SPURKLAND. How Christian Were the Norwegian in the High Middle Ages.. the Runic Evidence

How Christian Were the Norwegians in theHigh Middle Ages? The Runic Evidence

TERJE SPURKLAND

Assumed Christendom?

In the second decade of the twentieth century, there were two doctoral dis-putations at the University of Oslo with an aftermath that came to dominatethe academic debate about the mentality of medieval Norway for a longtime. The common topic of these dissertations was the religious life of Nor-1way in the Middle Ages. The main question was: Were the Norwegians, gen-2erally speaking, really Christian in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries? Twoanswers were given: one affirmative and one negative. Edvard Bull argued thatChristian religion and morality did not penetrate the soul and mind of the Nor-wegians; they were just like the Russian nobility at the time of Peter the Great,in that as soon as you scratched them on the arm, the Tartar appeared. Frederik3Paasche took the opposite view; the Norse Christianity reflected an actualchange of religion, a real longing for Christ and His succession.4

In the 1980s, there was a historiographical discussion between the scholarsJohn van Engen and Jean-Claude Schmitt about how to understand the predom-inant mentalities of the Christian Middle Ages. The general drift of this dis-5

E. BULL, Folk og kirke i middelalderen: Studier til Norges historie (Kristiania and Kben-1havn, 1912); F. PAASCHE, Kristendom og kvad: En studie i norrn middelalder (Kristiania, 1914).

In this context and in the following the term the (High) Middle Ages refers to the period21150-1350.

BULL, Folk og kirke i middelalderen, p. 12.3PAASCHE, Kristendom og kvad, p. 2. 4J. VAN ENGEN, The Christian Middle Ages as an historiographical problem, The5

184 TERJE SPURKLAND

cussion was how to understand and how to uncover or reveal the mentality ofthe Middle Ages in Western Europe. Schmitt contested vigorously what wascommonly called the legend of the Christian Middle Ages, suggesting thatwhat we are dealing with is a minuscule clerical elite while the mass of medi-eval people lived in a folklore culture best likened to that observed by anthro-pologists in Third World countries. Van Engen rejected a conception of theMiddle Ages as two distinct cultures: one clerical and bookish, the other popu-lar, oral and customary. He admitted that it was undeniable that the great ma-jority of the common people were cut off from direct access to the writtennorms of a Christian culture. The real question was the degree to which peo-ples rituals, art, literature and cosmology had nonetheless been shaped orinfluenced by these Christian norms that is to say, the degree to which Chris-tian culture had over time become the peoples oral culture.

It is evident that both the Bull / Paasche discussion and the van Engen /Schmitt controversy were focusing on more or less the same issue, albeit fromdifferent theoretical points of view: To what extent was common man in theMiddle Ages Christian, and how was this Christianity or lack of Christianitymanifested? In search of an answer to these questions, we have to draw a linebetween Christianisation and conversion. Some of the main characteristicscontrasting these two concepts that normally appear in the literature are basedon the assumption that conversion is connected to the level of the individualwhile Christianisation is linked to society. In an article from 2000, WilliamKilbride presents these characteristics in the following way.6

Christianisation is concerned withforms

Conversion is concerned with faith

Christianisation is a process of thelong dure

Conversion is a single, unique event

Christianisation is a social phenome-non

Conversion is a personal phenome-non

American Historical Review 91.3 (1986), pp. 519-552; J.-C. SCHMITT, Religion, folklore andsociety in the medieval West, in: Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and Readings, ed. L.K.LITTLE and B. ROSENWEIN (Malden, MA, 1986), pp. 376-387.

W.G. KILBRIDE, Why I feel cheated by the term Christianisation, Archaeological6Review from Cambridge 17.2 (2000), pp. 1-17, at pp. 2-3.

185How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

The targets of Christianisation are thestructures of social reproduction suchas the family, the state, local commu-nities, social practice

The target of conversion is the indi-vidual removed or independent ofhis / her social context

Christianisation is located in struc-tures of power and dependence

Conversion is independent of, or atleast insulated from, structures ofpower and dependence

Christianisation is constructed anthro-pologically

Conversion (if anything) is psycho-logically constructed, certainly notinformed by anthropology

The Bull / Paasche controversy went along these lines. The distinctionbetween Christianisation and conversion remained, however, only implicit inthe discussion; it was never explicitly drawn. Bull seems to acknowledge thatNorway was Christianised in the actual period; his doubts concerned the degreeof conversion among the common people. Stated in its extreme form, Bullsstandpoint would be something like: Christianisation, yes; conversion, no.Paasches view, on the other hand, was yes to both.

The Schmitt / van Engen discussion was a historiographical debate abouthow to uncover or reveal the mentality of the Middle Ages in Western Europe.Van Engen is a professor of medieval history at the University of Notre Dame,an independent Catholic university located in Notre Dame, Indiana, USA,while Schmitt, a former student of Jacques le Goff, is currently Director ofStudies at the cole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. It shouldbe evident that the disagreement between the two originated to a large extentin the different theoretical and methodological schools that each of them repre-sents. Van Engen is the traditionalist historian opposing a prominent memberof the Annales School. In this respect, we could say that Schmitt is the intellec-tual descendant of Bull while van Engen has taken the position of Paasche. Thearguments on both sides of the battlefield are much the same, although thetheoretical wrapping is different.

186 TERJE SPURKLAND

Kyrie Eleison on the Wharf

It should be clear that the two opposing parties to a very great extent basedtheir opinions on diverging types of evidence. Van Engen found support for hisview in the clerical and bookish written culture, just as Paasche loaded his gunwith devotional poetry like Geisli, Slarlj and Lilja. This Icelandic religious7poetry is cited in support of the situation in Norway. Schmitt, on the otherhand, just like Bull some seventy years before him, found evidence in popular,oral and customary culture. Van Engen did not reject the importance of popularculture, but in his view this culture was somehow amalgamated into Christianpractice, while Schmitt regarded popular culture as a manifestation of howChristian rituals to a large extent were secularised or at least stripped of theirsanctity.

In Norway we have a written source material that was only to a limitedextent accessible to Bull and Paasche, and seemingly completely unknown toSchmitt and van Engen. This is the great number of runic inscriptions from thelast part of the twelfth century to well into the fifteenth century. The majorityof these inscriptions are found in Bergen, on the wharf (Bryggen). In type theyvary from religious and secular texts in Latin to Old Norse poetry, commercialcorrespondence, writing exercises and indecipherable hocus-pocus, to everydaymessages and intimate communications, including pure obscenities. The in-scriptions are mainly carved on wooden sticks, some on utensils, a few onanimal bones, metal or stone. The Bryggen material amounts to approximately600 inscriptions. At the time of Bull and Paasche, only a handful of them wereknown. A substantial number of these inscriptions might be characterised asChristian. By Christian I mean that they in one way or another refer to orrelate to a Christian issue, such as prayers, invocations and other references tothe Christian faith. What may these inscriptions add to arguments for or againsta common medieval Christian mentality in the discussion referred to above?

Geisli: a poem about St Olaf, composed in Trondheim in 1152 / 1153. The poet focuses7on Olafs sanctity, comparing him with Christ. Geisli means beam, ray. Slarlj: The Poemof the Sun. It belongs to the ancient genre of wisdom literature and exhibits a mixture of pre-Christian and Christian religion. The poet is supposed to have been a cleric. The poem is knownto us from copies of a lost late medieval original. Lilja: a poem composed in the fourteenthcentury in honour of the Virgin Mary; hence the title Lilja (Lily) as a traditional appellation ofthe Virgin.

187How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

Fig. 1. Runic stick from Bryggen in Bergen, N 627.

And how should this material be regarded in view of the historiographicaldispute between Schmitt and van Engen, and to what extent may the runicmaterial serve as ammunition for and against the arguments put forward by thetwo?

As a start we can look at one runic stick from Bryggen (the wharf) in Ber-gen, N 627:8

kirilaiCuN:kriCTlaiCNkirialisun : kristalison

Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison.9

In this inscription from about 1250-1300 we meet a popular version ofKyrie Eleison, which is the first acclamation of the litany in the Latin mass,sung directly after the opening of the mass. The basic text, which is Greek,consists of Kyrie Eleison (three times), Christe Eleison (three times),Kyrie Eleison (three times) (Lord, have mercy ... Christ, have mercy ...Lord, have mercy). The phrase Kyrie Eleison was used in the Eastern andWestern litanies from at least the fourth and fifth centuries onwards. By thetenth century, the nine-fold shape was established. The congregation took partin the singing of this text, so these words should have been widely knownamong the public.

N + number indicates an inscription with a signum that has been published in M. OLSEN 8et al., Norges innskrifter med de yngre runer (NIyR), 6 vols. (Oslo, 1941-).

The version in bold is a transliteration of the runes; each bold letter represents the9corresponding runic character. The italic version is a normalisation of the runic text.

188 TERJE SPURKLAND

The runic text is quite clear. It follows traditional runic orthography andthere are no spaces between words; there is, however, interpunction betweenthe two sentences. The last vowel in Kyrie and the first vowel in Eleison iscarved only once, and the same holds true for Christe Eleison. This vowel is,however, not rendered with an e-rune but an a-rune; in the ear of the carverthis vowel may have sounded like /a/. Why he / she has spelled -son differentlyin the two instances of Eleison is more difficult to say. He might have been indoubt as to how to render this vowel; he vacillated between and andwrote both, to be sure. There is every reason to believe that the spelling reflectsthe way this prayer sounded in the ears of the carver, and that is the reason hespelled Kyrie with and not . If this inscription was carved by a com-mon citizen of thirteenth-century Bergen, someone who had no learning inLatin, never mind Greek, he was a very good orthophonist. How illiteratecould he have been, actually?

The artefact must also be taken into consideration. It measures 126 milli-metres in length; the shape is not quite rectangular and it tapers towards oneend, which is formed like a neck. The reason for this could be that this end wasmeant to serve as a grip for a rope or a string. If that was the case, this runestick may have served as an amulet.

How could this artefact have served the argumentation of van Engen andSchmitt? In my opinion it favours both. We might regard this inscription as apopular expression of van Engens Christianitas or Christendom, a Christen-dom which included every person in medieval Europe except the Jews. Certainreligious observances were expected of all and certain elements of religiousculture were common to all, such as rudimentary knowledge of the ApostlesCreed and the Lords Prayer. And here we could include other parts of theliturgy that they heard and took part in every Sunday.

The whole inner dynamic was for the laity to acquire parts of the priestly sacredculture, whether it be abbreviated in books of hours for noble women, set prayersfor confraternities and tertiaries, chantry priests for guilds and patricians who couldafford them, windows and burial sites in churches, or even stolen hosts and oils touse as charms.10

The runic version of Kyrie Eleison from Bryggen in Bergen fits well intothis picture. Schmitt might, on the other hand, interpret this inscription as a

VAN ENGEN, The Christian Middle Ages as an historiographical problem, p. 547. 10

189How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

manifestation of his complex medieval culture, with the learned, literary,written, Latin and clerical culture opposed to the folkloric, an opposition bothin terms of their content and in the logic of how they functioned. If the Kyrie11Eleison artefact served as an amulet, this is a materialisation of his folkloricculture, which has absorbed popularised aspects of the literary culture.Schmitt might also say that the inscription is an expression of religion as par-ticipation in rituals. The difference in the pragmatic meaning of this inscriptionmight lie in the difference between religion as expression of belief and expres-sion of ritual.

Kyrie Eleison does not appear frequently in the runic material. There ap-pears to be only one other example, and that is a folded lead plate from the lstave church in Hallingdal (A 1), where Kyrie Eleison is part of a longer text incorrupted Latin.12

There is, however, one other inscription that is of particular interest in thisrespect. It was found in the area of Bryggen in Bergen as early as in 1912, N289. It is a wooden stick of a special shape, 17.5 centimetres in length andslightly tapering; the maximal breadth is 2.2 centimetres and the maximalthickness 1.2 centimetres. The text runs in three lines on the two broad sidesand on one narrow side:

A:[T]rTe:uml:frm:k uCTrk:mik:Til rg r:LuT[][t]rote(nn : um(alla : fram :( okustyrk : mik : til(allrag(ora : lut[a]

B:[Tr]Te:ieC:uckriCTu r:cerbae:erguk :mr 5hr5kmiT:? - [tr]ote(nn :ies :uskris(tur :saerbe :ergu(ok :ma(ar 5hyr 5 (aka(llmit :?

C: -ik:k biimer:miCkuNr :uir :ikk m r iu:m! ![r]ik : (okbiiamer : miskun(ar : ui(ar : ik(okm(ariu : m(1o!o[r]

SCHMITT, Religion, folklore and society in the medieval West, p. 381. 11A + number indicates preliminary registration in the Runic Archives in Oslo for runic12

inscriptions found outside Bergen and not yet published in NIyR.

190 TERJE SPURKLAND

Drttinn um alla fram! Ok styrk mik till allra gra hlut[a]. [Dr]otinn Jss Kristr, s er bi er gu ok mar, heyr kall mitt ik ok bija mr miskunnar vir ik ok Maru, mur.13

Lord above all! And you strengthen me for every good lot. Lord Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, hear my invocation you, and pray for mercy for me from you and Mary, (your) mother.

This inscription had been recently found when Bull was working on hisdissertation; he mentions it in passing in a concluding paragraph of his disser-tation. When Christ in this inscription is called upon both as human and God,says Bull, the orthodox phrasing is nothing but an empty formula, the contentof which is the magic effect one strives for by means of the Norse sacred char-acters, the runes. Apart from the fact that Bull apparently regarded the runes14as pre-Christian magic signs, it is also clear that he considered the invocationof Christ in this inscription as a manifestation of non-Christian magic. He15might have been supported by Schmitt in this contention.

If we take a closer look both at the artefact and the inscription, it mightrather be taken as evidence of a mentality that would corroborate Paaschesand van Engens view in this matter. Parts of the text have been interpreted asan old Norwegian vernacular rendering of the invocations from the Kyrie Elei-son part of the litany:

Transliterations like (al with a bow over two characters indicate a bind-rune, a ligature of13

two runes: l al > (al. A dot under the character indicates an uncertain reading. The readingof the inscription is updated on the basis of information from James E. Knirk, in a letter from09.03.2011.

The quote in the original: Nr i en nyfunden runeindskrift ifra Tyskerbryggen i Bergen14pkaldes: Jesus, som bde er Gud og mand, da er den ortodokse formulering bare tom form, ogindholdet er den magiske virkning, man har villet opn ved de norrne hellige tegn, runerne; seeBULL, Folk og kirke i middelalderen, p. 255.

In the days of Bull in the early twentieth century, it was a common view among scholars15that the primary function of runes was as magical signs, or signs which were mainly used inconnection with non-Christian cult and magic. This idea is no longer as common amongrunologists. Runes are letters whose main function is to denote sounds (phonemes) in thelanguage. Just as any alphabet, runes may also be used to express magic, like abracadabra. This,however, does not imply that the single character has any connection with magic or cult.

191How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

Kyrie EleisonChriste EleisonChriste audi nos

Drttinn um alla fram!Drttinn Jss Kristrheyr kall mitt.16

The invocation of Maria might be a vernacular resonance of Ave Maria:

Sancta Maria, mater Dei Maru mur

In contrast with the Latin text referred to above, the wording in this in-scription cannot be a reflection of something that the carver has picked up fromchurch services and learned by heart. In my opinion this is far from an emptyformula, as the meaning and the addressee of these words are highly inten-tional. It is a prayer in the vernacular, spelled out in the vernacular script, therunes. We are dealing with a vernacularisation of the Christian cult. On theouter edge of the rune stick there are twenty-three notches cut. The stick mighthave functioned as a tally stick for prayers, just like a rosary. How representa-tive this text is as a vernacular version of a prayer is impossible to say. Thereare not many vernacular inscriptions of this kind in the Norwegian runic mate-rial; when people addressed themselves to Christ and the Virgin Mary in aliturgical way, they did it in some sort of Latin. We have not found any paral-17lels to this text.

The carving is executed with dexterity. The carver is fairly consistentwhen it comes to spacing between words, marked with two or three dots, but hewrites words together when it comes to enclitic pronouns and the unstressed ok(and), as in: (okustyrk ok styrk (and you strengthen). He also excelsin using bind-runes, or ligatures. The most conspicuous trait in the inscriptionis the doubling of consonants, trote(nn, (alla. During the whole history of ru-nic script there seems to have been a convention that you never write a runetwice in succession. Today this principle would mean writing Good day asgoday, male elephant as malelephant, and Kyrie Eleison as kirialeisun, asmentioned above. Double consonants were seldomly spelled out. In most casesthis happens in medieval inscriptions. One is therefore inclined to say that atendency to mark double consonants in a runic inscription is an orthographic

NIyR 4 (1957), p. 51.16It was particularly prayers that were parts of the liturgy that were rendered in Latin in17

runic script. More personal prayers like God, help the soul of X were written in the vernacular.Already in the late Viking Age or early Middle Ages (late eleventh and twelfth century), runestones were erected with the prayer Gu hjalpi sl hans / hennar.

192 TERJE SPURKLAND

feature taken over from Latin-lettered literacy. The carver has a certain knowl-edge of reading and writing with Latin letters, and he is transferring some ofthe Latin writing spelling conventions to his use of the vernacular script. Hispredilection for bind-runes may also be evidence of a literate influence, asbind-runes parallel ligatures in Latin writing.

What we have here then are indications that this rune carver was literate inthe meaning of being able to read and write the Roman script. In this matter, hemight be at the same level as the carver of the Kyrie Eleison text. As thecontextualisation of the Latin text is less secure, we may be sure that the onewho was invoking the Christian deities in his own language knew what he wasdoing. This is no empty formula; this is a heartfelt prayer that not only mani-fests a Christian mentality but also real devotion. The inscription is not only amanifestation of Christianisation, but also of conversion. This adds evidencein support of Paasche and van Engen.

Pater Noster and Ave Maria

Far more popular than the Kyrie Eleison were the Pater Noster and AveMaria prayers, particularly Ave Maria. The number of Norwegian inscriptionscontaining (in most cases parts of) Pater Noster and Ave Maria varies fromscholar to scholar, depending on who is counting and the extent to which cor-rupted texts where the reading is not obvious are taken into consideration. Thenumber varies between twenty-two and thirty for Ave Maria and twelve andfifteen for Pater Noster. Agnieszka Ewa Sidselrud counts sixty-seven inscrip-18tions with Ave Maria and eighteen with Pater Noster. She casts her net ratherwide; she has included inscriptions that might possibly be interpreted as con-taining part of Ave Maria or Pater Noster (see footnote 18). However, only avery small number contains the whole prayer, with two instances of each.

For us, the inscriptions that seem to have been made in a secular contextare of particular interest. It goes without saying that inscriptions made in aclerical context must be characterised as Christian in every sense of the word.If we follow Sidselruds counting, there are thirty-one Ave Maria inscriptionsand eight Pater Noster inscriptions related to a secular context. This material

A.E. SIDSELRUD, Religion og magi i nordisk middelalder: Ave Maria og Pater18Noster med runer bnn eller magisk formula? (unpublished Masters thesis in Nordic Vikingand Medieval Culture, Oslo, 2000), p. 39.

193How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

Fig. 2. Tnsberg A 63, c. 1300-1375.

varies greatly when it comes to how much of the prayer is rendered; we haveeverything from just Ave or Maria, or Pater or pn, to more extendedparts of the prayers. As long as the text may be read as an invocation of Maryor a reference to the Lords Prayer, it is included in the material.

We have a very good example from Tnsberg (A 63):

uerigrsileNiNucTekubeNeisTTuiNulieribucaue maria gracia Plena dominus tekum benedicta tu in mulieribus

Here we find on the street in Tnsberg the first half of the prayer, the angelGabriels greetings to Mary according to Luke 1:28: Ave Maria, gratia plenaDominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus (Hail Mary, full of grace, theLord is with you: blessed are you among women). It is impossible to say whocarved this inscription. When we encounter these types of inscriptions inchurches, their presence can easily be ascribed to a cleric. And that could justas well be the case in Tnsberg. In any case, the carver must have been school-ed enough to know a little Latin; the Latin is faultless, and that would havebeen difficult if the carver had no contact with Latin other than hearing the

194 TERJE SPURKLAND

priest in the church. Even if everyone was expected to learn the Ave Maria andthe Pater Noster, saying the prayers and writing them down were two verydifferent matters with very different degrees of difficulty. However, it must benoted that this carver has no space between the words; the whole text is inscripta continua, and this can not be due to any Latin script exemplar afterwhich the carver may have transrunerated his text. From the tenth centuryonwards, scripta continua is not common in Latin texts. It might be the casethat the rune carver, even if he was literate in Latin, was aware of the differentspelling conventions in the Roman script and runic script when it came to spac-ing and not spacing between words, and wanted to be loyal to the scripta con-tinua tendency of runic script.

Another relevant issue is the artefact. It has the shape of a pointed peg. Itmight have served as an amulet to be carried on a string around the neck, withthe string fastened to the upper part of the peg. It might also have had a moretrivial function as a sort of utensil, as a bung for a barrel. But why on earthshould someone sanctify such a utensil with the angels greetings to Mary?

There is one example from Bryggen with the whole prayer, also with thesecond half that consists of Elisabeths greetings to Mary, according to Luke1:42: benedicta tu inter mulieres et benedictus fructus ventris tui (Blessedare you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb). This is N 617from c. 1400:

!u!mrigrsilNTmiNucTkm a!ue!mariagraciaplenatominustekom

bNTikTTu iNmuliribucabNTikTu cbenetikta(tuinmulieribusbenetik(tus

frukTucuNTricTuimN fruktusuentristuiamen

In this case the spelling is more adapted to how the Latin is supposed tohave been pronounced: et is spelled , reflecting the pronunciation of theLatin /e/ in this position and a fricative pronunciation of the Latin /t/ in un-stressed syllables. Latin tecum with o may also be a reflection of how the OldNorse ending -um was pronounced in the dialect of the carver.

195How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

Fig. 3. Bryggen in Bergen, N 617.

The artefact seems to be different from the pointed peg from Tnsberg.The primary function is to serve as a writing material for runes; it is a runestick especially shaped for that purpose (in Old Norse, rnakefli). There are nophysical attributes that would indicate that it was worn as an amulet. The runesare thoroughly carved with double lines inserted with ornamental dots. Thewhole text is in scripta continua, which in this case is not unexpected.

We have an example of a Pater Noster that seems to be in the same cate-gory as the complete Ave Maria from Bryggen. The inscription is N 615, fromthe twelfth century:

pTer:NcTer:kuiCiNCel:cNTf!iceTur:NmeNTum:f!eN!ir !eN[.]pater: noster: kuisinselo : santaf!isetur : nomentum: af!en!iar!eno[.]

196 TERJE SPURKLAND

Fig. 4. Bryggen in Bergen, N 615, twelfth century.

The text is the beginning of the prayer: Pater Noster, qui es in celis.Sanctificetur nomen tuum; adveniat regnum (Our Father, who is in heaven,hallowed be your name. (Your) kingdom come). The rendering of the prayerreflects to a great extent the Latin pronunciation of the time. The artefact ismore or less the same as the rnakefli with the Ave Maria.

There are lots of runic artefacts whose primary functions were not to serveas writing material, such as kitchen utensils like wooden drinking vessels orstave tankards. On one such item from the early fifteenth century (N 622) wefind Ave Maria carved in double lines on the inside part of the bottom.

The text runs: iumri (auem(aria Ave Maria. There is a single runestave preceding the (aue. It would normally be read as an i-rune, but that givesno linguistic meaning. It might have been added after the Ave Maria wascarved to make the carving more symmetrical. There are four runic artefactsfrom Bryggen that served as tankard bottoms, with Ave Maria spelled out inrunes on what was once the inside part of the bottom. In this context the func-19tion of the inscription was to serve as a preserving agent, to protect the con-tents. In that case the inscriptions served the same purpose as magic signs likethe pentagram, which has been in use on tools and utensils up to our time. It20is not uncommon that such signs were put on places where they could not beseen, such as the underside or the inside part of the bottom. If the sign is placedon the inside part of the bottom, it must have been placed there by the carpen-ter who made the vessel, the lagger. In the four cases from Bryggen with thetankard bottoms inscribed on the inside with runes, the lagger must have beenproficient in rune carving. It might have been part of his trade to furnish theequipment he made with runic inscriptions. In ship burials from Oseberg

N 622, N 623, N 624, N 626.19L. WEISER-AALL, Magiske tegn p norske trekar?, By og Bygd: Norsk Folkemuseums20

rbok 1947, pp. 117-144, at pp. 138-139.

197How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

Fig. 5. Bryggen in Bergen, N 622.

and Gokstad in Norway, dated to the ninth century, there were buckets withdrawings consisting of concentric circles on both sides of the bottom. It might21be the case then that to furnish tankards, vessel buckets and the like with sym-bolic signs both on the inside and the outside parts of the bottom was a customthat goes far back in history. The Ave Maria inscriptions on the bottom of thetankards from Bryggen might therefore be a reflection of that old custom.

WEISER-AALL, Magiske tegn p norske trekar?, p. 127.21

198 TERJE SPURKLAND

Cult or Magic?

How then should artefacts with texts such as the ones discussed above beinterpreted as folklore, magic or expressions of Christian devotion? To an-swer this question, we have to make a distinction between magic and cult. Theconcepts of cult in the meaning of practising a religion and magic oftenoverlap in discussions of runes and magic. Scholars of religion, however, oftenpoint out that magic and religion represent two distinctly different attitudes. Akey characteristic of magic that is often adduced is its coercive and self-actual-ising quality. Man seeks to influence his environment through actions andincantations, which are thought to have a particular effect. In religion man isdependent on the divine, whereas in the context of magic man puts himself incontrol. The practitioner of magic either acts independently of support from adeity (self-actualisation) or exerts influence on the deity (coercion) to cause thedeity to comply with his wishes.

Nearly every primitive religion is regarded by its adherents as a mediumfor obtaining supernatural power; it offers the prospect of a supernatural meansof control over mans earthly environment. Conversions to a new religion havefrequently been assisted by the view of converts that they are acquiring not justa means of other-worldly salvation, but a new and powerful magic. In this22respect the medieval Catholic Church shared the same primitive characteristics.The claim to supernatural power was an essential element in the Churchs fightagainst heathenism, and missionaries did not fail to emphasise the superiorityof Christian prayers to heathen charms. One of the most efficacious means ofthe Church to demonstrate its monopoly of truth was the working of miracles.We also have to take into consideration the comprehensive range of formulasdesigned to draw down Gods practical blessing upon mans secular activitiesthat the Church developed as the Middle Ages progressed. Even the Churchssacraments had elements in them that pointed towards a power that was morethan merely spiritual and symbolic. The formula for consecrating the holybread given to the laity on Sundays called upon God to bless the bread sothat all who consume it shall receive health of body as well as of soul. It wasregarded as medicine for the sick and preservation against the plague. The23medieval Church thus acted as a repository of supernatural power, which could

K. THOMAS, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth-22and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1978), p. 27.

THOMAS, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 32.23

199How Christian Were the Norwegians in the High Middle Ages?

be dispensed to the faithful to help them in their daily problems. In this per-spective a distinction between magic and religious cult turns out to be a veryfine one, if possible to make at all. The Mass in particular was associated withmagical power; the laity could benefit from being present at the celebrationeven though they could not understand the proceedings.

Next to the sacraments the prayers were a means of access to divine assis-tance. God was called upon to provide both guidance along the path to salva-tion and help with more material difficulties. In this way the Church itselfcontributed to the weakening of a hypothetical distinction between a prayer anda charm. Charms and prayers overlapped when it came to the coercing effecton God to grant the suppliant requests.

The medieval Church thus appeared as a vast reservoir of magical power, capableof being deployed for a variety of secular purposes. Almost any object associ-ated with ecclesiastical ritual could assume a special aura in the eyes of the people.Any prayer or piece of the Scripture might have a mystical power waiting to betapped.24

In this perspective, it is very difficult to draw a distinction between religionas ritual and religion as belief and to relate medieval runic inscriptions withreligious texts to such a distinction. One could tentatively say that a runic in-scription with a religious text like Ave Maria or Pater Noster is magical infunction, if there is a coercive intention behind the utterance. If there is no suchintention, the utterance should be read as a supplication, as an expression ofbelief and devotion. Pragmatic differences like these are hard to draw from thetext alone or from the artefact. One could maybe say that the more literate therunic text, such as is found on the pointed peg from Tnsberg, then the greaterthe reason for associating the artefact with an ecclesiastical background. Andconversely, the further away from a literate context the text may be, then themore reasonable it would be to interpret it as magical in some way. This couldbe the case with the Ave Maria on the inside part of the bottom of the stavetankard, the function of which might be to protect the contents of the tankard.

Another answer to our main question is that the dispute between Bull andPaasche and van Engen and Schmitt is a quarrel about nothing it is hair split-ting. The rituals of the medieval Catholic Church were in their nature of a kindthat makes it impossible to discern between cult and magic. The Catholic reli-

THOMAS, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 51. 24

200 TERJE SPURKLAND

gious cult is permeated by magical notions to such an extent that it is impossi-ble to discriminate between religion as ritual and religion as belief or devotion.