The 1066 Norwegian Invasion of England according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Megan Arnott

ENGL: 6760

Prof. Jana Schulman

Friday, December 7, 2012

                1066 has been called the ‘linchpin year” in English history.[1] For historians, the Norman Conquest has been used to divide English history into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’[2] Taking a back seat to the main arenas of the Conquest was the earlier events of 1066, which comprised the Norwegian Invasion of England.[3] Historiographically speaking, the events at Stamford Bridge are always mentioned as a prelude to the Conquest because it is significant that Harold Godwinson, last king of the Anglo-Saxons, fought two pitched battles on either side of the country in less than a month, and that the English at York fought two battles against the Norwegians in September, cutting down their military capabilities before the Normens arrived in October.

                The Norwegians, under king Haraldr Harðráði., and their English allies, under the exiled earl Tostig Godwinson, Harold’s brother, raided the countryside before the two battles around the city of York. They won the battle at Fulford Gate, but they lost the one at Stamford Bridge five days later. Kelly De Vries, writing exclusively about the Norwegian invasion of England in 1066, lists three categories of sources for the invasion, “those which were written in England close to the time of the events which they discuss; those written (or, in the case of the Bayeux Tapestry, embroidered) in England or Normandy after the conquest of William the Conqueror but before the turn of the twelfth century; and those written in England or Normandy during the early part of the twelfth century by historically astute writers compiling their histories from other earlier sources and eye-witnesses.”[4] There are only two sources in the first category: the Vita Ædwardi regis and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. [5] Of these sources, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle represents an interesting English genre of historical documentation. Apart from the Irish Annals and an early Russian chronicle, and those are again of a slightly different genre, at this time there are no comparable vernacular sources that record history.[6] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives its readers an English - in language and perspective - take on the events of 1066, differing from the point of view given in the Scandinavian, Norman and later Anglo-Norman narratives.  The goal of this paper is to understand how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle portrays the Norwegian Invasion of 1066 and how they characterize the Norwegians, particularly the figure of Haraldr Harðráði.[7]

The text that we call the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not one text, but seven separate manuscripts and two fragments, each representing an individual document in their own right.[8] The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reside in the Easter Tables that clergy used to mark the passage of time. These reports are terse, and are often begun with ‘Here, in this year.’[9] Even though they are short and somewhat bland in nature, these references may have triggered a whole host of references or memories for their Anglo-Saxon audiences.[10] Around 890 what would become the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was compiled using Easter Tables and supplemented with material from other, often Latin sources like Bede’s chronological summary in his Ecclesiastical History.[11] It is thought that it was compiled not by king Alfred, but possibly by someone in his court who was interested in promoting national identity in the face of Viking raids.[12] There was a surge of Anglo-Saxon literature during this time period, as it was felt that Latin was in decay, and education was one of the courtly concerns.[13] An Alfredian Chronicle was compiled and distributed to many different political/religious and learning centres, just as Alfred’s translation of the Cura Pastoralis was.[14] The seven manuscripts containing the Chronicle, up until the entry for 890, are all drawing on similar stock. However, no year in the entire Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is exactly the same across all versions, including up until the year 890.[15] After 890 the relationship between the texts becomes even more interesting and certainly hard to trace. The entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle become their own prose genre, whose main function is still to mark the year, but which become more original and often more detailed.[16] Kevin Crossley, characterizing the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, has noted that part of the conventions of this genre are special attention to wars, and an interest in what Crossley considers the ‘superstitious’ attention paid to portents and signs.[17] And while there are many indicators that suggest many entries were added after the date they represent, the entries are at least nominally contemporary after 890, which has partly explained their appeal for historians trying to reconstruct this period in English history.[18]

The seven manuscripts have been named /A, A (which is also sometimes called G or W), B, C, D, E, and F.[19] Charles Plummer’s account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle identifies /A, C, D and E as Chronicles in their own right, with B, A and F as derivative of the others.[20] Manuscript /A is of interest because it is clear that after 890 the entries were recorded one at a time for each year. The other six manuscripts change hands mid-way through entries, suggesting a different kind of textual transmission.[21]

The entries for 1066 embody all the genre conventions of Chronicle entries. There are portents, and political moves that mark the year, as well as three key battles. The Battle of Hastings tends to be the battle that is most remembered, but this emphasis was created by the outcome not by the events as they unfolded. We cannot tell if the sources are directly contemporary, or when exactly they were written down, but again they are considered to be some of the most contemporary sources. In Chronicle C, within the description of Harold Godwinson’s preparations for the Norman Conquest, it says “eallswa his syððan aeode,” showing that the chronicler writes after the event.[22] Conversely, in manuscript A there is a mention of 1066 which gives equal space to the Norman Conquest as to the burning of Christ’s Church in Canterbury: “her com Willelm gewann Ængla land. Her on ðison geare barn Cristes cyrce.”[23] It is less clear that this was written after the events described, because of the fact that it doesn’t obviously use outside textual sources like Chronicle C does, nor does it use those phrases which specifically say it was written later. In addition the brevity of it means that it could have been written as events were unfolding. Because \A’s entries were written one at a time A seems even more contemporary to the events than C, though C is also thought to be nominally contemporary.[24]

 And there are different emphases on the three battles depending on which Chronicle you are reading. By focusing on the battles that the Norwegians fought in, namely the first two battles (the Battle of Fulford Gate and the Battle of Stamford Bridge) as opposed to the Battle of Hastings, the Chronicle gives you three overlapping but vastly different narratives for the events as they unfold. Chronicle C, which provides the greatest amount of detail, is cut off due to a mangling of the manuscript, and so covers the Battle of Fulford Gate and Stamford Bridge in great detail, but does not touch on the Norman Conquest at all, save for the levy Harold had in response to what he had heard (from credible sources) about William of Normandy gathering an army.[25] So Chronicles C, D and E deal with the events of the Norwegian Invasion in depth. Chronicle B cuts off at 977, and so doesn’t reach the year 1066.[26] F is a bilingual version of E, written in Old English and Latin, marking the full circle of Latin sources, informing an Old English text, transitioning back to Latin.[27] Therefore, in the genre of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, there are three versions of the events of 1066.

The Norwegian Invasion in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the start of the year is flexible. Bede said that the practice of starting the year at Christmas was falling into disuse in his day, but this still seems to be the case in a lot of the Chronicle, including for the year 1066.[28] However, in other Chronicle years the year begins like ours, a.k.a. like the Roman civil calendar on January the 1^st.[29] In other entries the year begins with the Annunciation on March the 25^th, such as the entry for year 1044.[30] Chronicle C and D, open the year 1066 following the exact same tradition or text, save for some spelling variation: “on þissum[31] geare com Harold cyng[32] of Eoforwic to Westmynstre to þam Eastran þe wæron æfter þam middanwintre[33] þe se cyng[34] forðferde, wæron þa Eastran on þone dæg[35] .xvi. kalendas Mai.”[36] The events follow the mid winter celebration, or Christmas as the acknowledged bench mark. In Chronicle E this is even clearer because it starts off the year with mention of a church consecrated on December 28:

Millesimo.lxvi. On þissum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cilda mæssedæg, se cyng Easward forðferde on twelfta mæsseæfan, hine mann bebyrgede on twelftan mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmynstre, Harold eorl feng to Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe, eac men hine þærto gecuron, wæs gebletsod to cynge on twelftan mæssedæg.[37]

In our modern calendar the consecration of the Church at Westminster would fall in 1065, but not in the reckoning of this Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Even though it doesn’t mention the Norwegian Invasion, Chronicle A mentions the portent in the sky. The presence of such conventions, depending on the genre, can make us question the veracity of the text. Certainly mentioning portents often draws our disbelief and caused Crossley to call the Anglo-Saxons superstitious.[38] In this case, history has vindicated the mention of a comet in the sky in 1066, and it doesn’t stretch our credulity because the implications of the comet are implied, not stated explicitly. Not only is the comet mentioned in other narratives, the timing would have coincided with Haley’s Comet.[39] It is mentioned in A, and C and D, though in CD it is again an exact repetition of the text, drawing from exactly the same example with very few spelling variations:

Þa wearð geond eall Englaland swylc tacen on heofenum gesewen swylce nan mann[40] ær ne geseh.[41] Sume men cwædon[42] þæt hyt[43] cometa se steorra wære, þone sume men hatað þone fexedan[44] steorran, he æteowde ærest on þone æfen Letania Mairoa, þæt ys .viii. idus[45] Mai. Swa scean[46] ealle þa .vii.[47] niht.[48]

C also says it was “viii. idus Mai” (May 8) and D says viii. kalendas Mai, (24 April) that the comet was first seen, but these are minor variations. E does not mention the portent, however the account in E is much shorter in general, though not as short as A.

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the first threat to Harold’s kingdom consisted of attacks from his brother Tostig Godwinson, exiled earl of York, who was raiding in the south of England. The most thorough account of Tostig’s activities occurs in Chronicle C. The former earl landed on the Isle of Wight and raided up to Sandwich. Chronicle D does not make explicit mention of raids, but says that Tostig came to the Isle of Wight and received money and supplies there. In Chronicle C when Tostig learns that his brother Harold is on his way to Sandwich he leaves, capturing men from the port, and attacks the area along the Humber, especially at Lindsey. Not much is said about what may have happened then, whether it was a battle, or simply a retreat, but Chronicle C says that Earl Eadwin and Morkere, who had taken over from Tostig as earl, drove him and his men out. At this point Chronicle D and E (not C and D as was the case up until now) use the exact same wording to state that “þa wile[49] com Tostig eorl into Humbran mid sixtigum[50] scipum,  Eadwine eorl com mid lanferde[51] adraf[52] hine ut, þa butsacarlas[53] hine forsocan.”[54] Chronicle C says that it is as many men as he can muster, whereas the tradition that D and E refer to are saying that originally Tostig had sixty ships to attack England with. Historians have made much out of the number of ships mentioned in Chronicles D and E, often using them to recreate numbers for the Battle of Fulford Gate and the Battle of Stamford Bridge.[55]

The sequence of events in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has Tostig attacking England while Harold Godwinson was building an army .But all three versions agree that the threat is Harold is worried about is not coming from Tostig. In Chronicle C there is a logic gap: when king Harold hears about his brother Tostig in Sandwich (something only C mentions) his response is to gather an army to meet the threat from the south. In fact Tostig himself has to get out of Sandwich, not necessarily because Harold is coming for him, though this could be inferred, but because he doesn’t want to run into him and Sandwich is where Harold has chosen to muster his troops. D likewise, creates flow by mentioning how Harold is Tostig’s brother, but talks about Harold’s preparations for the impending invasion from the south: “Harold cyng, his broþor, gegædrade swa micelne sciphere eac landhere swa nan cyng her on lande ær ne dyde, for þam þe him wæs gecyðd þæt Wyllelm Bastard wolde hider ðis land gewinnen, eallswa hit syððan aeode.”[56] E is even pithier in its mention of Harold’s preparations: “þy ilcan geare þe he cyng wæs, he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme.”[57] C talks about waiting for an invasion, but in the end they waited too long, and they couldn’t feed the troops – they simply couldn’t keep them there. C refers to the impending tragedy; “þeh hit æt þam ende naht ne forstode.”[58] Chronicle C refers to ships that Harold sailed into London from the Isle of Wight, after having to disband his men. Most of the ships were lost. E also refers to his naval force, but never actually mentions the Isle of Wight or the loss. However, Chronicle E gives historical weight to the tradition detailed in Chronicle C by mentioning this naval force, even without details, and without proof that they are necessarily referring to the same tradition.

Chronicles D and E again draw on the exact same tradition to describe how Tostig’s force went from sixty ships to twelve, implying that they were lost somewhere between when he sailed into the Humber and when he met up with Haraldr of Norway in Scotland. By implication they were lost at the battle with earl Eadwin at Lindsey, but this is not explicit. Chronicles D and E also draw from a tradition where now Tostig becomes Haraldr Harðráði’s man. Other traditions have Tostig as an instigator of the Norwegian invasion, inviting Haraldr to come to England and claim inheritance from Knútr, but here that is not the case. It is the case, however, in Chronicle C. In Chronicle C there is no mention of Haraldr being in Scotland, just Tostig. Instead the two meet up at the Tyne to begin raiding: “Tostig eorl him com to mid eallum þam þe he begiten hæfde eallswa hy ær gesprecen hæfdon.[59] In Chronicle C the two have met before and planned to meet up for the invasion. And Tostig’s force is painted in a much better light. He has all the forces that he can muster, instead of having been reduced to twelve ships.

                Chronicles D and E are drawing on the same tradition again for the description of the Battle at Fulford Gate, however, as opposed to the passages above, the wording has started to differ. Haraldr and Tostig fight with earls Eadwin and Morkere at York and win. At first the two accounts are still basically the same. This is the account in D: “hi foron þa begen into Humbran, oð þæt hi common to Eoforwic.”[60] However, at this point, while the meaning is retained, the wording changes: “heom þær wið fuhton Eadwine eorl Morkere eorl, his broðor, ac þa Normen ahton sige. Man cyðde þa Harolde, Engla cynge, þæt þis wæs þus gefaren, þis gefeoht wæs on Uigilia sancti Mathei.”[61] Compare this to the account in Chronicle E: “hi bægen foran into Hunbran oð þet hi coman to Eoferwic, heom wið feaht Morkere eorl Eadwine eorl, se norrena cyng ahte siges geweald.”[62] Chronicles D and C also agree on the date, September 20^th, the vigil of St. Matthew’s day, for the battle. This was twelve days after, according to Chronicle C, the army gathered by Harold Godwinson at Sandwich had to be dismissed. Chronicle C, as per usual, gives us a lot more detail about the battle beyond what we learn in D and E, which is only that the Norwegians won. Instead, Chronicle C states: “þa gegaderode Eadwine eorl Morkere eorll of heora eorldome swa mycel werod swa hi begitan mihton, wið þone here gefuhton, mycel wæl geslogon, þær wæs þæs Engliscan folces mycel ofslagen adrenct, on fleam bedfiren Normen ahton wælstowe gewald.”[63] Chronicle C also mentions the terms of the surrender, indicating that waiting for hostages was one of the reasons Haraldr and Tostig would wait around York after the battle: “þa æfter þam gefeohte for Harold cyninge of Norwegan Tostig eorl into Eoforwic mid swa miclum folce swa heom þa geþuhte, him on gislade of þæreburh eac to metsunge fylste, swa þanon to scipe foran to fullan friðe gespræcon, þæt hig ealle mid him suð faran woldon, þis land gegan.”[64]

Chronicle C describes how as soon as earl Tostig and Haraldr land near York, Harold marches night and day, as quickly as he can, just as soon as he can get his men together. Makes sense, if he is going to have enough time to reassemble a force and march with them to York for September the 25^th, the day of the Battle of Stamford. After the battle took place (on a Wednesday says Chronicle C), by Sunday Harold had come with all of his forces to Tadcaster and was marching for York on Monday: “Đa amang þissan com Harold Engla cyninge mid ealre his fyrde on ðone Sunnandæg to Tada, 7 þær his lið fylcade, 7 for þa on Monandæg þurh ut Eoferwic.”[65] Chronicle D and E have a greatly truncated version of events, which do not take time to say much of anything, let alone pay such attention to the sequence of events. Both texts say simply that Harold was informed of the outcome of the battle.

                It is in their brief descriptions of the actual Battle of Stamford Bridge that the chroniclers of both D and E, in different ways, come out in support of Harold Godwinson. Chronicle E’s account is the shortest: “man cydde Harolde cyng hu hit wæs þær gedon geworden, he com mid mycclum here engliscra manna gemette hine æt Stængfordesbrycge hine ofsloh þone eorl Tostig eallne þone here ahtlice ofercom.”[66] To have ‘ahtlice’ or courageously defeated the force of Norwegians and earl Tostig’s men, shows the chronicler’s support of Harold Godwinson and the English in this battle. Chronicle D’s account is longer. Not only does Harold defeat the force at Stamford Bridge, but he takes them by surprise, ‘com … on unwær’:

Đa com Harold ure cyng on unwær on þa Normenn hytte hi begeondan Eoforic æt Steinfordbrygge mid micclan here englisces folces, þær wearð on daeg swiðe stranglic gefeoht on ba halfe. Þar wearð ofslægen Harold Harfagera, Tosti eorl, þa Normen þe þær to lafe wæron wurdon on fleame, þa engliscan hi hindan hetelice slogon, oð þæt hig sume to scype coman, sume adruncen, sume eac forbærnde, swa mislice forfarene þæt þær wæs lyt to lafe, Engle ahton wælstowe geweald. [67]

Both chronicles say that Harold had a “micclan here englisces folces’ or ‘mycclum here engliscra manna.’ Chronicle D, at the moment of his death, calls Haraldr ‘Harold Harfagera,’ which is unfortunately the wrong epithet, but shows that the chronicler had heard something of Norwegian history. But more than one historian of the conquest has noted that Chronicle D calls Harold Godwinson, ‘Harold ure cyng,’ indicating some sort of sympathy with the last Anglo-Saxon king of England.[68]

Chronicle C, again is much more detailed. It goes into Haraldr and Tostig’s motivations for being at Stamford Bridge, as they wait for ‘gislas’: 

Harold cyning of Norwegan tostig eorl heora gefylce wæron afaren of scipe begeondan Eoforwic to Stanford brycge, forþam þe him wæron behaten to gewissan þæt him man þær of ealre þinre scire ongean hy gislas bringan wolde. Đa com Harold Engl cyning, heom ongean on unwaran, begeondan þære brycge, he þær togædre fengon swyðe heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron, þær wæs Harold cyning of Norwegan Tostig eorl ofslagen, gerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Norman age Englisca.[69]

Both Norwegians and the English are being killed during this battle. This Chronicle chooses to highlight the losses in battle, in addition to the English victory. As the Norwegians flee for their ships there is an interesting account which was added to the end of Chronicle C in a twelfth century hand. This account, of the Norwegian who defended the bridge against a whole English force, is attested to in Henry of Huntingdon’s account, a later English source, in addition to Chronicle C:

þa Normen flugon þa Englisa. Đa wes þer an on Norwegan þe widstod þet Englisce folc þet hi ne micte þa brigge oferstigen ne sige gerechen. Þa seite an Englisce mid anre flane ac hit nactes ne widstod. Ænd þa com an oþer under þere brigge, end hine þurustang en under þere brunie. Þa com Harold Engla chinge ofer þere brigge hys furde forð mid hine; þere Michel wel geslogon ge Norweis ge Flæming.[70]

The problem of the late addition to the Chronicle C  text is that it makes this account more troublesome than other things in C which are just from a different tradition than D or E. This is a problem for historians who have valued the historicity of other aspects of the Chronicle, despite the fact that the accounts do not agree. Certainly historian Ian Walker believes that this event has no historical value.[71] It may have a much later provenance, and in terms of how we moderns imagine the world, it is even less believable than the rest of the narrative. Regardless, it is an interesting part of the tradition that is left to us because we do not know why someone else decided to add that in, or really that it wasn’t part of the earlier narrative in the first place. It is not recorded in non-English sources, but as DeVries points out, this could be because it would be something the English would notice and not the Norwegians, who were in retreat, though that is speculation and adds no evidence to give the event more historical weight.[72] The text of Chronicle C ends in 1066 not necessarily because it was finished at that time, but because the manuscript was mangled. This part of the narrative may have even originally been a part of Chronicle C before the mangling.  

                The last words in Chronicle C are: þes cyninges sunu Hetmundus let Harold faran ham to Norweie mid all scipe.[73] We know about Haraldr’s son Magnus, but Mundus has not been mentioned before. At this point the Chronicle stops. The best wrap up of the Norwegian Invasion of England is given in Chronicle D:

Se kyng þa geaf gryð Olafe, þæs Norna cynges suna, heora biscoppe, þan eorle of Orcanege, eallon þan þe on þam scypum to lafe wæron, hi foron þa upp to uran kyninge, sworon aðas þæt hi æfre woldon fryð freondscype into þisan lande haldan, se cyng hi let lam faran mid .xxiiii. scypum.[74]

The speed with which this all happened really comes across in Chronicle D: Þas twa folcgefeoht wæron gefremmede binnan fif nihtan.[75] Whereas up until now Chroncile C’s account of the year has offered the most detailed narrative, Chronicle D offers historians of 1066 a tale of woe, one that really criticizes the decisions of the Anglo-Saxons after Harold Godwinson’s death, and lamenting the loss of life that could have been spared by earlier surrender. Chronicle E does not even mention what happened next, but in its effort  to get on with it jumps right into a description of the Norman Conquest, which it also speeds through so it can get on to the very important task of relating what happened in the local area in that same year.

The Norwegians in Chronicles C, D and E

Chronicle C, British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius B.i, is one of the Abingdon Chronicles, which like MS B draws on an Abingdon Chronicle text for a lot of its material.[76] The manuscript itself was composed around 1044 and was added to after that.[77] While there are a lot of markers in the 1066 entry to indicate its later addition, it is still thought to be roughly contemporary with the events of 1066. The events in 1065 and 1066 have been shown by D.C. Douglas to have an anti-Godwinist slant, which should be taken into account when reading the events of 1066, though it is unclear how that relates to the sentiment of the rest of the chronicle.[78] It can not be said that it did originally have an account of the Battle of Hastings, just that the Chronicler knew about it. In the introduction of the entry for 1066 C and D use the same text or tradition, which gives typical markers for the year including the ascension to the throne of Harold Godwinson, the death of the previous king Edward, and the comet. But from there C offers a truly unique text, one that historians of the Conquest would love to have been continued. It is very detailed, and gives motivations to Tostig and Harold for their decisions. In this narrative the Norwegian invasion is an extension of Tostig’s treachery. Tostig is already characterized negatively, by saying he attacked the country and by kidnapping men in Sandwich. This is the only Chronicle that speaks of a sort of ‘conspiracy’ with Haraldr: Tostig is not just joining up with an already in process invasion, this Chronicle gives more weight to the interpretation that Tostig was heavily involved in creating the Norwegian Invasion than in Chronicle D and E. Haraldr is a surprise to the English, but not to Tostig. Tostig also does not submit himself to Haraldr as he does in the other Chronicles. With Haraldr Tostig is able to win against Eadwin and the new earl of York Morkere, but even the two of them combined are not able to defeat Harold Godwinson.

The chronicler is also very concerned with the loss of life on both sides. Norwegian lives lost show how well the English are doing, but the English lives lost show at what cost: “he þær togædre fengon swyðe heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron, þær wæs Harold cyning of Norwegan Tostig eorl ofslagen, gerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Norman age Englisca.”[79] Along those lines, there is a lot of futility in Harold’s actions: “man hafde landfyrde æghwar be sæ þeh hit æt þam ende naht ne forstode.”[80]  The Norman Conquest, while not described, is alluded to several times by talking about how futile the preparations Harold made actually were. The focus on Tostig and the trials and tribulations, and the extensive characterization of the people and events makes for an interesting read. It also indicates that in Chronicle C, Haraldr Harðráði and the Norwegians are props for the internal conflict amongst the English. The original contributions of the Norwegians are played down, and the English decisions are played up.

According to G.P. Cubbin, Chronicle D, British Library, Cotton MS. Tiberius B.iv, gives the ‘most patriotic’ version of the events of 1066.[81] Chronicle D is sometimes called the Worcester Manuscript, as it was found there in 1565 and also has a particular interest in local events from both there and from York, which is probably explained by shared interests in both regions in the 1050s when the manuscript was first compiled.[82] D is interesting because for 1066 it uses one source that is the same as C and one source that is the same as E. Again, the textual histories and relationships are very diffilcut to decipher. Chronicle D takes a much more ‘us versus them’ perspective, amplified by the presence of the ‘our king’ note.  In the depictions of the Norwegians, the Norwegians’ death alone is described in the battles fought with them. The description of the Battle at Fulford Gate only says that Norwegians won: “hi foron þa begen into Humbran, oð þæt hi common to Eoforwic, heom þær wið fuhton Eadwine eorl Morkere eorl, his broðor, ac þa Normen ahton sige.”[83] In the depiction of the Battle of Stamford Bridge the description of the battlefield at the end of the battle is extensive: hig sume to scype coman, sume adruncen, sume eac forbærnde, swa mislice forfarene þæt þær wæs lyt to lafe, Engle ahton wælstowe geweald.”[84] At the end of the battle the mercy of the English is also highlighted.

This us vs. them perspective continues into the description of the Norman Conquest, as the chronicler focuses on what the English should do differently, and not describing the Norman victory in the same glowing and graphic terms as the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In fact there was slaughter on both sides, showing how well the English come off. There is an overtly pro-Anglo-Saxon version of the 1066 in this Chronicle. It differs from C, which is about internal conflict, and presents the English as a whole. Tostig joins up and swears fealty to Haraldr, showing that he has ultimately become a ‘them’ and not an ‘us.’ Unintentionally, by calling Haraldr Harfagera instead of Harðráði the chronicler in D has accidentally conflated the most famous ‘Viking’ kings of Norway, from one the earliest to the so-called last, into one conceptual Norwegian ‘other.’

For the entry for 1066, while Chronicle E, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Laud Misc. 636, takes a lot of its information from the same source as Chronicle D, it is a lot shorter. Chronicle E is also known as the Peterborough Chronicle because of its creation and location in Peterborough and because of its heavy interest, in the form of interpolations throughout the Chronicle, of local interest material. The entry for 1066 is a perfect example of this, because all the national political events take up the same amount of textual space as the local events, which are not listed in other Chronicles. The details that are left out of E that are present in D are a lot of the details which make the D version a pro-Anglo-Saxon text. Instead it is much more neutral in its description. For instance, there are no appeals to God’s mercy during the Conquest, as there are in Chronicle D. There are instead more generic markers of the time period. Chronicle E uses national events to create a setting for the local participation in those events.

However, the role of Haraldr Harðráði is more important in E than it is in D and C. In an interesting, minor difference between D and E, in the description of who won the battle at Fulford Gate D says the Norwegians had the victory. E says the Norwegian king has the victory: “hi bægen foran into Hunbran oð þet hi coman to Eoferwic, heom wið feaht Morkere eorl Eadwine eorl, se norrena cyng ahte siges geweald.”[85] Though the description is not more than a few lines, Haraldr has the most agency in E, where he meets with Tostig in Scotland and is submitted to by Tostig, minimizing Tostig’s involvement in getting him to England. Likewise, he is a military power-house, by being the force behind Fulford Gate. Harold Godwinson journeys north to meet ‘him’, and slays ‘him’ and earl Tostig at the bridge, with the ‘him’ in this case referring to Haraldr Harðráði: “he com mid mycclum here engliscra manna gemette hine æt Stængfordesbrycge hine ofsloh þone eorl Tostig eallne þone here ahtlice ofercom.”[86] In Chronicle E Haraldr is a force to be reckoned with, and is reckoned with, by King Harold Godwinson.

That all three texts are focused on the English perspective was a foregone conclusion; we would not expect anything different.  All three texts are focused on how these events affect the Anglo-Saxons, with the E text focused even a little closer to home than England. But their English biases affect them here in three different ways, especially in terms of how they characterize the invading Norwegian force and the Norwegian King Haraldr Harðráði. Historians have used this useful information to reconstruct the events of 1066 and the Norwegian Invasion, and have used later chronicles and sagas to fill out the account. But the genre of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, due to the way it is constructed, has a historicity to it that few other sources can match and will continue to be an important source for historians reconstructing this crucial period in English and Scandinavian history.

Bibliography

Bately, Janet M., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A). Vol. 3. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1986.

Brown, Michelle P. Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Conner, Patrick W., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (The Abingdon Chronicle A.D. 956-1066). Vol. 10. Cambrige: D.S. Brewer, 1996.

Crossley-Holland, Kevin. The Anglo-Saxon World. 2nd. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002.

Cubbin, G.P., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS D). Vol. 6. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996.

DeVries, Kelly. The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066. Woodbrige: Boydell Press, 1999.

Finch, Paul. "Viking dusk at Stamford Bridge." Military History 20, no. 1 (April 2003): 34-40.

Garmonsway, G.N., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1972.

Georgianna, Linda. "Periodization and Politics: The Case of the Missing Twelfth Century in English Literary History." MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly (Duke University Press) 64, no. 2 (June 2003): 153-168.

Irvine, Susan, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS E). Vol. 7. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004.

Reeves, Scott. "Glamping at Stamford Bridge." British Heritage 33, no. 1 (March 2012): 56-59.

Rex, Peter. 1066: A New History of the Norman Conquest. Stroud: Amberley Publishing Plc, 2009.

Savage, Anne, trans. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: The Authentic Voices of England from the time of Julius Caesar to the Coronation of Henry II. New York: Crescent Books, 1995.

Swanton, Michael J. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Walker, Ian W. "Chapter Ten: Harald of Norway." In Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King, 152-165. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1997.

---

[1] Scott Reeves, "Glamping at Stamford Bridge," British Heritage 33, no. 1 (March 2012), 57.

[2] Linda Georgianna, "Periodization and Politics: The Case of the Missing Twelfth Century in English  

  Literary History," MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly (Duke University Press) 64, no. 2 (June 2003), 154.

[3] Kelly DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066 (Woodbrige: Boydell Press, 1999), 1.

[4] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 5.

[5] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion,  5

[6] Anne Savage, trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: The Authentic Voices of England from the time of

  Julius Caesar to the Coronation of Henry II (New York: Crescent Books, 1995), 10.

[7] Many historians, like Kelly DeVries, use the saga spelling for Haraldr Harðráði and the Old English spelling for Harold Godwinson. Since this paper is analyzing only the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it would make sense to render them both in Old-English, but in the end there is a lot of confusion between Harolds. This paper instead is going to keep the saga spelling for Haraldr Harðráði and the Old English for Harold Godwinson for clarity, and also to fit in with current historiography.

[8] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 11.

[9]  Kevin Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 2^nd ( Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), 32.

[10] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 32.

[11] G.P. Cubbin, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS D). Vol. 6. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996), xvii; Michael J. Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (New York: Routledge, 1998), xix.

[12] Michelle P. Brown, Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 86.

[13] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 10.

[14] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xix.

[15] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xvii.

[16] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  xvii-xviii.

[17] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 32.

[18] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  xxxi.

[19] G.N. Garmonsway, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1972), xxxiii.

[20] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxiii; Savage 11

[21] Susan Irvine ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS E), Vol. 7 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004), xxii-xxiii.

[22] Patrick W., Conner ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (The Abingdon Chronicle A.D. 956-1066). Vol. 10. (Cambrige: D.S. Brewer, 1996), 36.

Just as it subsequently came to pass

[23] Janet M. Bately, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A). Vol. 3. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1986), 35.

In this year came William and conquered England. In this year Christ Church was burned.

[24] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxi.

[25] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxvii.

[26] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxvi.

[27] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxii-xxxiii; Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xli.

[28] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.

[29] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.

[30] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 10; Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.

[31]  MS C þisum

[32] MS C kyng

[33] MS C middan wintran

[34] MS C kyng

[35] M C dæig

[36] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 79.

In this year came king Harold from York to Westminster, the Easter following the Christmas of the king’s death, Easter being on 16 April.

[37] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 86.

1066. In this year the abbey church at Westminster was consecrated on Holy Innocents’ day [28 December], and king Edward passed away on the vigil of, and was buried on, Epiphany [6 January] in the newly consecrated abbey church of Westminster. Earl Harold succeeded to the kingdom of England as the king granted it to him and as he was elected thereto. He was consecrated king on Epiphany.

[38] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 33.

[39] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 240.

[40] MS D man

[41] MS D geseah

[42] MS D cwedon

[43] MS D hit

[44] MS D faexedon

[45] MS D kalendas

[46] MS D scan

[47] MS D seofon

[48] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  36.

 At that time, throughout all England, a portent such as men had never seen before was seen in the heavens. Some declared that the star was a comet, which some call ‘the long-haired star’: it first appeared on the eve of the festival of Letania maior, which is on 24 April, and shone every night for a week.

[49] MS E hwile

[50] MS E lx

[51] MS E landfyrde

[52] MS E adraf

[53] MS E butsecarlas

[54] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

Meanwhile earl Tostig came into the Humber with sixty ships, and earl Edwin came with land levies and drove him out, and the shipmen deserted him.

[55] Paul Finch, "Viking dusk at Stamford Bridge," Military History 20, no. 1 (April 2003), 37.

[56] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 79.

King Harold, his brother, gathered together greater naval and land hosts than any king had ever done in this country, because he was informed that William the Bastard was about to invade this land to conquer it, just as it subsequently came to pass.

[57] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 86.

In the same year in which he became king, he sailed out against William with a naval force. 

[58] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.

Although in the end it was all to no purpose.

[59]  Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 37.

And earl Tostig joined him, as they had previously agreed, with all the host he had been able to muster.

[60] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York.

[61] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

Where earl Eadwin and earl Morkere, his brother, fought against them, but the Norwegians had the victory. Then king Harold was informed how the fight had gone – it took place on the vigil of St Matthew’s day [20 September].

[62] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.

Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York, where earl Morcar and earl Edwin fought against them, and the Norwegian king gained the victory.

[63] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.

Earl Eadwin and earl Morkere had gathered as great a force as they could from their earldom, and fought that host and made great slaughter of them; but a great number of the English were either slain or drowned or driven in flight, and the Norwegians had possession of the place of slaughter.

[64] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.

After the battle king Harold of Norway and earl Tostig entered York with as great a force as seemed to them necessary and received hostages from the borough, besides assistance in the way of provisions, and so retired thence to their ships. They offered to conclude an abiding peace with the citizens provided that they all marched southwards with them to conquer this realm.

[65] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.

Then meanwhile came Harold, the king of the English, with all his levies on the Sunday to Tadcaster and there drew up his household troops in battle order; and on the Monday he marched through York.

[66] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.

When king Harold was informed what had happened and come to pass, he came with a great host of Englishmen, and met him at Stamford Bridge, and slew him and earl Tostig and courageously defeated all that host.

[67]  Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

Then Harold our king came unexpectedly upon the Norwegians, and met them beyond York at Stamford Bridge with a great host of Englishmen, and that day a very stubborn battle was fought by both sides. They were slain Harold the Fairhaired [recte Hardrada] and earl Tostig, and the remaining Norwegians were put to flight, while the English piercely assailed their rear until some of them reached their ships: some were drowned, others burnt to death, and thus perished in various ways so that there were few survivors, and the English had possession of the place of slaughter.

[68] Ian W. Walker, "Chapter Ten: Harald of Norway," in Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King, (Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1997), 161.

[69] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.  

Harold, king of Norway, and earl Tostig and their force had gone from their ships beyond York to Stamford Bridge, for it had been expressly promised them that hostages would be brought to meet them there from the whole of the shire. Then Harold, king of the English, came upon them unawares beyond the bridge. They joined battle and fierce fighting went on until late in the day; and there Harold, king of Norway, was slain and earl Tostig and countless numbers of men with them, both English and Norwegians.

[70] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

The Norwegians fled from the English, but there was one Norwegian who stood firm against the English forces, so that they could not cross the bridge nor clinch victory. An Englishman shot with an arrow but to no avail, and another went under the bridge and stabbed him through under the coat of mail. Then Harold, king of English, crossed the bridge and his levies went forward with him; and there made great slaughter of both Norwegians and Flemings.

[71] Walker, “Chapter 10,” 162-3.

[72] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 283.

[73] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 39.

And Harold let the king’s son, who was called Mundus [the ‘Elegant’], return to Norway with all the ships.

[74] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

The king then gave quarter to Olaf, the son of the king of the Norwegians, to their bishop, to the jarl of Orkney, and to all those who were left aboard the ships. They then went inland to our king, and swore oaths that they would ever maintain peace and friendship with this land; and the king let them sail home with twenty-four ships.

[75] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

These two pitched battles were fought within five days.

[76] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vii.

[77] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxxiv.

[78] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  lxviii.

[79] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 39.

They joined battle and fierce fighting went on until late in the day; and there Harold, king of Norway, was slain and earl Tostig and countless numbers of men with them, both English and Norwegians.

[80] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 36.

Although in the end it was all to no purpose (also quoted above).

[81] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,  lxxviii.

[82] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ix, liv.

[83] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York, where earl Eadwin and earl Morkere, his brother, fought against them, but the Norwegians had the victory. 

[84] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.

Some of them reached their ships: some were drowned, others burnt to death, and thus perished in various ways so that there were few survivors, and the English had possession of the place of slaughter.

[85] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.

Together they sailed into the Humber until they came to York, where earl Morcar and earl Edwin fought against them, and the Norwegian king gained the victory.

[86] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.

He came with a great host of Englishmen, and met him at Stamford Bridge, and slew him and earl Tostig and courageously defeated all that host

Alfred the Little: Medievalism, politics and the poet laureate

Megan Arnott

November 27, 2012

ENGL 6400: The Nature of Poetry

Dr. Daneen Wardrop

I don’t wish to be harsh,

But two Anglo-Saxon lovers, in a damp,

‘low-lying marsh,’

Hardly talked such twiddle-twaddle, when he had

to fight the Dane,

As a couple of canoodlers in a Cockney Lovers’

Lane.

…

There be ‘Patriots’ and ‘poets,’ my dear

ALFRED, wits and cits,

Who the muzzle and strait-jacket seem, at seasons,

to require.

(“Alfred to Alfred,” published anonymously in Punch, February 1896)

 

On January the 11^th, 1896 the magazine Punch published a cartoon of poet laureate Alfred Austin wearing the classic poet’s garb, complete with sandals and laurels, reaching for a lyre, which is just out of reach. The caption reads:

Alfred the Little. Sir Edw-n Arn-ld (bitterly) “Fortunatus! Ha Ha!” Sir L-w-s M-rr-s (moodily): “England’s Darling? He! He!” “The Queen has been pleased to appoint Alfred Austin, Esq. to be Poet Laureate to Her Majesty” – Daily Papers, January 1, 1896. (Alfred the Little, 1896)

There are several reasons why the name Alfred the Little was a biting criticism of the new poet laureate, the most obvious being that he was very short, barely five feet tall. (Cromwell 203). But his size wouldn’t have drawn the attention of critics like the editors of punch, save that it didn’t match the grandeur of Austin’s ego. Norton Cromwell, who wrote the biography of Austin in the middle of the twentieth century, stated that Austin was a target because his “inimitable egotism, unrelieved by any trace of humor, sent the nation into guffaws of laughter.” (Cromwell 198) In addition, publications like Punch didn’t believe that Austin had anything to be egotistical about.  Upon his death, the Washington Post, in Austin’s obituary, quoted a critical review of Austin’s work: “if he has written nothing that greatly thrills the reader, he has written many verses over which one would not willingly fall asleep.” (Washington Post) One of the major reasons his work attracted so much critical attention was because he followed Alfred Tennyson as poet laureate, which also contributed to the aptness of the nickname Alfred the Little. Upon his appointment to the position in January of 1896 the Critic, the British literary magazine, wrote in its ‘Notes’ section that “Mr. Austin has been a prolific writer, but at sixty he has made but little reputation as a poet. One thing, however, he has in common with his predecessor: his Christian name. Tennyson has occasionally been called Alfred the Great. He will be called so oftener hereafter.’” (Cromwell 156)

But the true irony of the nickname came from his publication, in the same year, of England’s Darling, a drama of Alfred the Great, the King of Wessex who ruled from 871-899, written in verse. (BBC British History) It was one of the most widely criticized of Austin’s works. (Cromwell 232) Not only did he publish it in the same year that he would subject himself to the most scrutiny, but it is acknowledged to make poor use of archaic language, lack any semblance of realism, and say nothing except generally acknowledged facts about Alfred. (Cromwell 234). No doubt Austin wrote it keeping in mind Tennyson’s Harold from 1876 or Becket from 1884. (Cromwell 254) England’s Darling was a sappy, nationalistic title for a mediocre play. In addition the commonality between the name of the poet and the Anglo-Saxon king gave critics like the editors of Punch a lot of fuel for their satires, including the cartoon and the satirical poem that appears above entitled Alfred to Alfred, which speaks with the voice of King Alfred the Great to cut down the work of Alfred the Little. (Cromwell 232)

The nickname also solidified Alfred’s association with the medieval, a permanent juxtaposition with the Anglo-Saxon king who was the subject of Austin’s verse. England’s Darling is an example of Alfred Austin’s use of medievalism. In the drama Austin uses a medieval setting and a medieval hero to communicate with his Victorian audience. The selection of the medieval is not chosen for the possibility of lavish sets or for period costumes. Instead it is chosen because of what the subject matter means to the audience and because of its utility as a tool Austin can use to showcase his political stances to the public. (Simmons, Popular Medievalisms in Romantic Era Britain 81) Through the medievalism in his poetry, Alfred Austin communicates his politics. He also uses medievalism to make political statements to other poets about the nature of good poetry. Finally, through the medievalism in his poems Alfred Austin communicates what he feels the poet laureate, as a political position, ought to communicate to an eager, and sometimes not so eager, public. The medieval, in Austin’s poems, is a manifestation of the political position of the poet laureate.

Politics and the Poet Laureate

Clearly the position of poet laureate is a political one, but it was particularly so during Alfred Austin’s tenure. William Morris, after Austin’s appointment said of the position: “the poet laureateship is a court office that has been accidentally held by two great poets – Dryden and Tennyson … It is the queen’s right to choose whom she likes; nobody cares very much whom she selects.” (Washington Post) Having a poet laureate is a political move. Some of the possible political functions of the position include associating the state with culture and tradition and providing the state with a source of propaganda. The appointment of Alfred Austin was definitely political, particularly after Tennyson’s death. Many people, poets and politicians alike, felt that Tennyson so aptly filled the role that perhaps the title should be retired. Answering a questionnaire in the Idler as to who should be laureate, Grant Allen replied “I have great difficulty in answering the question, because I don’t think we ought to have a laureate at all.” George Manville Fenn answered the same questionnaire “Better that the old office should die with the nineteenth century.” (Cromwell 139-140) Yet there was also sentiment that a candidate should be found to replace Tennyson, to commemorate important events and decisions with poetry.  (Cromwell 140) The government found a willing supporter in Alfred Austin.

In 1883 Alfred Austin was one of two founders of the Conservative paper, The National Review. (Cromwell 18) Austin’s appointment was considered by his contemporaries to be a political appointment because of his existing relationship with Conservative Prime Minister Lord Salisbury and with the Tory party.  (Alfred Austin) Austin also had developed a relationship with Queen Victoria. In 1887, the year of her first jubilee, Austin dedicated his work Prince Lucifer to her. In his autobiography Austin says that Victoria spoke to him at a party, thanking him for his “beautiful poem.” (Austin, The Autobiography of Alfred Auston Poet Laureate: 1835-1910 II: 208) In later years, when asked why he appointed Austin to the position of poet laureate, Lord Salisbury is reported to have replied “For the best possible reason, because he wanted it.” (Cromwell 157) But Austin’s political friends couldn’t keep back the criticism and it was piled on high and deep. Cromwell notes “to the Queen, for instance, he addressed only eight laureate poems, and yet to read the criticism of the period, one would gather that he wrote them almost weekly during her reign.” (Cromwell 266)

In part the criticism Austin suffered was undeserved – a matter of unfortunate timing and serious ambition. However, Austin’s outward political stance, in addition to the mediocrity of the poetry, became the basis of the attacks, which seemed deserved because of how seriously he seemed to take the role of poet laureate. Stuart P. Sherman, writing for The Nation said of Austin that he was “the last minstrel of Toryism. As he writes, he feels himself soothed, sustained, and magnified by the support of the landed gentlemen of England. He is not, he fancies, dipping his pen into the shallow well of egotism, but into the inexhaustible springs of English sentiment.” (Alfred Austin) As poet laureate Austin felt he represented the nation, though his critics would have considered that a poor representation.

Of Austin’s politics, Cromwell states that “beginning as a Liberal (he was a radical for a short while), he soon became a militant Tory of the old school and defended the policies and acts of his party with the same consistency with which he energetically condemned those of his opponents, whom he detested with a blind mistrust born of fear of change and of popular rule.” (Cromwell 12) Austin ran twice for the Tory party and was defeated both times. (Austin, The Autobiography of Alfred Auston Poet Laureate: 1835-1910 I:188) However, as poet laureate Austin found his true political calling. Throughout his career as laureate, from 1896 until his death in 1913, Austin tried to “guide the thinking of the nation into the paths that make it great: [the poet laureate] must, then, instill the spirit of patriotism into each heart.” (Cromwell 188) In the Quarterly Review in January, 1880 Austin stated that:

there never must come a time when the rulers of this country think it within the province of their duty, even to contemplate as a possibility the smallest diminution of the territories of the British Empire, or to shrink from their forcible extension, if the only choice lies between advance and retreat. They should perpetually bear in mind that to the English race, as to the Roman, an imperial commission has been given. (Cromwell 189)

To keep England on this course the poet laureate also must remind people about their heritage, and fight the “lassitude” that Austin felt was part of his age (Cromwell 190, 192).

In 1870 Austin wrote in The Poetry of the Period, a critique of contemporary literary works, that “nobody will deny that ours is a particularly vainglorious age; and, being such, it would be painful to confess that it has not produced a first-rate specimen of what it has hitherto been the universal creed to believe the highest mental type of humanity – viz. a really great poet.“ (Austin, The Poetry of the Period 37) Austin, trying to correct the lassitude of his age, went after contemporary poets, though mostly before he was appointed to the position of poet laureate. However, with these kind of inflammatory statements Austin placed himself forever in the realm of literary politics, a realm that was clearly unkind to him. In works of poetry theory Austin used Byron as an example of good poetry. In his work, The Vindication of Lord Byron Austin states “literary criticism has long been dead amongst us, and the current opinions of fashionable conventionalists have fondly attached themselves to the more feminine and academical verse of their own smaller day.” (Austin, A Vindication of Lord Byron 11-12) According to Austin, Byron alone is the equal of Shakespeare. Austin’s devotion, and the fact that his poetry fell far short of Byron’s, in the end was another source of pleasure for his contemporary detractors.

 The Poetry of the Period was filled with inflammatory essays about contemporary poets, such as Tennyson, the then poet laureate. Austin argued that he failed to write a magnum opus or give “frequent or even occasional utterance to really great poetical thoughts, or to poetical images really sublime.” (Austin, The Poetry of the Period 12) In the second essay he goes after Robert Browning harshly. In response Browning dubbed Austin the “Banjo-Byron that twangs the strum-strum there.” (Cromwell 24) ‘Banjo-Byron’ was another nick-name that stuck. (Cromwell vii, 107) In the fourth essay in the collection he went after Matthew Arnold and William Morris, ironically for seeking escape in the past. Austin critiqued Arnold for escaping to the classical period and Morris for escaping to the Viking period. (Cromwell 124) Austin says of Morris “he finds no life in anything living, in anything round and about him; and he feels no impulse to strive vainly to vitalize them.” (Austin, The Poetry of the Period 145) As poet laureate Austin does not attempt to engage in what Cromwell calls ‘frontal assaults’ on poets. (Cromwell 130) Instead he tries to become the embodiment of what he claims is good poetry, never completely changing his theoretical standpoint he expressed in his earlier essays despite the passage of years. His poetry does, however, become more political as the poet aged and it is not until after he is made poet laureate that the medieval becomes a staple subject of his poetry.

In Austin’s poetry there is a conflation between his political views and his stance on what makes a good poem. Much of his criticism of other poets is about how what they write is too feminine. (Cromwell 133) This is one of his major criticisms of Tennyson. In his Autobiography Austin tells a story of playing croquet and finding his friend quite agreed with him that “Tennyson’s muse was rather a feminine than a masculine one in tone and power.” (Austin, The Autobiography of Alfred Auston Poet Laureate: 1835-1910 I: 1-2) He both hung to the belief that poetic achievement was a “matter of spontaneous achievement” and that good poetry was crafted in a masculine way. (Cromwell 9) It is hard then to separate his poetical theory from his political anti-feminism. In his essay entitled “Female Suffrage, Society and State,” published in the Times on January 7, 1909, Austin asked “Will anyone deny that, in great emergencies, men are, as a rule and collectively, calmer and more submissive to sound judgment than women, whose virtues reside rather in another direction?’” (Cromwell 14) In light of the so-called ‘masculinity’ of his poetry, as tenuous a statement as the reader might consider that today, it makes sense that much of Austin’s poetry would contain grand statements of jingoism. Intense patriotism would be both a political stance, as well as a fulfillment of what Austin would consider to be good poetry. And the medieval would be a perfect subject matter.

The Medieval as an Expression of the Political

How can Austin criticize William Morris for escaping into a heroic Viking past, and then write a poem entitled Death of Harold Hardrada, about the king of Norway, or Viking, who battled Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge during the Norman Conquest? Clare Simmons, analyzing the use of the medieval in nineteenth century literature in her book Popular Medievalisms in Romantic Era Britain, says that “medievalism is persistently comparative, compelling some level of conscious contrast between the reader’s (or observer’s) present and the recreated medieval past” and “although it may generalize the Middle Ages, it particularizes the present, making the reader aware of the specific conditions of his or her historical moment.” (Simmons, Popular Medievalisms in Romantic Era Britain 12) Austin’s perspectives on poetry changed as he matured, became more jingoistic, so that may have allowed him to take on the medieval subject after dismissing it in other poets. Cromwell states that he changed because his conservatism grew, because he was satisfied with his temporal lot, but largely because he was driven by imperialist and patriotic zeal. (Cromwell 96) But also, even in his completely medievalist works, where the setting and subject are entirely medieval, he is referring to his own historical moment.

For instance, embedded within the poem Austin wrote as the poet laureate for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, Austin makes a comparison with Alfred the Great: “Thus with grave utterance and majestic mien/ She with her eighteen summers filled the Throne/Where Alfred sate: a girl, withal a Queen,/ Aloft, alone!” (XIV, 1-4) Alfred, the great Anglo-Saxon (read English) king, is a model that the Queen lives up to. Austin feels that this is a reference that will mean something in the present to his readers. In Alfred’s Song, a poem within England’s Darling, the poem flips back and forth between images of Alfred himself and then what may be Alfred’s vision: “And strong on his oars the sea-borne Saxon,/ And now the Norsemen/ Who hard with Alfred/ Wrestle for England./ But onward and forward,/ In far days fairer,/ I see this England/ Made one and mighty: Mighty and master/ Of men high-seated,/ Of free-necked labour,/ Lowland and upland,/And corn and cattle/…This is the England,/ In fair days forward,/ I see and sing of.” (26-47) In Austin’s poems the medieval is used as a lens through which the reader sees their own period, as well as Austin’s take on current events.

                Alfred Austin could choose from a wide range of British medieval history as a subject of his poetry. His choices reflect his political leanings. Austin had a preoccupation with Alfred, as is seen from his play England’s Darling, his comparison of Queen Victoria to King Alfred in the Diamond Jubilee poem and in another poem entitled The Spotless King, written in 1901 for the Millenary Celebrations at Winchester. (Lyra Historica 20) Austin also wrote poems about the Conquest, including Harold and Tostig and Death of Harold Hardrada. Overwhelmingly, Austin’s medieval subject matter is Anglo-Saxon. In the Victorian age Simmons has identified the establishment of a binary between Norman and Saxon, between invader and ‘English.’ This is a time when scholars called the language of the Anglo Saxons Old English, having called it Anglo-Saxon up to that point. (Simmons, Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth Century British Literature 184) Simmons, in her book Reversing the Conquest, states that the Victorian period was a time “when moral judgments and heroes and villains were seen to be a valid part of history.” (Simmons, Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth Century British Literature 12) She also states that “contrasts between individual characters and the sense of what constituted a Saxon or a Norman retained a flexibility dependent on both ideology and creativity.” (Simmons, Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth Century British Literature 12) From Austin’s perspective the ancestors of the English were the Anglo-Saxons. Cromwell suggests that “the word [ancestral] grows in importance in [Austin’s] vocabulary as the years come upon him.” (Cromwell 71) In Austin’s take on medieval history the Anglo-Saxons are privileged due to their inherently indigenous nature (as compared to other people within the history) and so are good stand-ins for all of England.

                This makes Austin’s medievalism a perfect outlet for his jingoism. Austin’s jingoism had more weight than it would have had he not been poet laureate. (Cromwell 196) However, he might not have been such a jingoist if he had not felt that the position of poet laureate called for it. Cromwell suggests that the association of imperialism and patriotism with the past was a natural one:

for one cannot understand the romantic, sentimental Victorian imperialism unless one keeps in mind that it did not become hysterically popular until people had made the association of the grand old aristocratic England – the England of tradition and legend – with imperialism. The whole movement is closely tied up with nostalgic patriotism, love of everything which time had demonstrated to be thoroughly British. (Cromwell 178)

As we have already seen Austin associated Queen Victoria with King Alfred. He made her the embodiment of English monarchy by showing her connection to the Saxons and allowing her to stand in for England. (Simmons, Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth Century British Literature 177)

                As the embodiment of England, Alfred the Saxon king can do no wrong. In The Spotless King Alfred is just that, spotless: “Some lights there be within the Heavenly Spheres/ Yet unrevealed, the interspace so vast: / So through the distance of a thousand years/ Alfred’s full radiance shines on us at last.” (1-4). In addition to representing the country as the nation ‘the spotless king teaches us to love our country: “Of valour, virtue, letters, learning, law,/ Pattern and prince, His name will now abide,/ Long as of conscience Rulers live in awe, / And love of country is their only pride.” (9-12). Austin used medievalism to exhort the people of England to act and to love their country. He used the medieval as an example of England’s glorious past and rich heritage but also as an example that should be followed.

The medieval poems are a sub-genre of Austin’s martial poems, implying courage and honour and traditional masculine values. In Austin’s construction of a medieval image he uses exclusively martial ones. Almost all of his medievalist poems include battle scenes, like in Harold and Tostig: “FORTH from/ England’s ranks a score of horsemen/ Ride, their chargers mailed, and mailed their riders./ Near the Northmen’s steel array up-reining.” (1-3) Many images Austin uses are such formulaic descriptions of battle that it could be implying medieval warfare, though it is impossible to prove that that was the intention of the poet or the understanding of the reader. But his martial images were used throughout his poetic career. In 1871 Austin wrote The Golden Age, a satire, including poetic verse such as: “When gallant Denmark, now the spoiler’s prey,/ Flashed her bright blade, and faced the unequal fray,/ And all abandoned both by men and gods,/ Fell, faint with wounds, before accursed odds, - / Where, where was England’s vindicating sword,/ Her promised arm, to stop the invading horde; / Bid the rude German drop his half-clutched spoil,/ And scare the robber from ancestral soil?” (Cromwell 70). The use of words like ‘ancestral’, which Cromwell said was Austin’s ‘shibboleth,’ or ‘invading horde’ suggest medieval themes, especially in comparison with Austin’s other clearly medieval poems. He may have been influenced by the medieval, but this poetic description of the attack on Denmark by Prussia and Austria, again, may not have been understood that way by author or audience (Cromwell 70)

Likewise, Austin re-uses his militaristic metaphors throughout his career. Images that represent England and ‘Britannia,’ many of which have roots in the Middle Ages, are often repeated. The overuse of the same imagery is one of the many criticisms of Austin’s poetry; he repeats “the British lion ‘crisping his mane’: the rolling ramparts; the bastion of the brine; the fawning foam; England smiling in victory, hand on undrawn sword; the girding of loins, etc.” (Cromwell 195) If we take the sword as an example, this is an image that is repeated in the volume Songs of England at least fourteen times in twenty-four poems. Austin personally presented Songs of England to soldiers headed to the Boer War. (Cromwell 196) The poems within the volume all celebrate England and martial prowess. And the image of the sword is everywhere, for instance in Who Would Not Die for England he uses the image “Let me go,/ Go where they go, Her world-researching race,/ That slumber pillow on the half-drawn sword,” (22-24). In Why England is Conservative the image is “what though no more we brandish sword and shield, reason’s keen blade is ready at our side.” (II, 5-6). In his later poems Austin embraces the blatantly medieval, but throughout his career the military imagery was a stand-in for England’s militaristic might.

The martial/medieval poems are guaranteed to be masculine poetry, by what we can perceive as Austin’s standards. The medieval, as part of the martial, is then an excellent tool that Austin can use to demonstrate both his anti-feminism and his anti-feminist poetry. Austin insisted that women’s influence on art “has been unmitigatedly mischievous.” (Austin, The Poetry of the Period 79-94) In the medieval poems women have no role, except in Death of Harold Hardrada where he says “Long his Queen shall watching look to westward,/ Look across the long waves for his coming.” (5-6)

Women have no role, and neither does anyone with status less than that of an earl. The medieval world of Austin’s poetry is an aristocratic one. Alfred, Harold Hardrada and Harold Godwinson are all kings and Tostig is an earl. Throughout Austin’s poetry he maintains a social hierarchy: “the disaffected, the iconoclasts, the radicals in his books may be hero or villain; but those who submit to their destiny and remain content in their station, high or low, are happy, harmonious, and socially constructive.” (Cromwell 160) Medieval imagery in Victorian England was widely used to evoke people’s ancient rites and to confirm “present-day privilege.” (Simmons, Popular Medievalisms in Romantic Era Britain 194) This is another reason why the medieval was an ideal choice of subject matter for Austin who actively and intentionally expressed his political views through his poetry.

As an example of Austin’s medievalism examine the following poem:

Death of Harold Hardrada

Like the tall mast snapped before the storm-wind

Falls he, like the pine cleft by the woodman.

Never more the strong shall fall before him,

While behind him pours the flood of battle.

Long his Queen shall watching look to westward,

Look across the long waves for his coming.

Round him fight and fall the heaped-up corpse-ring,

Scorning Harold’s proffered peace and mercy.

Falls fierce Tostig, grimly as the bear falls,

Fell, at bay, amid the shouting huntsmen.

Falls at last the beacon of the war-field;

The Land-waster sinks, the Raven-Standard.

‘Plight your troth, no more your ocean riders,

Viking-filled, shall come with fire and slaughter.

So bear hence your kingly dead, O Olaf,

In your long ships, home, O heroes, bear him.

And with holy rites, in far-off Norway,

Tomb him, peaceful after all his battles.

Forth to seawards sweep the Northmen’s galleys,

Bearing home the restful son of Sigurd.

So fell Harold, last of all the Vikings,

Scald, by scalds sung, Harold of the fair hair.

(June 20 1897)

It is a ‘masculine’ poem in the sense that it discusses traditionally masculine subject matter. Different from the other poems, the setting is medieval, but the protagonist is not English. Perhaps that is why he has to die, and does so, as a noble antagonist.  The episode described, the Battle of Stamford Bridge, takes place on English soil, and was a great success for the Saxon king, Harold. The Battle of Hastings, a disastrous Saxon loss, directly followed the Battle of Stamford Bridge and resulted in the Conquest, making that last victory at Stamford Bridge an even more important victory. Even though it is about the noble death of a warrior (a masculine endeavor), the poem is still about Saxon victory and a great early English ruler.

               

This paper developed out of a larger project - tracing the characterizations of Harold Hardrada through literature. In the above poem Hardrada is a sympathetic political and military other, a centre point that England and the English can itself focus around. Likewise, Alfred Austin conceived of the poet laureate as a centre point, one that can galvanize the public into action or influence their opinion. Or maybe you could, if you had a better reputation as a poet. When speaking at the opening of a new school of science and art Austin told the students: “If any student believed himself to be an artist in the true sense of the word, the incredulity of others should not shake his faith or in the faintest degree discourage him; for they too would believe when the student had proved himself to be one.” (Cromwell 208) It is good that Austin didn’t let the medievalism-tinged epithet ‘Alfred the Little’ get to him. Austin’s biographer said of him that “had he written fewer and less hysterical poems his reputation would today be far higher than it is.” (Cromwell 194) However, write them he did, and in them he poured everything that he thought poetry should be. Throughout his career, but especially as the poet laureate, Austin used the medieval to express his political views about the country and about poetry. In the end, what Austin was embroiled in was a political mess

 

Bibliography

"Alfred Austin." 2012. All Poetry. Web. 15 November 2012. .

"Alfred Austin is Dead." The Washington Post 3 June 1913. Periodical.

"Alfred the Little." Punch 11 January 1896: 14. Periodical.

"Alfred to Alfred (A Very Up-to-Date Song from the Shades)." Punch February 1896: 65. Periodical.

Austin, Alfred. A Vindication of Lord Byron. London: Chapman and Hall, 1869. Print.

—. "Death of Harold Hardrada." Lyra Historica: Poems of British History A.D 61-1910. Ed. M.E. Windsor and J. Turral. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. 22-23.

—. "Harold and Tostig." Lyra Historica: Poems of British History A.D. 61-1910. Ed. M.E. Windsor and J. Turral. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. 21-22. Print.

—. Songs of England. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. , 1900. Print.

—. The Autobiography of Alfred Auston Poet Laureate: 1835-1910. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. , 1911. Print.

—. The Poetry of the Period. London: Richard Bentley, 1870. Print.

—. "The Spotless King." Lyra Historica: Poems of British History A.D. 61-1910. Ed. M.E. Windson and J Turral. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. 20. Print.

BBC. "Alfred the Great." 2012. BBC British History. Web. 15 November 2012. .

Cromwell, Norton B. Alfred Austin Victorian. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1955. Print.

Simmons, Clare. Popular Medievalisms in Romantic Era Britain. New York: Palgrave and Macmillan, 2011. Print.

—. Reversing the Conquest: History and Myth in Nineteenth Century British Literature. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press, 1990. 1990.

Grad School, a tri-country experience

I am hoping it will be a job market advantage, that when I am looking for academic jobs near the end of my PhD, that I have gone to grad school in three different English speaking countries. 

When you travel as part of the academic crowd it is really easy to avoid culture shock because you are hanging out with the same kinds of people in each situation. They are always going to be people who enjoy talking about school, and your subject matter, but even on a deeper level the conversation is almost always interesting to you because you are all on the same page. The lack of culture shock could also have a lot to do with the fact that I don't really go anywhere particularly off the grid, and Canada has always been a mix of Britain and the United States, so some things are going to be familiar no matter what side of the pond you are on. 

Nottingham

My first MA was at the University of Nottingham. Things to know, England is HARSH when it comes to the grading. I mean, for one I had professors that pushed me, so they tended to mark what seemed a little harsh but was fair enough to push me to be better. But the whole system is harsh. 80% is the highest you could ever possibly go, and getting 80% would mean you get 100%, change nothing, you are a generally acknowledged genius. So 70% and up is a 'first' which is kind of like an A, but British-er. So 65% is a 2:1 standing, which is kind of like a B. If I had got marks that looked like that in undergrad in Canada, grad school wouldn't even have been one of the possible options, but it is actually not bad in England. But I am sure the harsh looking marks didn't help me at all applying to grad schools in North America. 

Western Michigan University

My most recent degree is my PhD from Western Michigan University. An A, which most grad students receive, is a 93%. 93%!!! To me the marks look ridiculously inflated. If I had done a stint at an American university (maybe not any university, but it seems like this is standard) I would probably have no trouble getting into any school I wanted in either Canada, or England, not because my work is that much better, but because the scale is so much friendlier looking. Though at WMU they only put letter grades on your transcripts, not numbers, which seems a little bananas. Also, I always give myself away as Canadian (in many ways) but mostly by calling them marks, and saying that I am marking, rather than giving grades, or grading, which I do sometimes say (since Canadians use both words). 

McIntosh Gallery University of Western Ontario

As in so many things, Canada is halfway between England and the United States. My second MA at the University of Western Ontario, people said basically as a grad student your mark falls somewhere between 78-82%. This is the grading scheme I was used to in undergrad as well. 80 and above is an A. You can get over 90%, but you would have to be pretty genius, again. Therefore, the marks don't LOOK as harsh as England's, nor as generous as the United States. They are exactly in the middle. 

Other differences, England had very few funding opportunities. North America, funding is expected, and it will also give you experience teaching to get that funding. Canada I was a TA in a class, leading my own tutorials, in a subject I had studied, with 40 students work to mark. United States, I am leading my own class, in a subject I am familiar with in a rather sideways way (you have to write I guess to study history) with only 22 students work to grade. There is a distinction between dissertation and thesis in England and USA, the words meaning slightly different projects, but not so much in Canada. 

Always, you take three grad classes at a time, though in the USA the MAs do less and take more time to finish. Always you are working like a madman to get everything done around deadlines. Mostly, the experiences are similar. What ends up as rather different is how Canadian you are around your colleagues. I have never been more Canadian than when I am not in Canada, and never more so than in the United States, where I seem to like to remind people of why I am different, and keep forgetting that things are not quite the same as at home, because it seems so similar. 

Week 5: Skokloster, Visby and Medeltidens veckor - Living History in its many forms, a.k.a. the best week of my life

My final weekend in Sweden way surpassed the boundaries of what realistically can be called weekend, and involved so many of the things that I love best that I am not sure that I have ever had a better time. 

On Thursday the film class that I was taking took a walking tour of Stockholm. The rationale was that first of all, if nothing else it is nice to walk around the city with people who are familiar with it, like the film teacher was. The second rationale was that from there we could check out some of the places where they filmed The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the American and European versions, since many places were used for both. This is a picture of the place that Liz Salander lives.Stockholm is just a great city.

On Friday I was once again promised that I would finally see one of the places that the Swedes had got to this summer. The International Summer Session organized a group tour to Dalarna, home of the Dalarna horse which looms in tourist legend as the Swedish souvenir. First stop was Carl Larsson's house, where I took one photo inside before the tour guide remembered to tell us that we shouldn't do that. The tour guide was actually a direct descendant of artist Carl Larsson himself, so there was the added dimension added to the tour. 

From there we went to Falun, a particularly old copper mine, that they have dated now to about the 8th century. Legend has it that it was discovered by a farmer's goat, who had ran away and returned to the farm with red stains on his horns, leading the farmer to the mine. One of the most interesting parts was the royal family's signatures embossed with gold on the wall of the mine, seems to me there could be a great debate there. We finished the day in Tallberg, a picturesque town, paradise for rv-ers, and where I got many of the souvenirs that I brought home for my family. All three places were in Dalarna, but they were three of the most different places that I visited on my trip. We capped the day with waffles at the souvenir shop on the hill. 

Saturday Kristina, a fellow classmate from Lithuania, began a few proper weekend adventures, the weekend which I will never forget. We started Saturday with the Odyssey of the three buses and two hours that it takes to get to Skokloster from Uppsala. There is a boat ride that goes right there, which I was told is a lovely boat ride, but they were booked for a wedding. Instead we took a series of buses, and we agreed that while most of Sweden was beautiful, the town of  Bålsta does not fairly represent Swedish beauty. But Skokloster was so beautiful and well worth it. The castle was built by Carl Gustaf Wrangel in the seventeenth century and it houses the oldest known chandelier in the world. The Historical interpreters are all in historical costume and the guided tour take you through one of the most impressive 17th, 18th century armouries I've ever seen, including the world's oldest surviving hammock and kayak. On the grounds I found what may have been my favourite runestone that I saw in Sweden (and I saw quite a few) with this fantastic picture of a mounted man. If you are in Uppsala this is a highlight, and if you have a car, it is not that far away. 

I decided to skip the film class's tour of the studios in Stockholm, and I was a little bummed about that, but only because of my desire to try and do absolutely everything. In fact, the reason why I decided to skip was one of the best things I have done, because on Sunday  Kristina and I took a short flight with Norwegian Air from Arlanda airport to Visby. Visby is a Unesco World Heritage site, because it is a hanseatic city with one of the best preserved medieval city walls. And in August every year it is a Mecca for medievalists when it hosts Medeltidens veckan, Middle Ages week. YOU SHOULD GO, IT IS AWESOME. 

When we arrived we wandered around the town until 6:00, when we took the bus to the Brukshotellet in Roma to check into the hotel and get something to eat. Roma is about twenty minutes outside of Visby, and this is a definite possibility if you are trying to find some reasonable accommodation during Middle Ages week. The drawback is that you really have to be on top of the bus schedule, because you don't want to get stuck in Visby, because there really won't be anywhere the stay. In Roma, there is one restaurant where you can get dinner, which is right by the Snus and Whiskey factory. This is the only place that I was in Sweden where they actually didn't speak English, and we were forced to practice Swedish. Fantastic! 

On Monday we took the bus to Visby and went to Gotland's museum first thing in the morning. In the hall with the runestones, there was one person dressed in Viking garb and was telling stories to a group of gathered children. My Swedish wasn't quite good enough to identify the tale. There is a fabulous collection in the museum. I probably rushed Kristina a little quickly through the science center section. After that we took a two hour walking tour in Swedish with Monkus Carolus. He took us into one of the tours along the city wall, and into the cellar of an excavated medieval house. And it was an exercise in Swedish comprehension. From there we visited the glassblowing shop in Mellangatan. They were in costume, and it was acknowledged that it was an old art, but what we were seeing was modern glass blowing, though still very cool. Then we visited briefly the Viking Age market where we saw sword swallowing, rocked out with the medieval entertainment and ate traditional foods. From there we went to an improv show in the ruins of St. Karin's Chuch in the Stor Torget. This was followed by a grand tournament in the evening. We supported the black and yellow knight, who was doing quite well, but didn't win the day, and then I bought a toffee apple. I also found out that candied apple is not something they have in Lithuania. We got a warm drink at one of the little coffee shops near the Stor Torget before we eventually caught a bus back to Roma. Best day ever!  

Tuesday we got up early to see the ruins of the old monastery (kloster) in Roma that have been converted into a Shakespearean festival stage. They were putting on an open air production of Hamlet, though with the number of rainy days Sweden had this summer, I bet they had a tough year. Then we took the bus to Visby, and went to the market, which we had only seen a little bit of, before all too soon taking the bus back to the airport and flying back to Uppsala. 

Visby and Gotland is a must for any medievally minded tourists bent on Sweden. The Viking Age and the High Middle Ages have such an interesting and unique history here, including a built history that is all too visible. And Middle Ages week adds such an interesting, campy and so highly enjoyable layer that I haven't seen anything like it.