THE CONQUEST OF ENGLAND
1003-1013
During the five years of rivalry between Olaf and Sweyn (995-1000),
England had enjoyed comparative peace. Incursions, indeed, began again
in 997; but these were clearly of the earlier type, not invasions like
the movements led by Olaf and Sweyn. Who the leaders were at this time
we do not know; but the Northern kings were in those years giving and
taking in marriage and busily plotting each other's destruction, so we
conclude that the undertakings continued to be of the private sort, led,
perhaps, by Norse chiefs who had found life in Norway uncongenial after
King Olaf had begun to persecute the heathen worshippers.
The English had now come to realise the importance of the upper Irish
Sea as a rendezvous for all forms of piratical bands; and the need of
aggressive warfare at this point was clearly seen. Accordingly, in the
year 1000, Ethelred collected a fleet and an army and harried the Norse
settlements in Cumberland and on the Isle of Man. The time was
opportune for a movement of this sort, as no reinforcements from the
North could be expected that year. The expedition, however, accomplished
nothing of importance; for the fleet that Ethelred had hoped to
intercept did not return to the western waters but sailed to
Normandy.[52] Ethelred was angry with Duke Richard of Normandy for
sheltering his enemies, and proceeded to attack his duchy with his usual
ill success.[53]
Nevertheless, the hostilities terminated favourably for Ethelred, as the
Norman duke offered his beaten enemy not only peace, but alliance.
Recent events in the North may have caused Richard to reflect. The
diplomacy of Sweyn, culminating in the partition of Norway, had made
Denmark a state of great importance. Sweyn's designs on England were
probably suspected; at any rate, Normandy for the moment seemed willing
to support England. In early spring, 1002, the bond was further
strengthened by a marriage between Ethelred and Duke Richard's sister
Emma, who later married her husband's enemy, the Danish Canute. That
same year England was once more rid of the enemy through the payment of
Danegeld.[54]
The prospects for continued peace in England were probably better in
1002 than in any other year since the accession of Ethelred. But toward
the end of the year, all that gold and diplomacy had built up was ruined
by a royal order, the stupidity of which was equalled only by its
criminality. On Saint Brice's Day (November 13), the English rose, not
to battle but to murder. It had been planned on that date to rid the
country of all its Danish inhabitants. How extensive the territory was
that was thus stained with blood, we are not informed; but such an order
could not have been carried out in the Danelaw. In justification of his
act, Ethelred pleaded that he had heard of a Danish conspiracy, directed
not only against his own life, but against the lives of the English
nobility as well.
It is likely that, when England bought peace earlier in the year, a
number of the vikings remained in the land, intending, perhaps, to
settle permanently; such arrangements were by no means unusual. The
massacre of Saint Brice's may, therefore, have had for its object the
extermination of the raiders that came in 1001. But these were not the
only ones slain: among the victims were Gunhild, King Sweyn's sister,
and her husband, the ealdorman Pallig.[55] It is probable that Pallig,
though a Saxon official, was a Dane living among the Danes in some
Scandinavian settlement in South-western England.[56] We are told that
Ethelred had treated him well, had given him lands and honours; but he
did not remain faithful to his lord; only the year before, when the
vikings were in Devon, he joined them with a number of ships. Pallig no
doubt deserved the punishment of a traitor, but it would have been
politic in his case to show mercy. If he was, as has been conjectured
from the form of his name, connected with the family of Palna Toki, the
famous Danish archer and legendary organiser of the Jomburg fraternity,
he was bound to Sweyn by double ties, for Palna Toki was Sweyn's reputed
foster-father.[57]
Sweyn Forkbeard at once prepared to take revenge for the death of his
kinsfolk. The next year (1003), his sails were seen from the cliffs of
the Channel shore. But before proceeding to the attack, he seems to have
visited his Norman friend, Duke Richard the Good. For some reason,
displeasure, perhaps, at the shedding of noble Scandinavian blood on
Saint Brice's Day, the duke was ready to repudiate his alliance with his
English brother-in-law. The two worthies reached the agreement that
Normandy should be an open market for English plunder and a refuge for
the sick and wounded in the Danish host.[58] Evidently Sweyn was
planning an extended campaign.
Having thus secured himself against attacks from the rear, Sweyn
proceeded to Exeter, which was delivered into his hands by its faithless
Norman commander Hugo.[59] In the surrender of Exeter, we should
probably see the first fruit of the new Danish-Norman understanding.
From this city the Danes carried destruction into the southern shires.
The following year (1004), East Anglia was made to suffer. Ulfketel, the
earl of the region, was not prepared to fight and made peace with Sweyn;
but the Danes did not long observe the truce. After they had
treacherously attacked Thetford, the earl gathered his forces and tried
to intercept Sweyn's marauding bands on their way back to the ships; but
though the East Anglians fought furiously, the Danes escaped. The
opposition that Sweyn met in the half-Danish East Anglia seems to have
checked his operations. The next year he left the land.[60]
The forces of evil seemed finally to have spent their strength, for the
years 1007 and 1008 were on the whole comparatively peaceful. Those same
years show considerable energy on the part of the English: in the
Pentecostal season, May, 1008, the King met his "wise men" at Eanham,
and a long legislative enactment saw the light.[61] It was hoped that by
extensive and thorough-going reforms the national vigour might be
restored. Among other things provisions were made for an extensive naval
establishment, based on a contribution that grew into the ship money of
later fame. A large number of ships were actually assembled; but the
treacherous spirit and the jealous conduct of some of the English nobles
soon ruined the efficiency of the fleet; the new navy went to pieces at
a moment when its service was most sorely needed. For in that year,
1009, a most formidable enemy appeared in the Channel: the vikings of
Jom had left their stronghold on the Oder and were soon to re-establish
themselves on the Thames.[62]
For about two decades Sigvaldi ruled at Jomburg; but after the battle of
Swald he disappears from the sagas: all that we learn is that he was
slain on some expedition to England. Perhaps he was one of the victims
of Saint Brice's (1002); or he may have perished in one of the later
raids. His death must, however, be dated earlier than 1009; for in that
year his brother Thurkil came to England, we are told, to take revenge
for a slain brother.[63]
Thurkil's fleet appeared at Sandwich in July. Associated with the tall
Dane was a short, thick-set Norwegian, Olaf the Stout, a young viking of
royal blood who later won renown as the missionary King of Norway and
fell in war against Canute the Great. In August came a second fleet,
under the leadership of Eglaf and Heming, Thurkil's brother. The fleets
joined at Thanet; this time nearly all the southern counties had to
suffer. The host wintered on the lower Thames and during the winter
months plundered the valley up as far as Oxford. Ethelred tried to cut
off its retreat but failed.[64]
During the Lenten weeks the vikings refitted their ships, and on April
9, 1010, they set sail for East Anglia. Ulfketel was still in control of
that region and had made preparations to meet the invader. On May 5, the
Danes met the native levies at Ringmere in the southern part of Norfolk.
The fight was sharp, with final victory for the sea-kings. The English
sources attribute the outcome to the treasonable behaviour of Thurkil
Mareshead, who was evidently a Dane in Ulfketel's service. The Norse
scalds ascribe the result to the valour of Olaf the Stout, who here won
the "sword-moot" for the seventh time.[65]
During the remaining months of the year and all through the following
summer, the vikings rode almost unresisted through Southern England,
plundering everywhere. Finally the King and the "wise men" began to
negotiate for peace on the usual basis. But so often had Danegelds been
levied that it was becoming difficult to collect the money and the
payment was not so prompt as the vikings desired. In their anger they
laid siege to Canterbury, and, after a close investment of twenty days,
by the assistance of an English priest were enabled to seize the city.
Many important citizens were held for ransom, among them the Archbishop
Alphege, who remained a prisoner for nearly six months. His confinement
cannot have been severe; the Prelate was interested in the spiritual
welfare of the Scandinavian pirates, and seems to have begun a mission
among his keepers. But he forbade the payment of a ransom, and after a
drunken orgy the exasperated Danes proceeded to pelt him to death with
the bones of their feast. Thrym, a Dane whom he had confirmed the day
before, gave him the mercy stroke.[66]
During the closing days of the archbishop's life, an assembly of the
magnates in London had succeeded in raising the tribute agreed upon,
48,000 pounds. Not merely were the invaders bought off,--they were
induced to enter Ethelred's service as mercenaries; there must have been
reasons why it would be inadvisable to return to Jomburg. The English
King now had an army of some four thousand or perhaps five thousand men,
a splendid force of professional warriors led by the renowned viking
Thurkil the Tall. According to William of Malmesbury, they were
quartered in East Anglia,[67] which seems plausible, as Wessex must have
been thoroughly pillaged by 1012.
When the year 1013 opened, there were reasons to hope that the miseries
of England were past. For a whole generation the sea-kings had infested
the Channel and the Irish Sea, scourging the shores of Southern Britain
almost every year. Large sums of money had been paid out in the form of
Danegeld, 137,000 pounds silver, but to little purpose: the enemy
returned each year as voracious as ever. Now, however, the pirate had
undertaken to defend the land. The presence of Danish mercenaries was
doubtless an inconvenience, but this would be temporary only. It was to
be expected that, as in the days of Alfred, the enemy would settle down
as an occupant of the soil, and in time become a subject instead of a
mercenary soldier.
But just at this moment, an invasion of a far more serious nature was
being prepared in Denmark. In the councils of Roeskild Sweyn Forkbeard
was asking his henchmen what they thought of renewing the attack on
England. The question suggested the answer: to the King's delight
favourable replies came from all. It is said that Sweyn consulted his
son Canute with the rest; and the eager youth strongly urged the
undertaking.[68] This is the earliest act on Canute's part that any
historian has recorded. In 1012, he was perhaps seventeen years old; he
had reached the age when a Scandinavian prince should have entered upon
an active career. His great rival of years to come, Olaf the Stout, who
can have been only two years older than Canute, had already sailed the
dragon for six or seven years. It is likely that the young Dane had also
experienced the thrills of viking life, but on this matter the sagas are
silent. But it is easy to see why Canute should favour the proposed
venture: as a younger son he could not hope for the Danish crown. The
conquest of England might mean not only fame and plundered wealth, but
perhaps a realm to govern as well.
The considerations that moved the King to renew the attempts at conquest
were no doubt various; but the deciding factor was evidently the
defection of Thurkil and the Jomvikings. An ecclesiastic who later wrote
a eulogy on Queen Emma and her family discusses the situation in this
wise:
Thurkil, they said, the chief of your forces, O King, departed with
your permission that he might take revenge for a brother who had
been slain there, and led with him a large part of your host. Now
that he rejoices in victory and in the possession of the southern
part of the country, he prefers to remain there as an exile and a
friend of the English whom he has conquered by your hand, to
returning with the host in submission to you and ascribing the
victory to yourself. And now we are defrauded of our companions and
of forty ships which he sailed to England laden with the best
warriors of Denmark.[69]
So the advice was to seize, the English kingdom as well as the Danish
deserter. No great difficulty was anticipated, as Thurkil's men would
probably soon desert to the old standards.
The customs of the Northmen demanded that an undertaking of this order
should first be approved by the public assembly, and the Encomiast tells
us that Sweyn at once proceeded to summon the freemen. Couriers were
sent in every direction, and at the proper time the men appeared, each
with his weapons as the law required. When the heralds announced the
nature of the proposed undertaking--not a mere raid with plunder in view
but the conquest of an important nation--the host gave immediate
approval.
In many respects the time was exceedingly favourable for the
contemplated venture. A large part of England was disposed to be
friendly; the remainder was weak from continued pillage. Denmark was
strong and aggressive, eager to follow the leadership of her warlike
king. Sweyn's older son, Harold, had now reached manhood, and could
with comparative safety be left in control of the kingdom. Denmark's
neighbours in the North were friendly: Sweyn's vassal and son-in-law
controlled the larger part of Norway; his stepson, Olaf, ruled in
Sweden. Nor was anything to be feared from the old enemies to the south.
The restless vikings of Jom were in England. The lord of Poland was
engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the Empire. The Saxon dynasty,
which had naturally had Northern interests, no longer dominated Germany;
a Bavarian, Henry II., now sat on the throne of the Ottos. In the very
year of Sweyn's invasion of England, the German King journeyed to Italy
to settle one of the numberless disputes that the Roman see was involved
in during the tenth and eleventh centuries. He remained in Italy till
the next year (1014), when the victorious Pope rewarded him with the
imperial crown.
Something in the form of a regency was provided for the Danish realm
during Sweyn's absence. Harold seems to have received royal authority
without the royal title. Associated with him were a few trusted magnates
who were to give "sage advice," but also, it seems, to watch over the
interests of the absent monarch.[70] A part of the host was left in
Denmark; but the greater part of the available forces evidently
accompanied the King to England.
About midsummer (1013), the fleet was ready to sail. The Encomiast, who
had evidently seen Danish ships, gives a glowing description of the
armament, which apart from rhetorical exaggeration probably gives a
fairly accurate picture of an eleventh-century viking fleet of the more
pretentious type. He notes particularly the ornamentation along the
sides of the ships, bright and varied in colours; the vanes at the tops
of the masts in the forms of birds or of dragons with fiery nostrils;
and the figureheads at the prows: carved figures of men, red with gold
or white with silver, or of bulls with necks erect, or of dolphins,
centaurs, or other beasts. The royal ship was, of course, splendid above
all the rest.[71]
The customary route of the Danish vikings followed the Frisian coast to
the south-eastern part of England, the shires of Kent and Sussex.
Ordinarily, the fleets would continue the journey down the Channel,
plundering the shore lands and sending out larger parties to harry the
interior. Sweyn had developed a different plan: Wessex was to be
attacked from the old Danelaw. Following the ancient route, his ships
appeared at Sandwich on the Kentish coast early in August. Sandwich was
at this time a place of considerable importance, being the chief port in
Southern England.[72] Here Sweyn and Canute remained for a few days, but
soon the fleet turned swiftly northwards up the eastern coast to the
Humber. Sweyn entered and sailed up this river till he came to the
mouth of the Trent, which stream he ascended as far as Gainsborough.
Here his men disembarked and preparations were made for the war.
Sweyn had evidently counted on a friendly reception in the Scandinavian
settlements of the Danelaw, and he was not disappointed. Recruits
appeared and his forces increased materially. Uhtred, the earl of
Northumbria, who was probably of Norse ancestry, soon found it to his
advantage to do homage to the invader. Sweyn's lordship was also
accepted by "the folk of Lindsey, and afterwards by the folk in the Five
Boroughs, and very soon by all the host north of Watling Street, and
hostages were given by every shire."[73] In addition to hostages, Sweyn
demanded horses and provisions for the host.
The summer was probably past before Sweyn was ready to proceed against
Ethelred. But finally, some time in September or a little later, having
concluded all the necessary preliminaries, he gave the ships and the
hostages into the keeping of his son Canute, and led his mounted army
southward across the Midlands with Winchester, the residence city of the
English kings, as the objective point. So long as he was still within
the Danelaw, Sweyn permitted no pillaging; but "as soon as he had
crossed Watling Street, he worked as great evil as a hostile force was
able." The Thames was crossed at Oxford, which city promptly
submitted and gave hostages. Winchester, too, seems to have yielded
without a struggle. From the capital Sweyn proceeded eastward to London,
where he met the first effective resistance.
[Illustration: THE TULSTORP STONE. (Runic monument showing viking ship
ornamented with beasts' heads.)]
In London was King Ethelred supported by Thurkil the Tall and his viking
bands. It seems that Olaf the Stout had entered the English service with
Thurkil the year before, and did valiant service in defence of the city;
the story given by Snorre of the destruction of London Bridge apparently
belongs to the siege of 1013 rather than to that of 1009. Sweyn
approached the city from the south, seized Southwark, and tried to enter
London by way of the bridge, which the Danes had taken and fortified. It
is said that Olaf the Stout undertook to destroy the bridge. He covered
his ships with wattle-work of various sorts, willow roots, supple trees,
and other things that might be twisted or woven; and thus protected from
missiles that might be hurled down from above, the ships passed up the
stream to the bridge, the supports of which Olaf and his men proceeded
to pull down. The whole structure crashed into the river and with it
went a large number of Sweyn's men,[74] who drowned, says the
Chronicler, "because they neglected the bridge."
Sweyn soon realised that a continued siege would be useless: the season
was advancing; the resistance of the citizens was too stubborn and
strong. For the fourth time the heroic men of London had the
satisfaction of seeing a Danish force break camp and depart with a
defeated purpose: the first time in 991; then again in 994 when Sweyn
and Olaf Trygvesson laid siege to it; the third time in 1009, when
Thurkil the Tall and Olaf the Stout were the besiegers; now once more in
1013. The feeling that the city was impregnable was doubtless a factor
in the stubborn determination with which the townsmen repelled the
repeated attacks of the Danish invaders, though at this time the skill
and valour of the viking mercenaries were an important part of the
resistance.
Leaving London unconquered, Sweyn marched up the Thames Valley to
Wallingford, where he crossed to the south bank, and continued his
progress westward to Bath. Nowhere, it seems, did he meet any
mentionable opposition. To Bath came the magnates of the south-western
shires led by Ethelmer who was apparently ealdorman of Devon; they took
the oaths that the conqueror prescribed and gave the required hostages.
From Bath, Sweyn returned to his camp at Gainsborough; it was time to
prepare for winter. Tribute and provisions were demanded and doubtless
collected, and the host went into winter quarters on the banks of the
Trent. "And all the nation had him [Sweyn] for full king; and later the
borough-men of London submitted to him and gave hostages; for they
feared that he would destroy them."[75]
The submission of London probably did not come before Ethelred's
cowardly behaviour had ruined the hopes of the patriots: he had fled the
land. Earlier in the year (in August, according to one authority)[76]
Queen Emma, accompanied by the abbot of Peterborough, had crossed the
Channel, and sought the court of her brother, the Norman duke. Whether
she went to seek military aid or merely a refuge cannot be determined;
but the early departure and the fact that she was not accompanied by her
children would indicate that her purpose was to enlist her brother's
interest in Ethelred's cause. Assistance, however, was not forthcoming;
but Emma remained in Richard's duchy and a little later was joined by
her two sons, Edward and Alfred, who came accompanied by two English
ecclesiastics. Ethelred, meanwhile, continued some weeks longer with
Thurkil's fleet; but toward the close of December we find him on the
Isle of Wight, where he celebrated Christmas. In January, he joined his
family in Normandy. Duke Richard gave him an honourable reception; but
as he was having serious trouble with another brother-in-law, Count Odo
of Chartres, he was probably unable to give much material assistance to
the fugitive from England.
Ethelred's flight must have left Thurkil and the Jomvikings in a
somewhat embarrassing position. They had undertaken to serve the King
and defend his country; but now Ethelred had deserted the kingdom, and
his subjects had accepted the rule of the invader. In January, however,
the sea is an unpleasant highway, so there was nothing for the tall
chief to do but to remain faithful and insist on the terms of the
contract. While Sweyn was calling for silver and supplies to be brought
to Gainsborough, Thurkil seems to have been issuing similar demands from
Greenwich. No doubt his men were also able to eke out their winter
supplies by occasional plundering: "they harried the land as often as
they wished."[77]
Then suddenly an event occurred that created an entirely new situation.
On February 3, 1014, scarcely a month after Ethelred's departure from
Wight, the Danish conqueror died. As to his manner of death, the
Chronicle has nothing to say; but later historians appear to be better
informed. The Encomiast, who was indeed Sweyn's contemporary, gives an
account of a very edifying death: when Sweyn felt that the end of all
things was approaching, he called Canute to his side and impressed upon
him the necessity of following and supporting the Christian faith.[78]
The Anglo-Norman historians have an even more wonderful story to relate:
in the midst of a throng of his henchmen and courtiers, the mighty
viking fell, pierced by the dart of Saint Edmund. Sweyn alone saw the
saint; he screamed for help; at the close of the day he expired. It
seems that a dispute was on at the time over a contribution that King
Sweyn had levied on the monks who guarded Saint Edmund's shrine.[79] The
suddenness of the King's death was therefore easily explained: the
offended saint slew him.
If it is difficult to credit the legend that traces the King's death to
an act of impiety, it is also hard to believe that he died in the odour
of sanctity. Sweyn was a Christian, but his religion was of the passive
type. He is said to have built a few churches, and he also appears to
have promoted missionary efforts to some extent[80]; but the Church
evidently regarded him as rather lukewarm in his religious professions.
The see of Hamburg-Bremen, which was charged with the conversion of the
Northern peoples, did not find him an active friend; though in this case
his hostility may have been due to his dislike for all things that were
called German.
Sweyn's virtues were of the viking type: he was a lover of action, of
conquest, and of the sea. At times he was fierce, cruel, and vindictive;
but these passions were tempered by cunning, shrewdness, and a love for
diplomatic methods that were not common among the sea-kings. He seems to
have formed alliances readily, and appears even to have attracted his
opponents. His career, too, was that of a viking. Twice he was taken by
the Jomvikings, but his faithful subjects promptly ransomed him. Once
the King of Sweden, Eric the Victorious, conquered his kingdom and sent
him into temporary exile. Twice as a king he led incursions into England
in which he gained only the sea-king's reward of plunder and tribute.
But in time fortune veered about; his third expedition to Britain was
eminently successful, and when Sweyn died, he was king not only of
Denmark but also of England, and overlord of the larger part of Norway
besides.
As to his personality, we have only the slight information implied in
his nickname. Forkbeard means the divided beard. But the evident
popularity that he enjoyed both in the host and in the nation would
indicate that he possessed an attractive personality. That Sweyn
appreciated the loyalty of his men is evident from the runic monument
that he raised to his housecarle Skartha who had shared in the English
warfare.[81]
By his first-wife, the Polish princess who was renamed Gunhild, Sweyn
had several children, of whom history makes prominent mention of three:
Harold, Canute, and Gytha, who was married to Earl Eric of Norway. In
the Hyde _Register_ there is mention of another daughter, Santslaue,
"sister of King Canute,"[82] who may have been born of the same
marriage, as her name is evidently Slavic. His second wife, Sigrid the
Haughty, seems to have had daughters only. Of these only one appears
prominently in the annals of the time--Estrid, the wife of Ulf the Earl,
the mother of a long line of Danish kings.
At the time of his death Sweyn is thought to have been about fifty-four
years old and had ruled Denmark nearly thirty years. His body was taken
to York for interment, but it did not remain there long. The English did
not cherish Sweyn's memory, and seemed determined to find and dishonour
his remains. Certain women--English women, it appears--rescued the
corpse and brought it to Roeskild some time during the following summer
(1014)[83], where it was interred in the Church of the Holy Trinity,
which also sheltered the bones of Sweyn's father whom he had wronged so
bitterly thirty years before.
FOOTNOTES:
[52] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1000.
[53] William of Jumièges, _Historia Normannorum_, v., c. 4.
[54] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1002.
[55] Richard of Cirencester, _Speculum Historiale_, ii., 147-148.
[56] As there seems to have been a Danish settlement in the Severn
Valley, it seems probable that Pallig's home was in that region.
[57] The story of Palna Toki is told in various sagas, particularly
_Jómsvikingasaga_. Of his exploits in archery Saxo has an account in his
tenth book. Having once boasted that no apple was too small for his
arrow to find, he was surprised by an order from the King that he should
shoot an arrow from his son's head. The archer was reluctant to display
his skill in this fashion, but the shot was successful. It is also told
that Palna Toki had provided himself with additional arrows which he had
intended for the King in case the first had stricken the child. Saxo
wrote a century before the time of the supposed Tell episode.
[58] William of Jumièges, _Historia Normannorum_, v., c. 7.
[59] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1003.
[60] _Ibid._, 1004-1005.
[61] Liebermann, _Gesetze der Angelsachsen_, i., 246-256.
[62] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1009.
[63] _Encomium Emmæ_, i., c. 2. It is barely possible that the brother
was Gyrth, whose name appears on a runic monument (Wimmer, _De danske
Runemindesmærker_, I., ii., 138 ff.). But in the absence of information
to the contrary we shall have to assume that Gyrth was buried where his
monument was placed and was therefore not the brother who fell in
England.
[64] Florence of Worcester, _Chronicon_, i., 160-161.
[65] _Ibid._, 160-163. Snorre, _Saga of Saint Olaf_, c. 14. Storm in his
translation of Snorre (Christiania, 1900) locates Ringmere in East
Wretham, Norfolk, (p. 239).
[66] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1011. Florence of Worcester, _Chronicon_,
i., 163-165.
[67] _Gesta Regum_, i., 207.
[68] _Encomium Emmæ_, i., c. 3.
[69] _Encomium Emmæ_, i., c. 2.
[70] _Encomium Emmæ_, i., c. 3.
[71] _Encomium Emmæ_, i., c. 4.
[72] _Ibid._, i., c. 5.
[73] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1013.
[74] Snorre, _Saga of Saint Olaf_, cc. 12-13. The story in the saga has
the appearance of genuineness and is based on the contemporary verses of
Ottar the Swart. Snorre's chronology, however, is much confused.
[75] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1013.
[76] William of Malmesbury, _Gesta Regum_, i., 209.
[77] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1013.
[78] _Encomium Emmæ_, i., c. 5; see also Saxo, _Gesta_, 342.
[79] _Memorials of Saint Edmund's Abbey_, i., 34 ff.
[80] Adamus, _Gesta_, ii., c. 39.
[81] Wimmer, _De danske Runemindesmærker_, I., ii., 117.
[82] _Liber Vitæ_, 58. Steenstrup suggests that the name may be Slavic
and calls attention to the Slavic form Svantoslava (_Venderne og de
Danske_, 64-65).
[83] _Encomium Emmæ_, ii., c. 3. The rescue and removal of Sweyn's
remains by English women is asserted by the contemporary German
chronicler Thietmar (_Chronicon_, vii., c. 26).