum fundi, (“only Vagn of the two of them had the honors of that encounter.”)125 The jarlar in Jómsvíkinga saga were rarely positioned in a positive light. Sigvaldi was cowardly as well as greedy, and it was during his time as the leader of the Jómsvíkingar that the order fell to degradation. Not only that, but jarlar and the sons of jarlar never successfully challenge the sons of bœndr as this episode highlights.126

Whereas Sigvaldi was guilty of cowardness, Vagn Ákason, while wild in his youth, learned temperament among the Jómsvíkingar and became a man kunni betr allan

122 Jómsvíkinga saga, 77–78. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 117. 123 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 202. 124 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 10. 125 Jómsvíkinga saga, 86. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 124. 126 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 204.

37 sinn riddaraskap, (“skilled in all courtliness.”)127 The contrasts of these men highlights the central tension of the saga, one that is not between a king and his subjects, rather one between bóndi and jarl. What differentiates these groups is the issue of nobility, therefore the problem is one of how noble and non-noble groups interact in a society based on social hierarchy.128 What is interesting is that it is the bœndr not the jarlar who are presented as having noble attributes, even though they have no noble blood in their veins.

This can be seen in the character traits and actions of Vagn Ákason, who contrasts Sigvaldi. In their fight with one another, Vagn displayed how he was the better man, and in the final battle of Hjǫrungavágr it was Sigvaldi who fled while Vagn stayed until the bitter end. Vagn was the prime example of someone following the laws and codes of the Jómsvíkingar. He was courageous and none of the other Jómsvíkingar were as great a warrior as he was. When faced with capture and death during the battle of Hjǫrungavágr, Vagn followed the code in which [e]ngi maðr skyldi þar œðruorð mæla né kvíða, hvegi óvænt sem þeim hyrfði, (“[n]o man must speak words of fear there or be afraid, however unpromising things might look for them.”)129 Sigvaldi, on the other hand, disregarded the laws set up by Pálnatóki and by doing so ensured the fall of the Jómsvíkingar.

While supposedly among the Jómsvíkingar the men were to treat each other like brothers, there was still ingrained in them a sense of social order. While rank did not matter if one broke the law, it was still an aspect of the Jómsvíkingar society. When Vagn first challenged Sigvaldi to a fight, Pálnatóki made note of the endimi…hvat þessi inn ungi maðr tekr til, ok máttu þar til heyra, Sigvaldi…hversu mjǫg hann vandar bot að þér, þóttú sér jarlsson, (“outrage… of what this young man proposes, and you can hear, Sigvaldi…how hard he directed the challenge at you, although you are a jarl’s son.”)130 Pálnatóki called attention to the social rank of Sigvaldi and noted the audacity of his grandson, the son of a bóndi, to so such a thing as to call out the son of a jarl.

127 Jómsvíkinga saga, 87. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 124. 128 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 204. 129 Jómsvíkinga saga, 69. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 111. 130 Jómsvíkinga saga, 84. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 122.

4.8 The Kidnapping of King Sveinn

Sigvaldi furthers his reputation for treachery with his involvement with King Búrizláfr against Sveinn Haraldsson. Sigvaldi, enraptured by the beauty of the king’s eldest daughter, wished to marry her, yet both father and daughter wanted someone more worthy of her status. However, realizing the potential benefits from making a deal with Sigvaldi, it was agreed that:

Hann skal þat vinna til ráðahags þessa at koma af landinu ǫllum skǫttum, þeim er vér hǫfum hingat til goldit Danakonungi, áðr en hann komi mér á arm. Hinn er annarr kostr at hann fái hingat komit Sveini Danakonungi, svá attú eigir vald á honum.

(To earn this marriage he must rid this country of all the tributes we have paid to the king of the Danes up to now before he comes into my arms. The alternative is that he gets Sveinn, king of the Danes, brought here so that you have power over him.)131

Sigvaldi did as asked of him and brought King Sveinn to the court of King Búrizláfr. However, the means to do so were duplicitous and Sigvaldi implemented tricks and deceit in order to bring the Danish king to Wendland.

In order to get King Sveinn to come with him, Sigvaldi found out where the king was staying, then had a messenger inform the king that Sigvaldi was deathly ill and had news for him and would be on his ship to deliver the important message. The king arrived at once, and when he was onboard, the gangplank was pulled back so no others could come aboard. To further this humiliation, Sigvaldi asked the king to come close to him so that he may whisper in his ear the news be had brought. When Sveinn was close, Sigvaldi overpowered him and he was defenseless as they made their way to see King Búrizláfr.132

Sveinn is rightfully outraged and questions Sigvaldi on his betrayal, yet when Sigvaldi answers he claims:

131 Jómsvíkinga saga, 90. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 126. 132 Jómsvíkinga saga, 91–93.

Eigi mun ek svíkja yðr, herra, en fara verði þér nú með oss til Jómsborgar, ok veita skulu vér yðr það allt til virðingar sem vér megum, ok allir yðrir menn, þeir er nú fylgja yðr, skulu velkomnir með oss, ok munu þér þá vita til hvers hvatki kemr er þér komið þar til þeirar veizlu er vér hǫfum yðr búit. Ok skaltu þar einn fyrir ǫllu ráða, en vér skulum allir, sem skylt er, til þín lúta ok veita þér alla s œmd, þá er vér megum.

(I will not betray you, my lord, but now you have to go to Jómsborg with us, and we shall do everything to honor you that we can, and all the men who have come with you now shall be welcome among us, and you will find out what it all means when you come to the feast that we have prepared for you there, and then you alone shall decide everything ; but we must all, as we are obliged to, bow down to you and do you all the honor that we can.)133

Sigvaldi flatters the king with a false sense of loyalty and obedience, however, this is simply his plan to coerce King Sveinn into doing as he commands so that he may marry the king’s eldest daughter. By claiming to still be loyal to him, Sveinn was lulled into a false sense of security, however, he would soon realize the deception and trap that he fell into. Sigvaldi claimed he was doing this in the best interest of the king, as he would act as a match-maker. And while a marriage between King Sveinn and King Búrizláfr’s younger daughter did take place, it was not the original intentions of Sigvaldi.

If one entered into a cooperative bond with a lord as a vassal yet was also bound to another lord, during times of conflict which bond won the precedence?134 This in an important question when looking at the figure of Sigvaldi. He was a vassal of King Sveinn, yet he worked under King Búrizláfr. One would think that the older and more prominent bond would take precedence, however Sigvaldi chose to follow under Búrizláfr rather than Sveinn. Thus, the question arises of why chose a lesser king over King Sveinn? This seems to not be a question of choosing the better bond to maintain, rather it is a matter of Sigvaldi’s character. He entered into an agreement with King Búrizláfr to go against King Sveinn for an entirely selfish reason: to wed the king’s daughter. Thus, Sigvaldi’s motives were clear, he was doing this for himself. Sigvaldi did not even have his own men in mind when he approached King Búrizláfr with his offer. He threatened the king with the disbandment of Jómsborg if he would not accept his proposal, thus highlighting his unscrupulous character by only looking out for the

133 Jómsvíkinga saga, 92. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 128. 134 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 2.

40 benefit of himself, regardless if the disbandment of Jómsborg was not agreed upon by the other Jómsvíkingar.135

His dealing with King Sveinn serve to show his use of deceit and lies in order to gain what he desired. Sveinn was unfortunate in his naivety and trust in Sigvaldi. So much so that when Sigvaldi said, muntu nú verða mér at trúa til málanna þinna allra, ok skulu vér yðr ok vel gefask, (“you will now have to rely on me for all your affairs, and I shall make it turn out well for you,”)136 he did not even question him. Sigvaldi had promised that Sveinn’s bride was the better of the two sisters, yet this was also a lie. It was not until after the wedding feast that Sveinn realized he had been deceived. He claimed that Sigvaldi was lacking in upholding their friendship and was greatly displeased with the Jómsvíkingar for their role in the affair.

Maintaining the bonds of friendship was important, and even more so when this friendship was with a prominent king. While perhaps not the best idea to provoke Sveinn, as it would later result in disaster for Sigvaldi, the question must be asked whether he owed allegiance and obligations to the Danish king? The question of motives was purely selfish, however, when looking at the morality of the situation that Sigvaldi caused, can it be said that he was in the wrong? There was no subordinate nobility, bound by order and to be used as an instrument by the king.137 Although they did answer to King Búrizláfr, the Jómsvíkingar themselves were fairly independent. However, while vassals were free to go about their own endeavors, ultimately they did have obligations towards their king, in this case King Sveinn. Sigvaldi failed to uphold these obligations, however, it was the way in which he broke the bonds of friendship that solidified his position as a dishonest and guileful person. And his actions would cost him, as Sveinn believed what Sigvaldi tricked him into was surely worthy of vengeance.

To add to this episode on top of the treachery of Sigvaldi is the motivation of King Búrizláfr and his desire to rid himself of paying tribute to the Danes. This aspect has been discussed, however, it is interesting to note the relationship between the two

135 Jómsvíkinga saga, 89–90. 136 Jómsvíkinga saga, 93. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 128. 137 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers. 122.

41 kings. Búrizláfr was considered to be lesser því at þeir þykja ávallt konungarnir minni er skattana gjalda en hinir er eigi gjalda, (“for those kings who pay tribute are always considered inferior to those who do not.”)138 However, his agreement with the Jómsvíkingar and the building of the fortress at Jómsborg indicate that in his own right, Búrizláfr was still a powerful king. The growth of both ports and fortresses in the Baltic zone was connected to the development of central power.139 Thus, Búrizláfr’s interactions with King Sveinn may be seen as a means to centralize his own power by riding himself of a suzerain by doing away with the binding nature of tribute paying.

The kidnapping of King Sveinn points to an issue of suzerainty, and the deeper issue and recurring motif of tribute paying. Búrizláfr was subservient to Sveinn, which is observed through his paying of tribute. The two issues are connected as it is through tribute that power is exercised. As I have argued, power is associated with social hierarchy, yet there is room for those of a lower station to exert some power or influence over higher groups by controlling or manipulating the existing social bonds. It is in this manner that Búrizláfr succeeded over Sveinn. While one king attempted to maintain his supremacy over the territory, the other turned to ruses to challenge the unfavorable situation his reign was under.140

While not apparent to the Danish king, Sveinn was manipulated into marrying Búrizláfr’s daughter and in doing so promised to end all tribute owed to him. Through men such as Búrizláfr and even more so Jarl Hákon, it becomes apparent that within Jómsvíkinga saga, it is the aristocrats who wished for independence and to sever the obligations owed to a king through aid and tribute.141

138 Jómsvíkinga saga, 158. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 129. 139 Bogucki, Mateusz. “Viking Age emporia around the Baltic Sea - a cul-de-sac of the European urbanization?” Making a Medieval Town: Patterns of Early Medieval Urbanization, ed. Andrzej Buko. (Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2010), 157. 140 Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings, 46. 141 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 199.

4.9 Oath-Making Vengeance

In the middle ages, friendship was seen as something permanent, and even passed on as an inheritance.142 With Jarl Hákon and the royal Danish family, however, it is rather to be said that hostility was enduring and inheritable. Just as Haraldr Gormsson had his issues with the Norwegian Jarl, so too did his son Sveinn. While the details of the hostility between Jarl Hákon and King Sveinn were not detailed in the saga, it was clear that the two were aggressive to one another. In the ensuing battle, Jarl Hákon was able to call upon a great number of his men and raise a levy to combat the Danish troops. While the jarl had loyal men, Sveinn’s men would fight, however, they were manipulated into doing so as an act of vengeance for his kidnapping and other slights against him.

King Sveinn organized the funeral feast for Jarl Strút-Haraldr, father of Sigvaldi and Þorkell, yet those invited were wary of his intentions. They grunuðu at vinátta þeira Sveins konungs ok Sigvalda mundi vera heldr grunn ok þeira allra saman, Jómsvíkinga, þannig sem farit hafði fyrr með þeim viðurskiptin, (“suspected that the friendship of King Sveinn towards Sigvaldi was rather weak, and towards all the Jómsvikings altogether, considering what had happened in their previous dealings.”)143 Yet all appeared well until Sveinn began plying heavy drink on Sigvaldi and his men. Once they became dead drunk, they began to have loose-lips which Sveinn took great advantage over.

In a ploy to dupe the Jómsvíkingar, King Sveinn began by making the lofty oath of successfully winning over England within the next three years. His oath was made so that the others too would swear grand oaths. It was in typical fashion that oaths were made during heavy drinking. When men’s spirits were high from the alcohol, they would make a vow to carry out a glorious, yet dangerous deed. However, such oaths were not well-thought out, which was what Sveinn was aiming for.144 Alcohol was used in this fashion and instrumental in making vows,145 however, the strong drink that Sveinn supplied was not something typical so much so that when the next morning arrived the

142 Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 66. 143 Jómsvíkinga saga, 96. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 130. 144 Stefan Einarsson. “Old English Beot and Old Icelandic Heitstrenging.” PMLA 49, no. 4 (1934): 975– 93, 976. 145 Stefan Einarsson, “Old English Beot and Old Icelandic Heitstrenging,” 798.

43 oath sworn by Sigvaldi was forgotten and he had to be reminded of his words and promise.

Oath-making was something one had to fulfill, thus Sigvaldi’s vow was considered to be worthy of his position: “At ek skal herja í Nóreg fyrir inar þriðju veturnætr með því liði er ek fæ til ok hafa eltan Hákon jarl ór landi, eða drepit hann ella. At þriðja kosti skal ek þar eftir liggja.”

(“That I shall make a raid in Norway before three years are past with such a force as I can get for it, and shall have driven Jarl Hákon out of the land, or else killed him; or the third alternative is that I will lie dead there.”)146

To back out of a vow was damaging to one’s image and therefore something that was not done. Sigvaldi and his comrades, who swore similar oaths, would have to face Jarl Hákon in battle. It was Sigvaldi’s wife Ástríðr who realized Sveinn’s game for what it was, a ploy to both get revenge on the Jómsvíkingar while also dealing with his enemy in Norway in a typical two-birds with one-stone scenario. Both her and her husband did not appreciate the king’s deception and therefore made plans to gain some sort of leverage over him.

It can be said that Sveinn Haraldsson fell easily into traps and lacked the fortitude to successfully swindle someone. When realizing what he had sworn, Sigvaldi and his wife planned to out-smart the king by responding glaðan á við konunginn ok lát sem þú þykkisk þar allt eiga er konungrinn er, fyrir því at hann þykkisk nú hafa stilltan þig mjǫk í þessu, (“gladly to the king and make it appear that you depend wholly on the king, for he will think that he has trapped you into this.”)147 And in doing so ask for ships to supply the expedition to Norway. Sveinn was persuaded into giving sixty ships, and he still thought that mjǫk hafa í vaðhorni upp komit við Sigvalda ok alla þá saman Jómsvíkinga, (“he has caught Sigvaldi hook, line, and sinker, and all the Jómsvikings together.”)148 It was rather the opposite, as Sigvaldi quickly realized Sveinn’s ruse and acted upon it in a

146 Jómsvíkinga saga, 98. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 131. 147 Jómsvíkinga saga, 100. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 133. 148 Jómsvíkinga saga, 101. Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 133.

44 way that would work out best for him. Sigvaldi was cunning and able to out-maneuver the king once again.

It has been argued that the kings in Jómsvíkinga saga were almost paranoid and no man of influence was safe.149 While this sentiment may be indicative of King Haraldr Gormsson, the same cannot be said for King Sveinn. If he was paranoid, his suspicion and mistrust was justified. He had been wronged by both his foster-father, Sigvaldi, and the other Jómsvíkingar on multiple occasions. His solutions to dealing with both conflicts centered on vengeance, which he was right in taking, as both slights against him merited such a course of action. It has been argued that King Sveinn perverted a vow which should have been regarded as a sacred statement, as well as a key factor of his own sovereignty.150 D. A. Miller goes as far as to say that because of this perversion, Sveinn Haraldsson should be regarded as a “bad” king, as he displayed errant power by the corruption of oaths.151 King Sveinn did corrupt an oath-making exchange through getting the other vow takers inebriated. Oath-making had a sacral dimension and was aimed for the generating of trust and a fulfillment of promises.152 However, as Sveinn corrupted the oath-making of the Jómsvíkingar, so too did Sigvaldi and his men corrupt their own obligations towards their sovereign. While it was the duty of a king to fulfill certain principles, his vassals were also expected to reach certain principles, such as remaining faithful and loyal. As I have already argued, Sveinn Haraldsson was justified in his actions as they were ones of vengeance, however, this can be taken further by the idea that Sigvaldi and the Jómsvíkingar were enemies of the king. An enemy was “anyone who set himself against royal lordship.”153 Through the kidnapping of King Sveinn, the Jómsvíkingar prove this notion, thus Sveinn’s actions, while not conducive to the sacredness of oath-making, were nonetheless justified in terms of king-vassal obligations.

149 Berman, “The Political Sagas,” 117. 150 Miller, D. A. “Functional Operations and Oppositions in the Thought-World of the Sagas.” History of Religions 29, no. 2, 115–58, 120. 151 Miller, “Functional Operations and Oppositions in the Thought-World of the Sagas,” 149. 152 Hermanson, “Holy Unbreakable Bonds,” 20. 153 Fichtenau, Living in the Tenth Century, 169.

It was through vengeance and the corruption of vows, both by King Sveinn and the Jómsvíkingar, that the battle of Hjǫrungavágr came about. In fact, this battle was the product of nearly every dispute within the saga cumulating into a final episode. If one were to string together the major points of conflict within the saga, each sequence would result in the subsequent conflict, or at least play upon prior episodes, and which ended with the battle at Hjǫrungavágr.

4.10 A Peasant’s Tricks

Unpredictably, the last form of tricks and deceit prior to the large and final battle of Hjǫrungavágr came in the form of a peasant herder tricking the Jómsvíkingar into facing off against the full force of Jarl Hákon’s men. While his cows and sheep were being stolen by Vagn and his men, he skillfully told them how there was a much larger and unprepared game not far from there. In a deal to regain his livestock, he told them of Jarl Hákon’s position, with only one ship as he awaited the arrival of his men. Rather than just the one ship, Jarl Hákon was fully prepared and was awaiting news on the Jómsvíkingar.154 His actions may have been done out of patriotic support or, more likely, a self-serving ploy to regain his livestock, regardless, the Jómsvíkingar were still duped.155 While the peasant herder was killed for his lies, he still had the last laugh so to speak, as the Jómsvíkingar were now faced with the full power of Jarl Hákon and were unprepared. It is interesting that this last bit of trickery before the major conflict at Hjǫrungavágr was preformed not any of the three major social classes in the saga, but rather by one of the lowest levels of society. This furthers the idea that regardless of social hierarchy, those of a lower position can still swindle and deceive those of a higher position, and the threat of duplicity remains from all levels of society.

154 Jómsvíkinga saga, 109–111. 155 Finlay, “History and Fantasy,” 252.

5. Conclusion

Jómsvíkinga saga’s presentation of conflict goes hand-in-hand with the ideology of social class and hierarchy. Those in power attempt to preserve it, while those of a lesser rank try to gain power, or at least control those who do. The ensuing struggle often leads to a greater conflict, though this does not necessarily suggest extreme violence. Conflict in the saga is centered on social bonds, thus conflict is a social issue. Kings, jarlar, and bœndr play off one another in the struggle for influence. If one looks closely at the patterns which underlie conflict in the saga, one can get a sense of how useful tools such as manipulation and deceit were to those seeking power or influence. When dealing with kings within the saga, this pattern involves a threat to their royal power and thus their actions are due to a suspicious fear of an encroachment to their control. This is exemplified primarily through the actions and fears of King Haraldr as he dealt with his nephew and Jarl Hákon, however, it can also be seen with King Búrizláfr’s displeasure of being subservient to the Danes. The jarlar display a want for power or influence and the capability of dismissing social bonds and obligations in order to achieve this, as seen with both the actions of Jarl Hákon and Sigvaldi. While the bœndr do not stir as much trouble as the other two social levels, they still mange to cause conflict due to their growing power and influence, which is taken as a threat by both kings and jarlar. The pattern bœndr fall into is the promising man who goes against noble authority and typically comes out for the better.

Jómsvíkinga saga is often given the reputation of a work rife with anti-royal attitudes.156 However, if the saga is critical of one class, it would be the jarlar, who grasp at power and are a threat to royal authority.157 Of the social levels present in the saga, it is the jarlar who most often resort to duplicity and manipulation. Jarl Hákon is the main proponent for such devices, however, others like Sigvaldi also resort to such underhanded dealings. While kings and bœndr were not strangers to manipulation, the saga is highly adverse of the jarlar. Whereas when men such as Pálnatóki resort to manipulation, they are hailed for their actions, while men like Hákon and especially Sigvaldi are deemed as cowardly and greedy. However, there are exceptions to the ill-portrayal of the jarlar as

156 Jómsvíkinga saga. ed. Ólafur Halldórsson. (Reykjavík: Prentsmiðja Jóns Helgasonar Hf., 1969), 53. 157 Torfi Tulinius, The Matter of the North, 204.

47 men such as Klakk-Haraldr and Stefnir are not given poor characteristics. However, these men never grasp at power or try to rise above their station like Jarl Hákon and Sigvaldi attempt to. Therefore, only when one tries to obtain more influence does the negative portrayal of the jarlar come about.

In regard to the bœndr, Jómsvíkinga saga shows how this social group is more capable than their noble counterpart and occupy an equal footing to the jarlar. There are prominent men within this social class, and as such they can be perceived as a threat. Certainly, the jarlar understand this growing challenge to their position, however, wealthy bœndr can also act as a threat to royal authority. Pálnatóki is the prime example of a powerful man who only lacks in noble blood. He is more than a danger to King Haraldr, as he is the who kills him, and he presents a challenge to the new power of the young King Sveinn. While placed in a more favorable light than the jarlar, bœndr still resort to duplicity to achieve their goals. The Jómsvíkingar, who are hailed as great warriors and abide by a code strikingly similar to that of a chivalric brotherhood, show their capabilities to deceive and betray as seen with their dealing with Sveinn Haraldsson.

Kings in the saga occupy a strange position. On the one hand there are kings such as Haraldr Gormsson who is conniving and deceitful, which does no favors to his increasingly poor character. And on the other hand, there is his son Sveinn who resorts to manipulation only after he falls victim to it himself. The saga plays with the motif of the king’s uneasiness to jeopardize royal power, therefore suggesting that they are aware of the challenge’s others pose to their royal authority. If deceit and manipulation helped to maintain their position, then they would use such tricks in order to preserve or counteract challenges to their kingship. While neither king in the saga presents an image of an ideal ruler, it is clear that Sveinn is the better king. Kings who resort to trickery and dishonesty are not well-favored even outside of Jómsvíkinga saga. The ideal king does not adopt to manipulation, rather they reflect the image of the rex iustus; meaning kings are wise, responsible for their subject, and maintain peace and order in society.158 While Sveinn does just that, he is gullible and naïve in his trust of the bonds of friendship.

158 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 10–11.

The concept of social bonds and friendship plays an important role in the assessment of the saga. Bonds are tested, though not only those of friendship, but of kinship and lordship as well. In medieval politics – and the politics of Jómsvíkinga saga – bonds are formed on the basis of personal ties with men and are invaluable for maintaining a political or social position. Friendship in the saga is a tool, much like that of manipulation, to be wielded and practiced for the sake of one’s own position. Obligations, therefore, could be swayed to fit to the ideal outcome. Easily breaking social bonds suggests an underlying issue of lack of loyalty and betrayal.

Manipulation and deception are powerful tools used by characters within the saga as a means to achieve or maintain political or social power. Ruses and traps flood the text and Jómsvíkinga saga firmly asserts that those that are the strongest and trickiest prevail over those who are less likely to employ such means. Interestingly enough, there is no so-called winner of the saga. For the modern reader, there is a desire for there to be a clear victor, and for this victor to be honorable and an example of how one should behave. Conflict in the saga is prevalent, yet what does it ultimately surmount to? The battle of Hjǫrungavágr can be seen as the final battle with Jarl Hákon as the victor, yet in terms of political and social power it remains undecisive. While the battle brought the end to the brotherhood of the Jómsvíkingar, many still remain including Sigvaldi. King Sveinn remains in Denmark relatively unaffected, while Jarl Hákon has achieved what he set out to do: remain sole ruler of Norway. Jómsvíkinga saga gives a rather bleak portrayal of power and achieving power, and it cannot be denied that the saga presents conflict as intertwined with social bonds, resulting in an “age of tumult.”159

159 Finlay, The Saga of the Jómsvikings, 74.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Blake, N. F., trans. The Saga of the Jomsvikings. (London: T. Nelson, 1962).

Finlay, Alison, and Þórdís Edda Jóhannesdóttir, trans. The Saga of the Jómsvikings: A Translation with Full Introduction. (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2018).

Jómsvíkinga saga. ed. Ólafur Halldórsson. (Reykjavík: Prentsmiðja Jóns Helgasonar Hf., 1969).

Jómsvíkinga saga in Jómsvíkinga saga, ed. Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson, Íslenzk fornrit vol. XXXIII. (Reykjavik: Hið íslenska fornritafélag, 2018).

Ólafur Halldórsson. Danish Kings and the Jomsvikings in the Greatest Saga of Oláfr Tryggvason. (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2000).

Secondary Sources

Aalto, Sirpa. “Jómsvíkinga Saga as a Part of Old Norse Historiography.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 33–58.

Althoff, Gerd. Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Medieval Europe. Translated by Christopher Carroll. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Althoff, Gerd. “Friendship and Political Order.” Friendship in Medieval Europe, edited by Julian Haseldine. (Stroud: Sutton, 1999).

Althoff, Gerd. “The Variability of Rituals in the Middle Ages.” Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, and Histography, ed. Gerd Althoff, Johannes Fried, and Patrick Geary. (Cambridge, 2002): 71–88.

Andersson, Theodore. “Kings’ Sagas (konungasögur).” Old Norse-Icelandic Literature a Critical Guide, eds. Carol J. Clover, and John Lindow. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press in Association with the Medieval Academy of America, 1985).

Ármann Jacobsson. “Royal Bibligragpy.” A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture, ed. Rory McTurk (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011).

Berman, Melissa A. “The Political Sagas.” Scandinavian Studies, Spring, 57, no. 2 (1985): 113–129.

Bogucki, Mateusz. “Viking Age Emporia around the Baltic Sea - a cul-de-sac of the European urbanization?” Making a Medieval Town: Patterns of Early Medieval Urbanization, ed. Andrzej Buko. (Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 2010).

Cheyette, Fredric. “Some Reflections on Violence, Reconciliation, and the Feudal Revolution.” Conflict in Medieval Europe: Changing Perspectives on Society and Culture, eds. Warren Brown, and Piotr Górecki. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003).

Fichtenau, Heinrich. Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders. Translated by Patrick Geary. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

Finlay, Alison. “History and Fantasy in Jómsvíkinga saga.” International Saga Conference: The fantastic in old Norse/Icelandic literature: sagas and the British Isles: preprint papers of the Thirteenth International Saga Conference, Durham and York, 6th-12th August, 2006, eds. John McKinnell, David Ashurst, and Donata Kick. (Durham: Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Durham University, 2006).

Finlay, Alison. “Jómsvíkinga saga and Genre.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 63–80.

Hansen, Elise M.. “En undersøkelse av drap, hevndrap og feide I Heimskringla og seks iselndingasagaer,” (MA-thesis, Universitetet i Oslo, 1999).

Hermanson, Lars. “Holy Unbreakable Bonds: Oaths and Friendship in Nordic and Western European Societies, c. 900–1200. Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia c.1000–1800, eds. Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, and Thomas Småberg. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013).

Jón Viðar Sigurðsson. “The Appearance and Personal Abilities of gođar, jarlar, and konungar: Iceland, Orkney and Norway.” West over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian

Sea-borne Expansion and Settlement before 1300, eds. Beverley Ballin Smith, Simon Taylor, and Gareth Williams. (Leiden: Brill, 2007).

Jón Viðar Sigurðsson. Viking Friendship: The Social Bond in Iceland and Norway, C. 900-1300. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017).

Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984).

La Farge, Beatrice. “Preben Meulengracht Sørensen. Norrønt nid: Forestillingen om den umandige mand i de islandske sagaer.” Skandinavistik 13:1 (1983): 59–64.

Lund, Neils. “Harald Bluetooth: A Saint Very Nearly Made by Adam of Bremen.” The Scandinavians from the Vendel Period to the Tenth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, ed. Judith Jesch. (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2002).

McGuire, Brian Patrick. Friendship & Community: The Monastic Experience, c. 350– 1250. (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1988).

Miller, D. A. “Functional Operations and Oppositions in the Thought-World of the Sagas.” History of Religions 29, no. 2 (1989): 115–58.

Miller, William Ian. Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

Morawiec, Jakub. “Danish Kings and the Foundation of Jómsborg.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 125–42.

Morawiec, Jakub. Vikings among the Slavs Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings in Old Norse Tradition. (Wien: Fassbaender, 2009).

Morawiec, Jakub, and Rafał Borysławski, eds. Aspects of Royal Power in Medieval Scandinavia. (Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Slaskiego, 2018).

Ólafur Halldórsson. “Jómsvíkinga saga.” Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. Phillip J. Pulsiano and Kirsten Wolf. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993).

Sawyer, Birgit, and Peter H. Sawyer. Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to Reformation, circa 800-1500. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).

Sawyer, Peter. “Svein Forkbeard and the Historians.” Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to John Taylor, eds. G.A. Loud, John Taylor, and Ian N. Wood. (London: Hambledon Press, 1991).

Sävborg, Daniel. “Búi the Dragon: Some Intertexts of Jómsvíkinga Saga.” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 101–120.

Slitt, Rebecca. “Acting Out Friendship: Signs and Gestures of Aristocratic Male Friendship in the Twelfth Century.” The Haskins Society Journal 21 (2009): 147– 64.

Stefan Einarsson. “Old English Beot and Old Icelandic Heitstrenging.” PMLA 49, no. 4 (1934): 975–93.

Sverrir Jakobsson. “The Territorialization of Power in the Icelandic Commonwealth.” Statsutvikling i Skandinavia i Middelalderen, ed. Sverre Håkon Bagge. (Oslo: Dreyer, 2012).

Torfi Tulinius. The Matter of the North: The Rise of Literary Fiction in Thirteenth- century Iceland. (Odense: Odense University Press, 2002).

Veturliði Óskarsson and Þórdís Edda Jóhannesdóttir. “The Manuscripts of Jómsvíkinga Saga: A Survey,” Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 9–32.

Viðar Pálsson. Language of Power: Feasting and Gift-giving in Medieval Iceland and Its Sagas. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Library, 2017).

Vollrath, Hanna. “Konfliktwahrnehmung und Konfliktdarstellung in erzählenden Quellen des 11. Jahrhunderts.” Die Salier Und Das Reich, eds. Stefan Weinfurter, Hubertus Seibert, and Helmuth Kluger. (Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1992).

Winroth, Anders. The Conversion of Scandinavia: Vikings, Merchants, and Missionaries in the Remaking of Northern Europe. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014).