The Oath of Fidelity in Iceland. A Tie of Feudal Allegiance

17 Pages·0.776 MB·English

by  Cattaneo Grégory.

The Oath of Fidelity in Iceland
A Tie of Feudal Allegiance
Gregory Cattaneo
University of Paris 4-Sorbonne
University of Iceland
"Ix comparatisme ne peut constituer une obligation de résultat,
mais le moyen d'estimer sa propre culture confrontée à d'autres."
(Poly and Bournazel 514) [Comparison cannot constitute a result-
ing obligation, but the means to evaluate one's own culture as
confronted by others.]
T
HE MOST BROADLY encompassing political system of medieval
western Europe was without doubt feudalism in one or another
of its various forms. ' At the foundation of feudal society, we find
the institutions of feud and vassalage. These institutions were developed
around the ceremony of hominium (homage), which represents the
beginning of the ^Hiens d'hommes à hommes^' (ties from men to men), i.e.
between the overlord and his vassals (Poly and Bournazel 106-54). The
homage ritual is principally composed of the oath of fidelity, known
also as the oath of personal allegiance.
Recent work by historians has shown that the study of the oaths of
fidelity has changed our conception of aspects of feudalism that were
not thought to be well accommodated within the classical concept.^ In
her study of the Trencavel family codex, Hélène Débax integrated the
1. Since the works Marc Bloch (1938-1940), many historians like G. Duby, J-F. Lemari-
gnier, R. Boutruche, and R. Fossier have thought about the concept of feudalism. As we
cannot present here all the works, we indicate one major synthesis of the feudal problem
with an impressive bibliography: Poly and Bournazel 5-60.
2. Barthélémy revised the classification of the two ages of feudalism developed by M.
Bloch, using the documents of the seignory of Coucy.
22 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES
Languedoc among other feudal societies of France. In their collabora-
tive volume. Poly and Bournazel endeavored to define feudalism and
apply it to other geographic areas such as the Middle East and Japan,
but they remained carefiil in the use of the term "feudalism":
Bien des sociàés, malgré l'existence de telles ou telles institutions à peu près
identiques außefou au vassela£e desXle—XIIIe siècles ouest-européens, ne
peuvent être considérées comme féodales parce que la place qu'y tiennent ces
éléments féodaux est secondaire dans le fonctionnement du systèmeßlobal. Et
cela même quand ces éléments, inexistants ou marginaux dans la plupart des
secteurs sociaux oußeoßraphiques, sont déjà essentiels dans l'un d'eux, où l'on
pourra parler de proto-féodalité. (Poly and Bournazel 12)
(A good many societies, in spite of the existence of this or that institu-
tion more or less identical to the fiefo r tlie vassalage of western Europe
during the eleventh to the thirteen centuries, cannot be considered feudal
because the place that contains these feudal elements is secondary in
the function of the global system. And this is the case even when these
elements, absent or marginal in most social or geographic sectors, are
essential in one of them, allowing one to speak of proto-feudalism.)
Nevertheless, without going too far afield, a study of the oath of
fidelity in medieval Iceland can well be undertaken as demonstrated
in the works of Jon Viôar Sigurôsson who was the first to propose
an analysis of the relationship between gobar (chieftains) and bandr
(householders) within the context of feudal practices: "The relation-
ship between chieftains and trusted men differed from that between
chieftains and friends in that trusted men were bound to the chieftains
by both the ties of friendship and the ties of feudal allegiance; in other
words, the latter relationship was more institutionalized" (Sigurôsson,
Chieftains 128-9). Since his main thesis was not to establish a parallel
between feudal Europe and Iceland, there remain questions that need
to be asked again and, if possible, answered.
Following the lead of historians studying feudalism such as Bar-
thélémy or Débax, original texts will form the basis of this study. Then
an attempt to contextualize and interpret the texts with the view of
arriving at new concepts regarding feudal practices will be made. This
article will thus illustrate how the oath of fidelity was construed in
Iceland and in so doing determine whether Sigurôsson's conclusions
arc warranted.
But before turning to the Icelandic oath of fidehty, its place within
continental Europe must be examined. Only then can the court practices
OATH OF FIDELITY IN ICELAND
of Norway that act as a bridge between western Europe and Iceland
be interrogated. Finally, using the same procedure, the case of Iceland
during the Sturlunga Age can be investigated.
RECOMMENDATION AND FIDELITY IN NORWAY
AND EUROPE
Norwegian feudalism is a relatively new concept in nordic historio-
graphy.^ Political loyalty based on personal relationships was similarly
a recent concept in the thirteen century. Feudal and chivalric institu-
tions were then, however, of importance in Norway. Even though the
terminology associated with feudal institutions had only lately been
established, the king had long had his own guards allied to him by
personal loyalty (see Ármann Jakobsson 47-52). In Norway, the group
of royal guards increased in number and strengthened their commit-
ment to their king. In all probability, their relationship was based on
mutual obligations and duties as official royal propaganda from the
middle of thirteenth century makes clear (Bagge 24-8). Those closely
associated with the king were known as hirbmenn and were roughly
equivalent to the the Frankish antrustiones. Thus, in order to under-
stand the meaning of the Norwegian oath of fidelity, and by extension
the Icelandic, the traditional geographical scope must be extended.
Elaborate European oaths of fidelity from the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries do not correspond to the contemporary situation of Nor-
wegian hire and hirbmenn. Therefore, an examination of the earliest
oaths of fidelityi n Europe is necessary.
Robert Boutruche was one of the first historians to study this
similarity between customs that he characterizes as "vaguely Germanic"
(Boutruche 166-8 and doc n° 21,361-2). According to Boutruche, the
first known example oí engagement far les mains comes from the first
half of seventh century:
Et quia illefidelis, Deo propitio, noster, veniens ibi, inpalatio nostro, una
cum arimania sun in manu nostra trustem et fidelitatem nobis visus est
conjurasse^, pmterea, perpTiZsenspraceptum decemimus acjubemus, ut deinceps
3. See Sverre Bagge, who established links between feudal Europe and Norway
(159-78)-
24 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES
memoratus ilk in numero Antrustionum conputetur Et si quisfortasse eum
interficerepr£sumpserit, noveritse wirgildo suo solidos sexcentos esse culpabikm.
{EormulaeManulfi I: i8,55)*
(And since that faithñil man of ours, by the grace of God, coming into
our palace, with his armament in our hand was seen by us to have sworn
trust and loyalty, besides by way of the present principle, we declare
and order that he, once set in memory, be counted in the number of
the pledged, and if anybody by chance shall kill him, he will know that
he is culpable for wergeld of 600 solidos.)
This text is the first to mention the role of the hands {immixtio manuum)
in this ritual, which become the symbol of personal ties of loyalty. But
the provision of the protection of the antrustione must be clearly noted
as well: his new status gives liim greater importance in the society.
The wergeld would be paid for him not only as a man, but also, more
importandy, as a king's man. The divine presence of God also appears
although it is not entirely clear whether the antrustione swore his oath
to God. This document, which originates at the inception of feudal
society, presents two aspects of the oath of fidelity's ritual as already
established: the homage given with the hands as an outward symbol and
die verbal commitment of fidelity as an oral promise. Two important
aspects, however, do not appear at this stage of the development of the
ritual: the act of swearing upon a holy object—e.g. a relic—touched
with either the right hand or with both and the kiss.
One of the first occasions to mention the osculum (kiss) occurs
in 971, at the Abbey of Saint Gall, in the presence of the Emperor
Otto I. Here, the Emperor kisses his vassal: ^"Meus tandem eris, ait,
manibusque receptum osculatus est. Moxque ille, euangelio allato,
fidem iuravit" {Casus S. Galli 141) [At last you will be mine, he said,
and having taken him in his hands he kissed him. Thereupon the
man, the gospel having been brought in, swore fidelity]. This text
contains a good example of what Boutruche calls hommage de main
et de bouche. This brief excerpt also provides an oblique indication of
an oath sworn upon a holy book—the touching of the book does not
appear explicitly, but rather is implied through the "euangelio."
4. This quotation as cited in Monumenta Germaniae Histórica is regrettably marred by
obvious errors and misprints. Here emendations have been made on the basis of the cita-
tion of the full passage in Du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimaegraecitatis
under the headword trustis.
THE OATH OF FIDELITY IN ICELAND
In the twelfth century, homage and fidelity were widespread and
used as a tie of vassalage between those with power and not only those
of royal descent, whose descriptions contain all the elements. By way
of example, a text dealing with vassalage oaths sworn to William Earl
of Flanders in 1127:
Séptimo idus aprilis, feria quinta, iterum hominia faaa sunt comiti...
Primum, hominia fecerunt ita: Comes requisivitsi integre vellet homo suus
fieri et ille respondit: "Volo", et junctis manibus, amplexatus a manibus
comitis, oscuh confederati sunt. Secundo loco,fidem dedit is qui hominium
fecerat prolocutori comitis in Us verbis: "Spondeo in fide mea mefidelemfore
amodo comiti Willclmo, et sibi hominium integraliter contra omnes obser-
vaturumfide bona et sine dolo." Idemque super reliquias sanctorum tertio
locojuravit. (Galbert de Bruges, De multro, traditione et oceisione¿[loriosi
Karoli comitis Flandriarum)
(Thursday the seventh of April homage was again paid to the count.
They firstly paid homage thusly. The count asked if he would like
unreservedly to become his man, and he answered, "I do"; then and
with joined hands embraced by the hands of the count, they are by the
kiss allies. Secondly, he who pledged feality made his homage to the
spokesman of the count with these words: "I swear I shall be faithful
from now on to Count William, and I shall observe with integrity my
homage to him against all with good faith and without treachery."
Thirdly he similarly swore upon the relics of the saints.)
These examples—few, though highly characteristic—place the homage
and fidelity ritual in its European context and recall the fact that it was
initially connected with the Frankish kings' anPrustiones, who were
roughly the equivalent of the Norwegian kings' hirbmenn.
THE NORWEGIAN OATH OE FIDELITY: A COPY OF
FuROPEAN RITUALS?
The oath of fidelity in Norway is first mentioned in a legal treatise
concerning royal servants: Hirdskraa dates from 1270 and means lit-
erally "a royal servant manuscript." These Norwegian practices were
already institutionalized by the beginning of the thirteenth century.
The Hirdskraa presents a catalogue of the various kinds of servants
and their functions and duties towards the king, and some, moreover,
indicate the required obedience formalized in a trúnaoareibur [oath
of fidelity].T he servants required to swear this oath were first of all
26 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES
the kanslari [the royal counsellors], the hirömenn [men of the royal
retinue].,gestir [the royal servants], and finally the kertissveinar [less
import attendants].^ The list given here provides an indication of the
hierarchy within the palace, which the Hirdskraa does not. The oath
was also required of the Norwegian nobility: lendr madr [baron],
hertogi [duke], zndjarl [earl].*
The chapters concerning the royal counselors and retinue share
the same general pattern. Variations are only minimal, for example,
a change to a word's position in the sentence. The oath of the royal
counselors reads: "Oc sveria honum [konong] trunaôar eiô meó
JDessum œiôstaf [orôum]" {Hirdskraa 409, § 21) [And swear to him
[the king] an oath with this vow formula], while that of the retinue
is: "Oc sveria eiô meó J)eima œiôstaf I>es leg ek hond a hœigha bok
oc |3ui skytr ek til guôs att ek skal vera hoUr oc trur minum herra"
{Hirdskraa 423, § 31) [And swear oath with these words. Then I lay
my hand on the holy book, and then I pledge to God that I will be
loyal and true to my lord]. The e¿áíte/(a well-established formula) thus
existed and was recited before the king. But as noted, littie is known
about this formula. Nevertheless the oath has a sacral component in
that the servant swears it on the Bible, in more specific terms on the
helgha bok, a well-established phrase that in context can only refer
to the Bible. A variant is enlightening: "Oc vinna eiô at bok J)eirri
er konungr feer honum i hendr" [And swear an oath upon the book
that the king delivers into his hands]. The ritual continues with two
additional features. First the servant has to the kneel before the king:
"Siôan skal han falla a kne firir kononge oc lœggia baôar sinar hendr
saman ok konongr sinar baôar um bans bœndr" {Hirdskraa 423, § 31)
[Then he shall fall to his knees before the king and bring both his hands
together. The king embraces botii of tbem with his own hands]. This
variation in the ritual is of particular interest due to the reciprocity of
the gesture so clearly evinced. The king, who remains passive during
the ceremony, finishes the ritual by taking his servant's hand.
More details are offered in the descriptions of the ritual concerning
thcgestir (the royal servants) : "en sa sem gerizt skal taka hçgre hendi
sinni neôan undir omanet oc minnazt siôan uiô hond konongs oc
5. Hirdskraa 21, 409; Hirdskraa 31, 422-3; Hirdskraa 43,439; Hirdskraa 47.
6. Hirdskraa 52, 447; Hirdskraa 13, 400-1; Hirdskraa 17, 404-5 and Hirdskraa 20,
407-8.
THE OATH OE FIDELITY IN ICELAND
svœria eeiô meó [)œima œiôstaf oc hirômaôr. siôan skal han ganga til
handsals vio logunauta sina" {Hirdskraa 439, § 43) [And as is done,
he shall take hold with his right hand down beneath the boss of the
sword, and then kiss the hand of the king and swear an oath with the
prescribed words, and then he, as retainer, shall go to shake hands
with his fellow retainers]. The first part of this ritual is similar to the
European practice in ternis of the bow and the kiss. The presence of
a third character in the second part is often found in Icelandic texts.
These men who have pledged loyalty are responsible for various fimc-
tions at the royal court, the most important of which is to serve as the
king's guards. Taking the hand and the handsal (shaking hands) is an
old practice in Scandinavia for sealing a contract. This practice is seen
in various Icelandic texts such as the Sagas of Icelanders. It is clear the
handshake between two servants is different from that between the
servant and the king. Indeed, the first implies a relationship of equals
whereas the second is between divergent classes.
In the Hirdskraa another gesture involving the hand also mentioned
is the handganga. One might suppose that this term often translated
as "handshake" is similar to the handsal. The handsal, however, has its
origin in a merchant's contract and was used by Vikings involved in
commerce for sealing an agreement. By contrast, the handganga is not
a commercial agreement, but a personal one between individuals. In
particular, it is the solemn gesture of entering the service of the king or
someone else with related political power, such as the three categories
of nobles noted above: barons, dukes, and earls.
The oath of fidelity inNorway, then, can be seen as a clear adapta-
tion of the homage ritual of feudal Europe. It is institutionalized in the
Hirdskraa but is picked up by some Icelandic sources like the Contem-
porary Sagas. But before examining these sources, it is beneficial to ask
whether this oath exists in other narrative, medieval Icelandic genres.
AN OATH OF FIDELITY DURING SAGA AGE ICELAND?
According to Jon Viôar Sigurôsson, there is only a single example of
the trúnabareibur (oath of fidelity) in the íslendinga saga {Frdgoborbum
113). Grettis saga reports: "Pa sagôi Öngull: Röskliga segir pu, en eigi
mun svá vera. Vil ek syna {)at, at mér ^ykkir mannskaôi í pk., ok mun
ek gefa Jjér lif, ef |>ú vill vinna oss tninaôareiô, at hefna engum Jjeim,
28 SCANDINAVLAN STUDIES
er í |)essarri ferô hafa verit" {Grettis saga 263) ["Then Hook said, 'You
speak bravely, but it will not turn out like that. I want to show you that
I think your life will be a great loss, so I shall spare you if you swear an
oath of loyalty not to take vengeance upon any man who has been on
this expedition"'(S«^« ofGrettir 177)].
In carefully analyzing the Icelandic text, it becomes clear that
trúnabareibur means oath of fidelity. Moreover the structure of the
sentence is revealing: "ef Jjú vill vinna oss tninaôareiô" [if you swear
to us oath of fidelity]. To translate vinna with the verb "swear" at
first glance may surprise some (even though "vinna eiô" is the first
entry under eib in the Cleasby, Vigfusson, Craigie's Icelandic-English
Dictionary) since the Old Norse verb corresponding to "swear" would
typically be "sverja." But it must be kept in mind that the verb "vinna"
belongs to the class of all-purpose verbs in Old Norse that can easily
change meaning with the context. It will then become clear that it
is perfectly reasonable to translate it as "to swear" in this sentence.
Furthermore in the chapter 31 of Hirdskraa concerning the king's
hirbmenn, we find a clear illustration of this variant: "oc sveria [var.
vinna] eiô" {Hirdskraa 423, § 31) [and swear an oath].
A closer examination oí Hirdskraa reveals a similarity to another
Old Norse text. If this is the case, the Hirdskraa might be understood
as an adaptation of European concepts in Scandinavian practices, in
this case Norwegian. The author of the treatise in question uses his
own words to translate foreign concepts. This practice has an analogy
in yet another treatise : FyrstaMdlfrœbiritgerbin [The First Grammatical
Treatise], which teaches how to translate foreign concepts and words
into Icelandic (Theories: 35-8 and text: 206-47). The verb "vinna"
was widely circulated by these means and became, consequendy, more
understandable to people than the more technical verb "sverja." This
admittedly hypothetical course illustrates a thesis concerning variants
of the Hirdskraa manuscript. The variants appear in a preliminary stage
of translation that is an adaptation of concepts foreign to the Scandi-
navian world. Vinna might have occurred in these early formulations
of the text, but the later promulgation of the oath and its type of ritual
drew in more technically sophisticated terms—"sverja"—while vinna
was relegated to the background.
An oath of fidelitya ppears clearly in an excerpt oí Grettis saga. But
as an isolated example, it is uncertain that this practice was used during
THE OATH OF FIDELITY IN ICELAND 29
the Saga Age. Moreoverthe saga was written after the Sturlimga Age,
around 1300-1310 {Grettissaga viii). At this time, Iceland was under the
dominion of the crown of Norway and the Contemporary Sagas such
as Sturlunga Saga had already been written. Given this dating, it may
appear that in this case the juramentumfidelitatis in Iceland came from
different practices belonging to another time and place. But fortunately
an additional narrative genre describing another period in medieval
Iceland offers other exarnples of this oath of fidelity.
xarnf
THE OATH OF FIDELITY DURING STURLUNGA AGE ICE-
LAND: SIMILARITIES WITH FEUDAL PRACTICES?
Differing from the Islendinga saga, the Contemporary Sagas
{Samtßarsögur) and the Sturlungasaga compilations are usually consid-
ered more reliable sources for the study of the so-called Sturlunga Age
(1200 to 1262). Most of the historians of medieval Iceland take these texts
to be historical literature with the notable exception of Ulfar Bragasson,
who considers them to be a literary construct (Ulfar Bragasson 73-88;
see also Gunnar Karlsson 14-6 and Jon Viôar Sigurôsson, Chieftains
23-5). However that may be, Sturlunga saga offers many examples of
the oath of fidelity. Its appearance dates back to the formation of riki
(domains), which date from 1228, i.e. Snorri Sturlusson's founding of
the first riki. The oath thus became an institution when Iceland passed
from a chieftaincy to an organization dependent upon huge domains as
referenced in the study of Jon Viôar Sigurôsson: Frdgoôorôum til rtkja.
This account provides an understanding of the institutionalization of
the Icelandic oath of fidelity. The goöar (chieftains) could no longer
have a direct relation with all the householders within their domains.
The oath of fidehty must be interpreted as a way for a chieftain to assure
the support and the loyalty of subordinate chieftains or householders.
It would be useless to catalogue all the chieftains to whom the oath of
fidelity was sworn during this period. It is more revealing to examine
in detail the example of bne chieftain and the role of this oath in his
intention to establish a riki.
Kolbein the Younger, from the Asbirningar family, created the third
large domain after his victory over Sturla Sighvatsson at Orlygsstadir
in 1238. From that date on, Kolbein attempted to maintain possession
3O SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES
of the territories he conquered by force. Many of the chieftains and
householders were unwilling to face Kolbein to swear fidelity to him.''
Following many conflicts and the ultimate victory of Kolbein, some
of these householders and local chieftains had to swear an even more
restrictive oath of fidelity: the tylflareib (oath of the twelve). It is an
oath involving twelve witnesses who also have to swear an oath on
their honor:
Sverja Kolbeini tylfiareiö og hinir bestu menn honum úr Vestßöröum aÔ vera
aldrei á mot Kolbeini pó aö Pdröur hemi til eôa nokkur madur hefi dfrid i
móti honum. Pdllprestur Hallsson reiÖ noröur oß Ketillprestur Porleiksson,
Gunnsteinn Hallsson oß Vißfus son hans, Póroddur prestur oß allir hinir
bestu menn úrpeim sveitum sem hann dttifomedi. Sor Sturla eiöoßpessir
menn meö honum oß reiS heim stöan. (Sturlunßa saßa 11: 459)
(They powerñal householders from the West Fjord swear to Kolbein the
oath of the twelve that none of them would ever rebel against Kolbein,
even if torôur had to intervene or if someone waged war against him
[I>orôur]. The priest Pall Hallsson went to the north and so did the
priest Ketill torleiksson, Gunnstein Hallsson and Vigfus his son, the
priest I>óroddur and all the best men of the districts where Sturla had
control. Sturla swore the oath and so did all his men. Then we went
back to his home.)
Another excerpt stresses this point: "Sturla sor nú eiô Kolbeini til
tninaôar og flestir J)essir menn" (Sturlunga saga I: 457) [Sturla now
swore an oath of fidelity to Kolbein and so did most of his men]. This
formulation depicts a hierarchy among the vassals. The chieftain swears
an oath, and his men follow him. The men of the chieftain's household
are clearly dependent on him.
Another detail is important in the dissemination of these oaths:
the delegation of the chieftain's authority to his men. "I>á var pzb raôiô
aô Kolbeinn sendi menn vestur í fjorôu, Einar lang bróour Porsteins
í Hvammi og Einar draga. Fleiri voru {jeir saman. Skyldu |3eir sjá
eiôa aô mönnum og öUum bóndum um Vestfjörou.... Og sóru flestir
bxndur |)eim eiôa" (Sturlunga saga I: 457) [It was decided that Kolbein
would send men to the West Fjord, Einar lang, brother of I>orstein of
Hvamm and Einar draga. They were many. They were here to witness
the oath of fidelity of all the householders of West Fjord.... Most of
7. Sturlunga saßa I-II; 457, 459, 466.