Layher, William. Queenship and Voice in Medieval Northern Europe. Queenship and Power. New York Pal!

rave MacMillan, "#$#. Pp. "%&. '(#. )*+N ,&(-#-"%#-$#./0-0. . . 1eviewed 2y Eld234r! 5au! 6niversity o7 +er!en Eld23or!.5au!8ahkr.ui2.no William Layher9s Queenship and Voice in Medieval Northern Europe aims to raise our knowled!e o7 :ueenship as a political institution in the three *candinavian kin!doms in the Middle ;!es. What happens in times o7 crisis when the rulin! power o7 the kin! was impeded or ine77ective, and society 7aced a lapse o7 male lordship< =o answer these :uestions the author !ives an outline o7 the theories o7 the di77erence 2etween sonus and vo> in order to 7ind the voice o7 the three :ueens ?",-0"@. Layher 2ases his narrative mostly on chronicles and annals, 2ut documents and laws are 2etter evidence in the analysis o7 social institutions and superior in evaluatin! political power. 1ather than evaluate his literary analyses this review will 7ocus on the author9s main pro2lem as presented, that is, the power o7 the three royal consorts. Layher has chosen ;!nes o7 +randen2ur!, :ueen o7 Aenmark, Eu7emia o7 1B!en, :ueen o7 Norway, and the dau!hter o7 Cin! Valdemar )V o7 Aenmark, Queen Mar!aret o7 Norway and *weden, as his case studies. ;ccordin! to the author, Queen ;!nes e>perienced a political crisis when her hus2and, Cin! Erik Dlippin! o7 Aenmark, was murdered in $"(/. Eutstandin! men 7rom the inner circle o7 Erik Dlippin! were sentenced to death in a2sentia and 2ecame outlaws. ;!nes 2ecame :ueen dowa!er and mem2er o7 the re!ency o7 her minor son who is known to posterity as Cin! Erik V) Menved ?$"&.-$%$,@. For some years Queen ;!nes represented the ultimate lordship o7 Aenmark. Layher claims that the consort o7 Cin! 5akon V o7 Norway, Eu7emia, also 7aced a crisis in the early $%##s 2ecause she 2ore no sons. ;nd also the Queen Aowa!er Mar!aret 7aced a crisis in $%(&, a7ter the death o7 her son Cin! Elav )V 5akonssonG the only inheritor accordin! to the law o7 succession was Cin! ;l2recht o7 *weden who 2elon!ed to the 5ouse o7 Mecklen2ur!. William Layher9s contri2ution in the research o7 these events is 2ased on literary analyses o7 si> son!s 2y the minstrel 1umelant o7 *a>ony, the three Eu7emia-son!s that are 2ased on courtly literature 7rom the Norwe!ian court, and the *wedish poem ;l2recht. =he dialects o7 the poems are important in his analysis. Little is known o7 1umelant, 2ut some o7 his son!s are preserved in manuscripts o7 the early 7ourteenth century. *i> o7 these son!s are a2out the murder o7 Cin! Erik Dlippin!. =hey without dou2t re7lect the sentiments towards the murder that were present in the circles around the re!ency o7 the minor kin!. =he *wedish historian 5u!o Yrwin! has held Auke Valdemar )V o7 *leswi! to 2e the mentor o7 1umelant. =he duke was a descendant o7 Cin! ;2el and a potential pretender to the crown. 5e had much to !ain 2y the sentencin! o7 the inner circle o7 Erik Dlippin!, 2ut the alliance o7 ;!nes, Valdemar, and Prince VitHlav o7 1B!en 7ades a7ter the trialG VitHlav continues to 2e prominent in Aanish politics. =he Aanish outlaws 7ound a re7u!e in Norway and played a part in inter*candinavian politics in the years that 7ollowed. =here is no lack o7 research on the tur2ulent years in Aanish history that esta2lished the Ihristopher line as the royal house in Aenmark, 2ut ) miss some important contri2utions in Layher9s 2i2lio!raphy. =he !uide to Aanish history up to $%.# !ives an overview o7 the

political, economic, and social history in the period, as well as the main points o7 view that have 2een presented. 5el!e Paludan emphasiHes the stren!thenin! o7 the kin!9s authority durin! Erik V Dlippin!9s rei!n up to $"(". 5is mother, the Queen Aowa!er Mar!aret *am2iria, was a drivin! 7orce. =he turnin! point is $"(", when the kin! had to make a vow to the Aanish ma!nates every year to call the Aaneho7, that is, the Aanish medieval parliament. J$K Niels *kyum-Nielsen9s posthumous e>position LLadies and *ava!esL on Aanish !endered history 2etween $"0#-$%.# analyses 2oth Queen ;!nes9 power and her re!ency, discusses whom 1umelant o7 *a>ony was in7luenced 2y and mentions the 7act that the si> son!s 2y the minstrel are !iven in Middle Low Derman. J"K ; discussion o7 *kyum-Nielsen9s points o7 view would have 2een interestin!. Layher e>cludes 2oth Aanish 7orei!n policies and the con7licts 2etween church and state in the period. 5is unreserved attri2ution o7 1umelant9s son!s to Queen ;!nes may 2e correct, 2ut i7 the dialect is the proo7 o7 this, there are other possi2ilities. Aenmark took part in the medieval 9drive to the East9 and had several colonies on the shores o7 the +altic. Middle Low Derman was a lin!ua 7ranca in these waters, and it is more pro2a2le that 1umelant per7ormed his son!s in that dialect in order to 2e understood 2y a lar!er and more responsive audience than i7 he had used his usual Middle 5i!h Derman dialect. =he second case study is on Queen Eu7emia o7 1B!en, the consort o7 Cin! 5akon V Ma!nusson o7 Norway. =hree rhymed novels written in medieval *wedish, Eu7emiavisorna, are attri2uted to her. =here is no dou2t a2out the attri2ution, andErikskrMnikan tells a2out the relationship 2etween Queen Eu7emia and Auke Erik Ma!nusson. Layher takes this relationship a step 7urtherG he considers the translations into *wedish as an attempt to solve the pro2lem that the kin!dom 7aced 2y ;!nes !ivin! 2irth to only one dau!hter ?$$#@. +ut he takes 7or !ranted that the Eu7emiavisor were translated directly into *wedish. =oo many o7 the French novels translated into Norse sa!as have 2een attri2uted to the court o7 Cin! 5akon )V 5akonsson. 5elle Ae!n2ol has su2stantiated that the French narrative poem o7 Floire and +lanche7lor that is dated to the middle o7 the twel7th century was translated, pro2a2ly 7rom an ;n!lo-Norman version, into a Norwe!ian prose narrative prior to the appearance o7 the *wedish poetic renderin! in a2out $%$" as one o7 the Eu7emiavisor. Nud!ed 2y one o7 the earliest manuscripts o7 prose translation o7 Flores ok +lanHe7lor, it has 2een true to the ori!inal French version, a result opposin! the traditional wisdom that the )celandic 7ourteenth century version is 2ased on the translation per7ormed durin! the rei!n o7 Cin! 5akon 5akonsson who died in $"/%. Moreover, 5elle Ae!n2ol will not e>clude that the 7irst translation o7 Flores ok +lanHe7lorwas carried out at one o7 5akon V9s chanceriesG the dialect could indicate =4ns2er! where the royal 2ureaucracy had a colle!iate church. J%K =here is also the possi2ility that the poem ori!inally was !iven in Eld Norse. Layher emphasiHe that the poems were translated to *wedish directly 7rom the so-called aristocratic version, 2ut this is pro2a2ly wron!. Moreover, Layher has not understood the Norwe!ian laws which he uses to su2stantiate Queen Eu7emia9s presumed political crisis. =he law o7 succession is !iven in Ma!nus the Lawmender9s code o7 the countryside in the section on Ihristendom ?Nor!es !amle Love vol. )), pp. ".-%"@, not in the 5irOskrP ?i2id. pp. %(&-.0#@ which is the statute o7 the kin!9s !uard. J.K =he succession law did not allow women to inherit the throne, 2ut the son o7 the late kin!9s le!itimate dau!hter could succeed. +ut Cin! 5akon V made an amendment to the succession law when his dau!hter )n!e2or! was only one year old

?Nor!es !amle Love vol. ))), pp. ..-00@. )lle!itimate sons o7 the kin! were moved 7urther down in the succession, le!itimate sons o7 a kin!9s le!itimate dau!hter had a 2etter chance, and also the le!itimate dau!hter o7 a kin! could now succeed. =his meant that the maid )n!e2or!, the dau!hter o7 the late Cin! Eirik Ma!nusson and )sa2ella +ruce had a 2etter chance o7 2ecomin! Lkin!L o7 Norway i7 none o7 the two cousins 2y the same Ihristian name had le!itimate sons 2e7ore Cin! 5akon V passed away. =he older )n!e2or! was 2etrothed to Auke Valdemar Ma!nusson o7 Finland, 2ut the couple had no o77sprin! reach maturity or survive their mother. Layher 7urther maintains that 5akon V9s amendment to the code o7 the countryside $& Nune $%#(, which he incorrectly calls a 9royal proclamation,9 addresses the issue o7 7emale succession. =he amendment concerns the kin!9s !uard and a2olishes the hi!hest rank o7 the hird. Lars 5amre has maintained that the amendment should 2e considered as an amendment to the 5irOskrP. J0K William Layher9s last case study concerns Queen Mar!aret, the 7ounder o7 the late medieval Nordic union 2etween Aenmark, Norway and *weden. For more than thirty years she possessed real power. My o23ection to the case study on her is not his analysis o7 the poem ;l2recht, which may well 2e 7rom Queen Mar!aret9s period ?$%& 7.@G it is his inade:uate attempt to attri2ute the poem to Queen Mar!aret hersel7. ;dmittedly the political conte>t o7 Queen Mar!aret9s achievements is di77icult, not least 2ecause an analysis o7 this monarch transcends the national historio!raphies o7 Norway, Aenmark and *weden. Layher wron!ly calls her Queen Mar!aret o7 Norway and Aenmark, 2ut she was never a Aanish kin!9s consort and never used this titleG she called hersel7 Mar!aret dau!hter o7 Valdemar. When she was elected in Aenmark in $%(& to succeed her son, Cin! Elav 5akonsson, the Aanes9 reservation was that she should hold her position until the council and she to!ether 7ound a new kin!. Ene o7 the reasons 7or this election rather than her nephew, ;l2recht )V o7 Mecklen2ur!, was that Norway wanted Queen Mar!aret as the successor o7 her sonG Cin! Elav had 2een the hereditary kin! o7 Norway. =he *wedish Cin! ;l2recht o7 Mecklen2ur! was the cousin o7 the late Norwe!ian kin!, and was the only inheritor to the crown accordin! to the laws o7 succession. +ut a civil war ra!ed in *weden, Cin! ;l2recht9 position was in7erior, and a succession in Norway was out o7 his ran!e. )7 the Norwe!ian Iouncil o7 the 1ealm had done such a stupid act as acclaimin! Cin! ;l2recht in this situation they would have had to 7ace e>ecution or civil war. Cin! 5akon V9s amendment to the law o7 succession 7rom $%#" had opened 7or 7emale succession. Queen Mar!aret, not Cin! ;l2recht, was the inheritor o7 her son9s private properties and 7ortune. Moreover, she had also inherited her 7ather9s estates and was 2y 7ar the lar!est sin!le landowner in 2oth Aenmark and Norway. J/K ;7ter havin! 2een assi!ned royal authority in Norway, Queen Mar!aret had a meetin! with the *wedish ma!nates who had re2elled a!ainst Cin! ;l2recht. =hey were identical with the e>ecutors o7 the will o7 the *wedish drots +o Nonsson Drip and were a2out to unite with Cin! Elav a!ainst ;l2recht o7 Mecklen2ur! when the youn! kin! suddenly died. =hey had no 2etter choice than support Queen Mar!aret. J&K Iontrary to Layher, Mar!aret was called to *weden 2y the ma!natesG she did not invade the country. =he 2est and simplest e>planation o7 the complaints 7rom the poem ;l2recht is that it re7lected the *wedish aristocracy9s !rievances. =hat there was La crisis in male lordshipL cannot 2e su2stantiated 2y historical 7acts. En the contrary, a7ter the 2attle at Qsle ?not FalkMpin!@ in $%(,, one o7 the Aanish annals praises Dod Lwho !ave the victory into the hands o7 a woman.L J(K

=his reviewer does not 7ind William Layher9s hypothesis on the relationship 2etween three medieval *candinavian :ueens, contemporary poetry, and a presumed male political crisis 7acin! each o7 them to 2e su2stantiated. =he author9s outline o7 the theories on a voice is interestin! and has a value o7 its own, 2ut there are too many mistakes and inaccuracies in his e>position o7 the historical conte>t. 5e thus 7ails to link his theory to the evidence. Layher9s analysis o7 si> poems 2y the minstrel 1umelant o7 *a>ony is the most success7ul part o7 the mono!raph, 2ut an in-depth philolo!ical analysis o7 all the manuscripts that he used would have 2een use7ul.