In order to understand how conversion from Paganism to Christianity in N. Europe took place, it is not enough that we analyze the history and politics behind it. We must also, endeavor to comprehend the manner in which belief develops from the old religion to the new.

The following research also, aims to show that, in order to understand how conversion takes place, it is not enough that we should analyze the history and politics behind it. For example several points along a trajectory of belief that begins in Iceland before Christianity, continues throughout the Christianization process of the Middle Ages, and that carries on as the country settles into its own version of Christianity thereafter.

Several points stand out in case of the above: The settlement of the country, conversion to Christianity, Iceland's annexation in the thirteenth century, and the coming of Protestantism in the sixteenth century. As important as these massive historical events may be, the aim will be to understand how essential components of belief have developed from pagan time to the post-Christianization time. In order to make conclusions about this development, early evidence of pagan belief needs to be compared with evidence of belief in later Icelandic folktales, in hopes that by looking at these two "bookends:' as it were, some picture will arise of how belief progresses.

In the larger context of medieval studies furthermore, previous researchers  have attempted to use folklore to study the differences between ecclesiastical doctrine and "common" folk belief.

Scholars such as Jean Claude-Schmitt concluded that in fact two unique cultures existed, one the ecclesiastical elite and the other, common folk belief, which itself does not reflect the ecclesiastical elite. This approach fell upon heavy rebuttal from the likes of John VanEngen, who argued, among other things, that the types of sources (primarily exempla) under examination could not verifiably support so great a distinction between the two religious cultures. It only makes sense that references to pagan practices in exempla should set up a dichotomous relationship between the practices and Christian culture. That is the very rhetorical nature of exempla, and thereby they cannot be entirely trusted as examples of folk belief.

Schmitt's attempt to articulate these two religious cultures as   separate and opposed to one another however,  falls short. It seems overly ambitious, given the resources at his disposal, for Schmitt to "assume," to use Van Engen's word, that so drastic a distinction exists, but it seems equally hazardous for Van Engen to move to the other end of the spectrum by assuming that no distinction exists at all.

The argument between these two camps relies more upon social structures rather than belief structures, and as such they have only a limited perspective of the issue.

In Iceland as we will see, the opposite is true: The ecclesiastical elite did not possess as strong a place in medieval Iceland as it did elsewhere, which enables the observer to get a clearer picture of belief structures rather than the social apparatus so apparent in Schmitt- an Engan debate. As Orri Vesteinsson' s work indicates, the establishment of a clerical presence in Iceland took some time to take effect; it was the gooar who initially took on the clerical responsibilities in the country,continuing their role of meeting both the spiritual and secular needs of the people.

We will also take issue with the work of Nancy Caciola, who argues that in the Middle Ages two competing views of the afterlife persisted: The ecclesiastical elite characterized a spiritual model of the afterlife whereas popular culture adhered to a material model (4). On the contrary-and this is an essential conclusion of the present work-evidence in chapter four (and elsewhere in this project) suggests that the system of belief in Iceland sought out coherent logic of belief.

This is evident even at the inception of Christianity in the country, for when Iorgeirr convinces the leaders of the country to take Christianity, he says "hofum allir ein log ok einn sio" (let us have one law and one culture"; 17). Evidence seems to suggest that this "one culture" persists throughout the centuries, despite its difficulties.

The pagan culture that went "under ground," as I stated in chapter two, perpetually seeks to be reunited with the overt Christian culture, sior, that took presidence in 999/1000. Throughout its existence, rather than rejecting and fighting against the ecclesiastical presence, it seems to find ways to appropriate a clerical figure and reshape its role in the folk belief.

In this context for example  the galdramenn (magicians) are one instance of how the appropriations took place. Here we see a guardian figure, almost always a priest or bishop, who takes on the responsibility of combating evil, but who does so by employing what is clearly a pagan magic. In this case, the two belief systems are not divided, nor do they oppose one another, they have rather merged in the folk belief of the people to form a composite guardian figure, one that appeases the mythic needs of the people.

 This merger did not happen by accident or unconsciously in the minds of the people. In some tales, the folk awareness of the merger takes center stage in the tale, for the magician/Christian priest must answer (or be held accountable, in my terminology) for his usage of pagan magic. Anxiety over whether the magician will go to Heaven or Hell suggests two attributes of the belief structure: First, it indicates that the Christian elements of the structure have clearly demonized old pagan beliefs in magic and mythical figures such as trolls and elves. Only with such a demonizing element can account for the practices of these magicians be answerable by eternity in Hell. As such the tellers of such tales and their audiences were well aware of the consequences of such a merger. Second, it indicates that, as well as they knew and understood the distinction between pagan and Christian beliefs (in this case, at least), they were just as willing to consummate the two. More importantly, these tales suggests that, despite the doctrinal taboo against such pagan practices, folk belief deems it spiritually acceptable for the merger to have taken place: Nearly all the magicians go to Heaven in the end.

Icelandic structure of belief thus attempts to incorporate the ecclesiastical elements into its original culture, or, it might be said, to give the ecclesiastical presence a distinctly Icelandic identity. Nevertheless, while the incorporation means reshaping Christian doctrine to cohere with an Icelandic (sometimes pagan) identity, conversion and Christianization did in fact take place; to say otherwise would ignore the obvious reality of the situation. As such, the belief system was restructured, which means the shucking off of the pagan connotation for many ritual and practice. In chapter four we saw a Christian belief system demand of remaining pagan element that they distort their original form and content to fit the Christian mold. Such is the case, for instance, with the Norse pagan concept of suttee, which, thought it exists in the later folklore, does so holding a completely different connotation.

The same holds true for the fylgjur where were we can see that, the common pagan figure of attendant spirits has experienced a reshaping, itself, living on in folktales as an evil, harmful figure, rather than the guardian figure of Pre-Christian times.

And whereas both Schmitt and VanEngen come to conclusions that allow for very little diversity of belief in a given culture at a given time, the work done here points to a belief structure that exhibits a Christian-pagan hybrid. Such a hybrid is consistent with Gregory the Great's charge to incorporate pagan religious temples and practices into Christian worship foreshadow the events to follow. In a great many ways, and contrary to Schmitt, the Christianization process as we will show, worked very well, for Christianity ultimately becomes the new and only religion in Iceland, and we see evidence of a society trying to sort out how and under what circumstances to be Christian.

In one way, however, Christianization fails, for many of the pagan beliefs ("errors from obstinate minds," if we ask Gregory) meant to be eradicated become the very lifeblood of the Icelandic brand of Christianity.

We must not assume that all hybrid belief systems have merged paganism and Christianity in the same way. It simply puts us on our guard to expect hybridization in other conversion cultures, as well.

But while the historical and political development of a society affect belief, as suggested at the start above, they do not always accurately represent them. Additionally, studying only the political and social attributes of conversion does not allow for the consideration of the essential component of religious development: belief.

One also must wonder whether folk belief and religious belief even can cohere, but as Sveinsson states it, "Christianity brought to Iceland its own stock of stories to replace the myths and related stories it drove out: stories of angels, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the apostles and other saints, of their miracles and glorious acts" (Folk-Stories 74-75). Of course, the Christian stories did not so much drive out those "myths and related stories" as they did mixed them in, but the point to take from this is that folk belief and religious belief communicate with one another, and often quite nicely.

Now, an understandable anxiety crops up when considering the communication between the two examples of belief, perhaps namely because folk be1ief cannot be verified by any set doctrine or code. As Tom Shippey notes concerning beliefs in ghosts,". . . people are perfectly capable of knowing several incompatible theories at once without feeling the need to decide on one or even to notice logical incompatibility" (382).

In broad terms, too, folk belief can easily contradict itself, depending upon what version of a tale one hears. In folktales about death, for instance, the belief represented there might best fit the description of 'eclectic. '

But a warning should accompany this description. It is fair, and indeed necessary, to say that 'eclectic' is the very nature of belief in folktales, but in order for a folk tradition to be  considered "living," it must possess this very quality, for only by transmission, shaping, and re-shaping of folk beliefs can they come to be representative of the "folk." As Shippey states, "Re-composition and experimentation are the mark of a living tradition, not. . . the symptom of corruption" (383). This essential reality of folk belief may lead to the conclusion that folk belief does not represent a codified religious doctrine-at least it cannot often be verified that it does. But the notion of a "code" of belief, itself, comes to  Scandinavia only with the introduction of Christianity.

Pagan belief itself functioned, it might be said, on the basis of eclecticism, as well. No pagan "bible" or doctrine persisted throughout the pagan world; no universal church dictated what belief should look like. For this reason, too, the connection between folk belief and Christian religion become more readily visible in the study of Norse conversion.

Along with the connection between folk belief and religious belief comes the responsibility to understand how the connection functions. We  attempt to begin that process here by marking points along a trajectory of belief in N. Europe and Iceland.

Icelandic rimur, late sagas, and annals all offer information on belief vital to the understanding of how belief develops. Also, many inviting texts from the seventeenth century, such as the Qualiscunque descripti lslandiae or De mirabilibus lslandiae are helpfull in this context.

We are reluctant to use much,  Old Norse materials, this is  for the reason that the nature of the genre is less reliable. But the old Norse texts, Fornaldar sogur, Riddara sogur, and some mythological poetry have shown to be useful.

In the Anglo Saxon literature the issue becomes somewhat complicated due to the sources available there. And little information about pre-Christian belief systems remains. Furthermore, later sources appear strongly susceptible to foreign influence.Even when  some scholars have made strong surges in this area by applying archaeological evidence to poetic and literary sources.

Careful consideration must be given to an appropriate methodological approach. It is possible that Arthurian literature could shed some light on the matter, given its long history and various connections with folk belief and literature. Additionally, a study of Arthurian literature has a more verifiable connection with the church, meaning one can more clearly see connections with and points of departure from ecclesiastical influence.

Likewise Irish legends and folktales may have a great deal to say about the issues, though in some ways they suffer difficulties as well. For any of these areas the study of rhetoric may well prove a very good option. In Anglo Saxon literature, for instance, the rhetorical devices employed by the poets  lend insight to the sorts of belief structure to which the poetry is attempting to appeal.

We aim in the case study that follows, to understand the manner in which belief develops as a pagan society experiences its conversion to Christianity. By a developing belief, however, we do not mean "conversion," a word that fails to represent the full process involved in that  religious development. As the well-known passage from Bede suggests, it was not conversion that weighed heavy on the minds of early missionaries to pagan lands, for conversion had already taken place when this letter was written. Gregory understood that the process of making a people Christian was entirely different from saving their souls.The latter can be described as conversion, but the former-the more difficult task-might stretch on for generations, even centuries.

Farther north and four hundred years later, political leaders of Iceland may have agreed to convert to Christianity under the guidance of the pagan law-speaker of that time, but the more difficult process, which is often referred to as Christianization, carried on for the next several hundred years.

During that time, the more gradual, generation-by-generation development of belief occurred, in which the predominance of traditional pagan beliefs were meant to be done away with in exchange for a predominant Christian belief structure. .  So the theory might have gone, and so might Gregory the Great have intended Christianization to proceed, judging by his letter to Mellitus. One need not look very far, however, to find evidence that things did not follow according to plan, and it seems clear enough that "all errors from obstinate minds" were never entirely, exactly done away with.

Of course, conversion certainly took place in Iceland, and the pagan religious system was certainly usurped by the Christian religion. It remains to be seen, however, under what circumstances that usurpation took place.

In Iceland  this development comprises two transitions. First is the transition from paganism to Christianity. Those medieval historical accounts such as Landnamabok suggest that, although there were a few Icelandic settlers, mainly from the British Isles, who originally subscribed to Christianity, the religious practice of these few settlers did not carry much beyond one generation. After the settlement period, the country did indeed have some contact with Christian missionaries, but even so, Christianity had few supporters and remained incapable of initiating the changeover of Iceland's mythic structure. Before the acceptance of Christianity by the Alpingi in Iceland around the year 1000, therefore, Icelanders practiced whatever brand of Scandinavian (or Irish) paganism they had brought with them to Iceland. Even after the conversion, the development of a dominant Christian mythic structure in Iceland was a gradual process, taking numerous generations to gain an upper hand in the mentality of the people. When the country could at last be said to have converted, body and soul, to Christianity, many of the old pagan beliefs and practices survived conversion, lingering in the folk beliefs of the Icelandic people. The observation of belief systems in transition also lends a unique situation to the student of belief. Much more-so than in a study of simply a pagan religion at a given time and place, the study of a religious change, such as conversion, facilitates the understanding of the most essential and valuable components within a belief system. Those aspects of the earlier religion that persist (of which we will observe a great deal) after conversion tell us something not only about both beliefs systems but also about how belief functions.

The second transition, from predominant mythic structure to folklore, functions alongside the first. The notion that myth and folklore are independent entities is incomplete. Myth and folklore interpenetrate one another, even when the folklore of a people is coherent with the mythic structure in which their beliefs function. Folklore borrows from myth and vice versa. When there is a conversion from one mythic structure to another, from paganism to Christianity in the case of Iceland, the gradual disestablishment of the initial mythic structure requires that the mythic needs of the people should determine the more functional factors of the old myth, and then that those factors should remain alive in the folk tradition of the culture. As such, logic would suggest that high priority practices such as sacrifices and seasonal feasts are the first to establish themselves in folk traditions after the conversion, and indeed this does happen.

We must not forget, however, that the mythic structure of Christianity comes to Iceland equipped with supplements for these old rituals and beliefs. So the new mythic structure can meet some of the needs originally met by the old structure, but perhaps not all. The nuances of some needs-concerning guardianship, burial practices, and concepts of life after death, to name a few-remain apparently unsatisfied after the conversion, and a lively folklore borrows from either the old pagan mythic structure or the old pagan folklore (however we choose to distinguish these two phenomena) in order to appease the needs of the people. Consequently, the interplay between folklore and myth allows the contemporary Christian mythic structure to be influenced by the antiquated pagan myth and folklore. There is, then, a continuous interaction between a usurped pagan mythic structure of the people and their established Christian mythic structure. Both Icelandic medieval literature and the recorded folktales of Iceland bear witness to the interplay between pagan myth and folklore and the prevalent contemporary Christian mythic structure.

We furthermore need only look at the days of the week or the holidays in the calendar to see that remnants of pagan culture still hang on in our own culture, but because our culture exists many times removed from the initial conversion and Christianization, and because culture itself has so strongly cross pollinated since that time, the presence of such remnants does nothing to help understand how belief developed from paganism to Christianity. Gregory's correspondence indicates that Christianization weighed heavy on the minds of early missionaries, as well,but due to the paucity of existing sources and the complexity of the issue, it remains difficult to map a trajectory of Christianization in England. Evidence must come from sources less muddled and more contemporary with conversion and Christianization, if the question has any hope of finding illumination. Indications of that development can be found in a comparison of Old Norse literature with later Icelandic folktales. The earlier texts present evidence for what pre-conversion pagan beliefs might have looked like, and the later folktales reflect a society in which conversion has-already taken place.

As indicated above, and to be followed by further evidence,  Norse paganism was neither overturned nor abandoned. Christian belief then faced the task of reconciling the old beliefs with the new. If we can understand how this reconciliation takes place, then it becomes possible to understand the mechanism by which the mythic structure came to its later integration; how it was that we got there.

Works Cited