He Politics of Snorri Sturluson

8/12/2019 He Politics of Snorri Sturluson

1/25

The Politics of Snorri SturlusonAuthor(s): Theodore M. AnderssonSource: The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Jan., 1994), pp. 55-78Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27710941.

Accessed: 20/01/2014 13:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of English and Germanic Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.240.146.45 on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:11:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinoishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27710941?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27710941?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois


2/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson

Theodore M. Andersson, Stanford University

Despite Snorri Sturluson's predominant position in the classical sagawriting of medieval Iceland, there has been surprisingly little analysisof his great history of the Norwegian kings (Heimskringla) since thepublication of Gustav Storm's initial synthesis of 1873. The scatteredlandmarks are books by Sigur?ur Nordal (1920), Hallvard Lie (1937),Gudmund Sandvik (1955), and the indispensable edition of BjarniA?albjarnarson (1941-1951). In 1991 the drought was suddenly relieved by the appearance of two new books by Sverre Bagge and DianaWhaley.1 Bagge gives us three hundred dense pages of historical analysis, and Whaley provides a graceful literary introduction in less thanhalf that compass. Bagge writes more for a scholarly audience, Whaleymore for the general reader, but they have collaborated in making a

major work of medieval historiography broadly accessible for the firsttime, especially to those who do not read the Scandinavian languages.The special importance of Bagge's book is that it approaches Heimskringla not from the standpoint of the traditional philologist or literaryhistorian, but rather from the standpoint of the social and political historian.2 This shift of emphasis ismost welcome, but revolutions eventually give way to new syntheses, and the historical and philological view

?Sverre Bagge, Society and Politics in Snorri Sturlusons Heimskringla (Berkeley: Univ.of California Press, 1991); Diana Whaley, Heimskringla: An Introduction (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 1991). For the older literature readers may referto the ample bibliographies provided by both Bagge and Whaley.21 have reviewed Bagge's book enthusiastically in this journal (JEGP, 92 [1993], 27981) and, at greater length, in the context of a review article inMedievalia etHuman?stica,New Series, 19 (1992), 197-210. Since the writing of the present essay in the fall of1992 Klaus von See has proposed an analysis very similar to my own in a paper entitledSnorris Konzeption einer nordischen Sonderkultur in Snorri Sturluson: Kolloquium

anl??lich der J50. Wiederkehr seines Todestages, ed. Alois Wolf (T?bingen: Gunter NarrVerlag, 1993), pp. 141-77. The difference is that von See locates the central politicaltheme, which I seek to identify in the following pages, not inMorkinskinna, as I do,but rather in Snorri (p. 167): Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen einem wikingerhaftschweifenden, im Ausland nach Ruhm und Beute strebenden K?nigtum und einem

bauernfreundlichen, um den inneren Frieden und die Rechtsordnung des eigenenLandes bem?hten K?nigtum ist f?r Snorri das Generalthema der norwegischen und derskandinavischen Geschichte ?berhaupt. I believe that Snorri inherited and revised thistheme. My remarks therefore turn out to be a response to von See no less than Bagge.

Journal of English and Germanic Philology?January? 1994 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

56 Anderss onpoints should ultimately combine with rather than stand in oppositionto one another. Bagge's task was to establish some parity betweenthe historical and philological disciplines, not to harmonize them. Hewrites as follows (p. 6): Philologists in particular may miss one aspect,the analysis of Snorri's sources and his relationship to his predecessors.This is the aspect of Heimskringla and the saga literature that has beentreated most extensively?almost exclusively?hitherto, and thoughfar from all problems have been solved, I am not interested in this context inmaking further contributions to this field. . . . The present essay aims at making just such a contribution. It is intended to supplement Bagge's study by testing the text of Heimskringla against Snorri'schief source for the period 1030-1130 (Morkinskinna). The comparison will, I hope, not be carried out in a spirit of unregenerate philology, but will be guided by Bagge's line of political inquiry. What can welearn about Snorri's political bent by measuring itagainst Morkinskinna ?

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1215-1220It is generally agreed that Morkinskinna was composed around 1220and the corresponding sections of Heimskringla perhaps a decade orso later. The period just before 1220 is therefore of particular importance in establishing the circumstances under which these histories

were written. It seems evident that the unknown author of Morkinskinna was politically engaged, while Snorri's first visit to Norway in1218?1220 would have placed him at the very center of political developments in Iceland and Norway (Whaley, pp. 32-33). These developments were characterized by more than a little tension. In factthe period 1215-1220 saw what amounted to a trade war betweenIceland and Norway (Whaley, pp. 28 and 33).In 1215 Saemundr J?nsson at Oddi and I>orvaldr Gizurarson atHruni had set prices on the goods of some Norwegian merchants. In1216 Saemundr's son Pall went to Bergen and was treated to suchretaliatory abuse that he left Bergen and was drowned on the way toTrondheim. In 1217 Saemundr gave vent to his wrath by exactingfines from Bergen and Greenland merchants. In 1218 the Greenlandtraders killed Saemundr's brother Ormr in reprisal. In 1219 Norwayappears to have imposed an embargo on shipping to Iceland, and in1220 Jarl Skuli actually contemplated a naval expedition against Iceland.3 These events have been seen in the context of the long-stand

3These events may be traced in Sturla ?>or?arson's Islendinga saga, ed. Orn?lfurThorsson et al. in Sturlunga saga, vol. i (Reykjavik: Svart ? hv?tu, 1988), 254-62, andH?konar saga, ed. Gudbrand Vigfusson, Hakonar saga, Rolls Series, 88 (London: Her



4/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 57

ing designs on Iceland by the Norwegian kings, a view that is, as wewill see, borne out by the underlying suspicion of Norwegian motivesinMorkinskinna.4The trade war originated in southern Iceland, but there is evidenceof a traditional opposition to foreign intrusion in northern Iceland as

well, specifically in Eyjafjpr?r. King Haraldr Gormsson's plan to attackIceland is firmly resisted in a stanza by Eyj?lfr Valger?arson at Mp?ruvellir, and Eyj?lfr 's son Einarr jDveraringr is alleged to have composeda like-minded stanza as well as being credited with the famous speechin Snorri's Ol?fs saga helga in opposition to Ol?fr Haraldsson's requestfor the surrender of Grimsey in Eyjafjpr?r.5 Political resistance therefore had strong precedents in Eyjafjpr?r, and this is precisely the areain which Morkinskinna ismost likely to have been written.6 It is consequently understandable ifwe detect inMorkinskinna a deep-seated apprehension about Norwegian foreign policy.I have argued elsewhere that Morkinskinna builds its version of Norwegian history between 1030 and 1130 on two contrastive sets of

Majesty's Stationery Office, 1887), pp. 37-38, 49-52; ed. Gu?ni J?nsson in Konungas?gur, vol. 3 (?slendingasagna?tg?fan, 1957), pp. 52, 67, 69-71;

ed. Marina Mundt,H?konar saga H?konarsonar etter Sth. 8 fol., AM 325 VIH, 40 og AM 304, 40, Norsk Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, Norr0ne Tekster, 2 (Oslo: I kommisjon hos Forlagssentra

len, 1977), pp. 27, 35-36. See also Islandske annaler indtil 1578, ed. Gustav Storm(Christiania: Gr0ndahl & S0ns Bogtrykkeri, 1888), pp. 23, 63, 125, 183, 255, 326.4See J?n J?hannesson, A History of the Old Icelandic Commonwealth, trans. Haraldur

Bessason, University of Manitoba Icelandic Studies, 2 (N.p.: Univ. of Manitoba Press,i974)> PP- 239-40- ,5Haraldr Gormsson's planned attack is reported by Snorri in Ol?fs saga Tryggvasonar(Chap. 33), ed. Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, Islenzk fornrit, 26 (Reykjavik: HiS ?slenzkafornritaf?lag, 1941), 315-17. On this passage see Bo Almqvist, Norr0n niddiktning. Traditionshistoriska studier i versmagi, vol. 1:Nid mot furstar (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,1965), pp. 119-85. Eyj?lfr ValgerSarson's stanza is as follows (from Finnur J?nsson,Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning [Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1908-15], vol. lB, 95):Selit maSr v?pn viS verSi, / verSi dynr ef m? sverSa, / ver?um Hropts at her?a / hlj?S;

eigum slpg rj?Sa; / ver skulum Gorms af gomlu /Gandvikr |3oku landi / (hpr? es vpnat ver?i / v?pnhr?S) snor biSa (No one should cash in his weapons?let there be a dinof swords if it comes to that. We must sing Odin's tune and redden our weapons. Herein the old misty land of the northern seas we will await Gorm's son?a tough battle isin store). The Grimsey incident is related in Snorri's Ol?fs saga helga (chap. 125), ed.Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, Islenzk fornrit, 27 (Reykjavik: Hi? ?slenzka fornritaf?lag, 1945),pp. 215-17. The stanza attributed to Einarr Eyj?lfsson in one manuscript is as follows(ibid., p. xlix): Trautt erumk lausa at lata, / leiS es oss konungs reiSi, / gjarn es gramrat ?rna, /Grimsey, of trpS fleyja. /Hpldum ver fyr hildar, / hann es dyrr konungr, styri/ holmgjarSar, fremsk hilmir / hagli peitu nagla (I am reluctant to let Grimsey go,though we are loath to anger the king?the king is eager to cross the sea. Let us withhold from the battle leader?though he is an esteemed king?the buckle of the islandbelt [i.e., the buckle of the surrounding sea = island = Iceland]?the king stands outin spear storms). On the background of the Grimsey episode see Bjarni ASalbjarnarson's introduction to Ol?fs saga helga, pp. xlvii-1.6On the location o?.Morkinskinna see Eivind Kv?len, Den eldste norske kongesoga. Morkinskinna og Hryggjarstykki (Oslo: N.p., 1925), pp. 46?53.



5/25

58 Anderssonkings, to whom I will refer as the foreign adventurer type and thebuilder and lawmaker type.7 These kings may be paired and contrasted as follows ( foreign adventurers in the first column, buildersand lawmakers in the second):

Haraldr har?ra?i Magnus go?iMagnus berf ttr ?l?fr kyrriSigur?r J?rsalafari Eysteinn Magn?sson

The contrast emerges especially clearly in Morkinskinna because thecareers of the first and last pairs are contemporary and intertwined.The characters of these kings are therefore constantly set off againstone another. Snorri loses some of the comparative effect because heworks more in terms of single biographies and thus disentangles thecareers of Haraldr har?ra?i and Magnus go?i. He nonetheless retainsthe two distinct types, which Sverre Bagge refers to as the warriorhero and the peaceful ruler (p. 139), or the warrior, strong-willedand aggressive and the mild lover of peace (p. 156).InMorkinskinna there is a clear preference for the kings dedicatedto domestic welfare and a corresponding negative view of the foreignadventurers. The bias is so clear that it suggests a condemnation ofNorwegian expansionism on the part of an Icelandic writer and aforceful recommendation that Norwegian kings should devote themselves to social progress within Norway. In political terms this outlookmight very well be a reflex of the tensions between Iceland and Norway in the period 1215-1220. When we turn to Heimskringla, however, we find that bias considerably moderated. Snorri seems to havebeen at pains to remove the Icelandic perspective on Norwegian affairs and to rebalance in some measure the contrast between warriorkings and commonweal kings. Iwill therefore argue that in the period1030?1130 Heimskringla represents

aroyalist readjustment by

comparison to the immediate source Morkinskinna.

HARALDR HARDR?BI AND MAGNUS G?DIThe author of Morkinskinna takes a decidedly mixed view of Haraldrhar?ra?i, who is described as being valiant and resourceful but alsountrustworthy and deceitful.8 His portrait is further complicated by a

7 Snorri Sturluson and the Saga School at MunkaJDver? in Snorri Sturluson, ed. AloisWolf, pp. 9-25 (esp. 16-17).8Gustav Indreb0 contributed an interesting article on this contradiction to the volume for Finnur J?nsson: Harald hardraade iMorkinskinna in Festskrift til FinnurJ?nsson 29. Maj 1928 (Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1928), pp. 173-80. He believed that the core story was based on skaldic authority and was positive with respect



6/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 59series of Islendinga pcettir, most of which show off the wit and wisdomof individual Icelanders somewhat to the detriment of King Haraldr.We can only remind ourselves of the gist here, but the general tendentiousness of the p ttir hardly requires detailed demonstration.9The first, Halld?rs jD?ttr Snorrasonar, is perhaps the most indicativeof all. In it the Icelander both confronts and confounds the king,concluding his dealings with the aging monarch with a dismissiveeldisk argalinn n? (the old reprobate is aging now).10 The wellknown Au?unar J)?ttr iswittier, but also presents an Icelander whois stout enough to stand up to Haraldr and canny enough to subduehim with words and a superior display of tact. In addition, Au?unar|)?ttr formulates a comparison between Haraldr and Sveinn Ulfssonthat tends to favor the Danish king. In Brands JD?ttrprva the Icelander manages to give the king a silent lesson in the rules of generosity. In I>orvar?ar {)?ttr kr?kunefs another Icelander takes theking's gruff reception in stride and fares much better with his kinsman Eysteinn orri. Sneglu-Halla |}?ttr is characterized by a seriesof farcical episodes at the Norwegian court, in which the king playsthe autocrat and Halli consistently has the best of it. In Odds JD?ttrOfeigssonar the Icelandic trader Oddr outwits an ill-disposed Haraldr with the aid of a Norwegian accomplice.The focus of these p ttir is a portrayal of Haraldr har?ra?i as themoral or intellectual loser in his dealings with Icelandic visitors. That

to Haraldr, while the pcettir (and the final comparison with Magnus g?Si) were negative and secondary additions. I find the negative tonalities to be rather consistentthroughout.9For a survey of the pcettir in Morkinskinna see Heinrich Gimmler, Die Thcettir derMorkinskinna. Ein Beitrag zur ?berlieferungsproblematik und zur Typologie der altnordischen

Kurzerz?hlung (Diss. Frankfurt am Main, 1976). The pcettir referred to in this paper are:Halld?rs |)?ttr Snorrasonar, AuSunar ]}?ttr, Brands [)?ttr orva, ?orvarSar Jr?ttrkr?kunefs, Sneglu-Halla {)?ttr, Odds {)?ttr Ofeigssonar, Gull-?su-t>?rSar |)?ttr,and HreiSars Jr?ttr heimska. Gimmler addresses the problem of interpolation in general on pp. 44-49, then reviews the pcettir individually. He suggests that six of the eightpcettir discussed here were not in the original redaction of Morkinskinna (only AuSunar|)?ttr and Gull-?su-?>?rSar ]3?ttr are not designated as interpolations). On the other

hand, Jonna Louis-Jensen has shown in Kongesagastudier. Kompilationen Hulda-Hrokkinskinna, Bibliotheca Arnamagnaeana, 32 (Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1977), pp. 69, 77-78,that some of the suspect pcettir ( AuSunar [)?ttr, Sneglu-Halla fr?ttr, Halld?rs[}?ttr, HreiSars Jr?ttr, and Brands Jr?ttr ) may well have been in the original redaction. Since many of the pcettir are inspired by an anti-royalist tendency that is consonantwith Morkinskinna as a whole, I will assume for the sake of argument that they originated with Morkinskinna. They may not be the original creations of the Morkinskinnaauthor, but he could well have refashioned them for his project.10C. R. Unger, ed., Morkinskinna. Pergamentsbog fra f0rste halvdel af det trettende aarhundrede (Christiania: Bentzen's Bogtrykkeri, 1867), p. 51 (hereafter Unger ), andFinnur J?nsson, ed., Morkinskinna, Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur,53 (Copenhagen: J.j0rgensen & Co., 1932), p. 155 (hereafter FJ ).



7/25

6o Andersson

depiction runs exactly counter to the drift of Haraldr's adventures inthe Mediterranean, and for the most part his fortunes in Norway andDenmark. In these latter contexts he emerges regularly as the superior intellect, though hardly a model of scrupulous conduct. It is as ifhis powers were more than adequate to deal with any race other thanthe Icelanders, a reading that would no doubt have been as gratifyingto the author's countrymen as it would have been objectionable toloyal Norwegians. If Snorri suppressed even some of the p ttir in

Morkinskinna, we can only surmise that one consideration was to remove the sting for a Norwegian readership.Indeed, Snorri seems to have been intent on removing the Icelandic presence altogether, for example, a reference to Gizurr Isleifsson (Unger, p. 103; FJ, p. 251), or the consecration of the Icelandicbishop Magnus Einarsson in Norway (Unger, pp. 200-201; FJ,p. 404), or the mention of Sigur?r slembidj?kn's stay with I>orgilsOddason at Saurb r (Unger, p. 204; FJ, p. 409 [presumably from

Hryggjarstykki]). We can observe that with the disappearance of theintrusive Icelandic presence in Snorri's Heimskringla went the intrusive Icelandic view of Norwegian kingship found in Morkinskinna.Snorri no longer admits Icelanders for political coloring but only forthe sake of their stanzas.11

At one point Snorri even seems to offer an explanation for the suppression of the Icelandic p ttir.He acknowledges that he knows moreof King Haraldr than he has written (Hms 3:118): En Jdoer miklufleira ?ritat hans fraeg?arverka. K0mr til J)ess ofr oi v?r ok J}atannat,at ver viljum eigi setja ? bcekr vitnislausar spgur. The phrase vitnislausar spgur suggests a certain distaste, which could be inspired notso much by the problem of attestation as by the l?semajest? just belowthe surface of the p ttir. That impression can only be strengthenedwhen the paragraph continues with a digression on Haraldr's specialfriendship for Iceland. Snorri seems to dedicate himself here to anormalization of relations between Iceland and Norway.That tendency is carried one step further in the following paragraph, where Snorri discredits Haraldr's greatest Icelandic detractor,Halld?rr Snorrason. Snorri not only omits all of King Haraldr's provocations duly noted inMorkinskinna, but goes on to explain why Halldorr was an impossible presence at the Norwegian court (Hms 3 :120): Halld?rr var ma?r f?maeltr ok stir?or?r, bermaeltr ok stri?lund

a?r ok ?mj?kr, en J)at kom illa \)? vi? konung, er hann haf?i gn?ga11A good example of such retention is the mention of Porleikr fagri inHeimskringla,vol. 3, ed. Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, Islenzk fornrit, 28 (Reykjavik: HiS ?slenzka fornrita

f?lag, 1951), 113. This volume will be referred to as Hms 3 (with page number).



8/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 61a?ra me? ser gpfga menn ok |)j?nostufulla. Far from being a hero ofself-assertiveness, as in Morkinskinna, Halld?rr simply becomes an unserviceable courtier in Snorri's reincarnation of him.

The point is driven home by contrast in yet a third paragraph,which describes the ideal Icelandic courtier, Ulfr Ospaksson (Hms3:120): Hann var inn vitrasti ma?r, snjallr ?m?li, skprungr mikill,tryggr ok einfaldr. When Ulfr stallari dies many pages later, KingHaraldr stands over his grave and delivers a handsome eulogy (Hms3:175): Ear liggr s? n?, er dyggvastr var ok dr?ttinhollastr. Theeulogy is taken over from Morkinskinna (Unger, pp. 111-12; FJ,p. 265), but not the deliberate juxtaposition of Halld?rr Snorrasonand Ulfr stallari. That juxtaposition seems quite calculated; an Icelander who is not pj?nostufullr stands next to another Icelander whois dr?ttinhollastr. Service to the crown was not on the Morkinskinnaagenda, but itwas clearly in Snorri's mind when he suppressed KingHaraldr's antagonists and applauded his friends.Another clue to Snorri's attitude lies in his use of H?konar sagaIvarssonar. As Gustav Storm noted in 1873, tf?s is the only saga in thewhole corpus dedicated to a Norwegian chieftain unconnected to aroyal house.12 That in itself raises interesting questions about its genesis. Why would an Icelandic writer have turned to the career of thissomewhat marginal figure? The answer must lie not only in H?kon'sheroic dimensions but also in the perception that he was an opposition figure in Norway and thus appealed to the Icelanders in a periodof frictions with Norway. This is certainly the way he is portrayed bythe author of Morkinskinna, who contrasts him to King Haraldr muchas he sets up a series of Icelandic opposition figures.Morkinskinna tells the story of how H?kon parts company withFinnr Arnason, the latter allying himself with the Danish king SveinnUlfsson while H?kon offers his service to King Haraldr in Norway.He distinguishes himself in the Norwegian victory at the Battle ofNiz, but also secretly secures the escape of King Haraldr's antagonistSveinn Ulfsson. H?kon subsequently visits Haraldr at court, and theking offers him the hand of Magnus go?i's daughter Ragnhildr. Shehesitates to marry a man of lesser status, but the marriage takes place

12Gustav Storm, Snorre Sturlass?ns Historieskrivning. En kritisk Unders?gelse (Copenhagen: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri, 1873), p. 49. The fragments of H?konar saga Ivarssonarwere published by Storm (pp. 236-59) and by J?n Helgason and Jakob Benediktsson,H?konar saga ivarssonar, Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur, 62 (Copenhagen: J. J0rgensen, 1952). For the most recent discussion of the saga see Bjarne Fidjest0l, Det norrfine fyrstediktet (0vre Ervik: Alvheim 8c Eide, 1982), pp. 15-17, and Russell G. Poole, Viking Poems on War and Peace: A Study in Skaldic Narrative (Toronto: Univ.of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 66-68.



9/25

62 Anderssonon the supposition that Haraldr will appoint H?kon as jail. Haraldrfails to do so, and H?kon avenges himself by killing a number of theking's men and destroying their property.13 He then sails off on aviking expedition while Ragnhildr takes asylum in Denmark.There Sveinn Ulfsson offers H?kon the province of Halland in return for capturing his marauding kinsman Asmundr Bjarnason. Instead, H?kon delivers Asmundr's head. Though angered by the deathof his kinsman, King Sveinn is as good as his word and grants H?konhis jarldom in Halland, where he settles with his wife Ragnhildr.The story concludes with a pitched battle between King Haraldr andH?kon in Sweden. Haraldr wins the battle, but H?kon boldly recaptures his banner and ambushes some of Haraldr's men, thus forcingthe king to concede that their triumphs are equal.This is the tale of a distinguished man who volunteers his assistanceto King Haraldr and renders valuable service. Haraldr rewards himwith a marriage, presumably in a bid to retain his service, but fails toobserve the terms of the contract and obliges him to transfer his loyalty to his Danish rival Sveinn Ulfsson. Despite some provocationSveinn is scrupulous in discharging his commitment to H?kon, andthus contrasts favorably with King Haraldr. H?kon eventually losesthe contest but wins the moral victory. That victory is reminiscent ofwhat we find in the p ttir, for example Au?unar J^attr, which alsopits Sveinn Ulfsson against Haraldr har?ra?i in amoral contest.The story told inHeimskringla is quite different. In this version KingHaraldr needs H?kon's help in coming to terms with the ?r ndirafter the killing of Einarr JDambarskelfir and his son Eindri?i. It is nolonger the king who offers Ragnhildr's hand in marriage, but H?konwho stipulates it. In contrast to Morkinskinna, Haraldr declines togrant the jarldom in advance and thus does not allow the marriage togo forward. H?kon then retaliates by taking service with Sveinn Ulfsson, but he kills the king's nephew Asmundr and is banished. At thispoint H?kon returns to Norway, makes peace with Haraldr, receiveshis jarldom, and marries Ragnhildr. He later distinguishes himself inthe Battle of Niz but secretly helps Sveinn Ulfsson escape. Apprisedof the secret, Haraldr sets out to take revenge, but H?kon is able toescape to Sweden. Here the pitched battle is described as inMorkinskinna, but Haraldr's comment about equal triumphs and H?kon's reprisals are omitted.

13Unger, p. 85; FJ, p. 221. Snorri omits this detail from Heimskringla, but E?r?lfrtakes similar reprisals in Egils saga, Islenzk fornrit, vol. 2, ed. SigurSur Nordal (Reykjavik: HiS ?slenzka fornritaf?lag, 1933), 47-48.



10/25

The Politics of Snorri S turluson 63Snorri's version of the story is clearly exculpatory with respect toHaraldr har?ra?i. The king no longer lures H?kon into an agreementthat he then fails to keep. H?kon makes his own terms, and Haraldris candid about what he will and will not do. The marriage does nottake place under false auspices. At the same time Sveinn Ulfsson isreduced in stature. Rather than rewarding H?kon, he banishes him.Back in Norway the marriage and jarldom are arranged without de

ception and precede the Battle of Niz, so that H?kon's betrayal infacilitating the escape of Sveinn Ulfsson is more palpable. Finally,H?kon's flamboyant moral victory in Sweden is somewhat curtailed.Perhaps most significant is Snorri's suppression of the brilliant marriage portrait inMorkinskinna, in which the anguished tug betweenstatus considerations and personal affection engage the reader's special sympathy for H?kon and Ragnhildr. Snorri's version of H?konarsaga Ivarssonar thus rebalances the scales in favor of King Haraldr inthe same sense as his deletion of Islendinga pcettir. His interpretationof Haraldr's career is considerably more royalist than what we read in

Morkinskinna. Because H?konar saga is so fragmentary, we cannotknow how either version compares with the original, but a clear contrast between the biases inMorkinskinna and Heimskringla seems indisputable.It remains to ask whether Snorri reduces the contrast between KingHaraldr and King Magnus in the same way he readjusts Haraldr'srelations with such antagonists as Halld?rr Snorrason and H?konIvarsson. A palpable difference is that Morkinskinna neglects Magnus'searly reign and picks up the story only after Haraldr's return to Norway (ca. 1046). From the outset the focus inMorkinskinna is on Magnus's moral rather than his political stature. His clash with Haraldrover the royal mooring is calculated to demonstrate hereditary firmness of character. His visit with his steward I>orkell dy?rill illustrateshow he insists on but also acknowledges faithful service. There follows an episode in which he rewards good advice given him beforethe Battle of Hlyrsk?gr, and another in which he rewards a certainOrmr with a jarldom even though Ormr spared the life of his enemy.That act draws the author's explicit approval because it shows thatMagnus judges the quality of the man to be more important than apersonal difference (Unger, p. 24; FJ, p. 103).The story line then turns once more to the direct relations betweenthe coregents Magnus and Haraldr. In one encounter Magnus is ableto help a relative of K?lfr Arnason's escape Haraldr's clutches. In asecond Haraldr proves to be grasping in his collection of taxes andprovokes the opposition of Einarr |)ambarskelfir. At the Eyra|}ing an



11/25

64 Anderssonold man rises to enunciate the view that the greater allegiance is owedto King Magnus (Unger, p. 27; FJ, p. 108). In yet a third encounterHaraldr composes some offensive verses at the expense of Magnus'staciturn brother I>?rir. Magnus retaliates by instructing I>?rir to recitean even deadlier reply. All three passages suggest that Magnus is capable of defending his turf against his more aggressive uncle. Theyculminate in a visit by Arn?rr jarlask?ld, who recites poems in honorof both kings, but Haraldr comments that his dr?pa is ephemeral,while Magnus's will be recited as long as the northern lands arepeopled (Unger, p. 32; FJ, p. 118).Two other episodes are less obviously tendentious. In the first bothHaraldr and Magnus try their hand healing a boy who has lost thecapacity to dream, but it is finally Haraldr who succeeds. In the second Saint Olaf signals toMagnus that he should refrain from sleepingwith a certain Margr?ta. That may of course suggest that Magnus isto be seen as Olafs special charge and true heir, but the comparisonof kings becomes even more explicit in the only Islendinga p?ttr attached specifically to Magnus, Hrei?ars |)?ttr heimska. The gist ofthe story is again that Magnus is able to defend his interests, in thiscase a man commended to his keeping, against Haraldr.All of the incidents thus far are designed to establish Magnus as amodel of probity and competence, and to shed a correspondingly unfavorable light on Haraldr. No space is devoted to what might be considered Magnus's political career. Only at the very end of his sagadoes he go off to harry in Denmark with his uncle, but even this episode serves to illustrate his wisdom and farsightedness. Foreseeing hisdeath, Magnus contrives to have his mother free the Danish captivePorgils, a kinsman of Sveinn Ulfsson's, so that she will be welcome totake refuge in Denmark when he can no longer protect her. A finalcomparison between Magnus and Haraldr is attributed to Sveinn

Ulfsson, who capers unidentified before the Norwegian host andcomments that there is a significant difference between the two Norwegians?he himself was guilty of betraying Magnus, whereas Haraldr betrayed him. Sveinn thus adds his voice to the poetic voice ofArn?rr jarlask?ld, whose panegyrics seem to have implied a preference for Magnus, and to the legal voice of the old man at the EyraJDing.The comparisons are plentiful and invidious; they clearly resonate in favor of Magnus. The political difference is summed up by

Magnus himself on his deathbed (FJ, p. 143 [from Flateyjarb?k]): Okkann vera, at sumum ver?i myrkari ok kaldari ra? Haralds konungs,fraenda m?ns, en min.

Whereas the author of Morkinskinna is interested almost exclusively



12/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 65in Magnus the moral man, Snorri is interested primarily in Magnusthe political man. In Snorri's recreation, Magnus's political career isfar from unblemished. He is moved to take reprisals against thosewho fought against his father at Stiklarsta?ir, and he must be recalledto a more scrupulous observance of H?kon g?oi's laws, especially bySighvatr's Berspglisvisur. In the foreign arena Magnus pursues hisgoals aggressively. He secures the Danish succession, then loses it toSveinn Ulfsson but regains it in three successive victories, though onlyafter destroying the fortress of the Jomsvikings and subduing theWends with the aid of Saint Olaf. Finally he extends his ambition toEngland, but wisely refrains from pressing his good fortune.In these chapters Magnus appears as a daring but prudent militaryleader, an image not hinted at inMorkinskinna. On the other hand,Snorri drops the morally paradigmatic incidents of Morkinskinna almost without exception. Of the implied comparisons between Haraldrand Magnus there remains only the contested mooring site (pp. 1034). But, as in the case of Haraldr, Snorri gives us to understand thathe knows more than he writes. He knows that there were more disagreements, though he tries to dismiss them as the work of maliciousmen (p. 102): Br?tt ger?usk greinir ?um sam|3ykki konunganna, okv?ru margir sv? illgjarnir, at f>eira gengu sv? illa ?milli. And againon p. 104: Vio sl?kar greinir ger?isk br?tt umr ?a ?vitra manna til|)ess, at konungum var? sundr|}ykki at. Mart fannsk \)? til ^>ess, erkonungum jr?tti sinn veg hv?rum, p?tt h?r s? f?tt ritat. It is as ifSnorri does not want to hear of the dissension between the kings. Hecertainly does not want to use Magnus to cast a shadow on Haraldr.To be sure, Magnus emerges as an extraordinarily popular king(p. 105): Si?an anda?isk Magnus konungr go?i, ok var hann allmjpkharmdau?i allri anby?u. Or again (p. 107): Allra konunga var hannvinsaelstr, bae?i lofu?u hann vinir ok ?vinir. But the invidious comparisons with Haraldr that operate so clearly in Morkinskinna areabandoned completely. The judgments of Arn?rr jarlask?ld, the oldman at the Eyra?>ing, and Sveinn Ulfsson on the battlefield are notrepeated. On the contrary, Snorri makes every effort to suggest thatHaraldr and Magnus cooperated in reasonable amity. That tendencyemerges in such small touches as Snorri's revised treatment of theattempt on Sveinn Ulfsson's part to win Haraldr over for an allianceagainst Magnus. Haraldr's response in Morkinskinna is simply noncommittal (Unger, p. 17; FJ, p. 88), but in Heimskringla (p. 96) heresponds angrily to the idea of betraying his kinsman. It might evenappear that Snorri works against the idea of an implied contrast bycomparing King Haraldr at the end of his saga (p. 201) not with Magn



13/25


14/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 67fp?ur m?ns var ly?r ]Dessi undir aga miklum ok ?tta, ok f?lu \)? flestirmenn gull sitt ok gersimar, en n? s? ek ? hverjum y?rum sk?na ?>at,er ?. Ok er y?vart frelsi min glae?i.The comparison is not quite so glowing inHeimskringla. Here Ol?fris asked to explain why he has a larger retinue than the law prescribeswhen he makes his rounds of Norway, and he must reply a little defensively (p. 207): Eigi fae ek betr styrt rikinu ok eigi er meiri ?gn afm?r en af fp?ur m?num, }}?tt ek hafa h?lfa fleira li? en hann haf?i,en engi pynding gengr m?r til ]Dessa vi? y?r e?a {Dat,at ek vilja J^yngjakostum

y?rum.In other words, the author o? Morkinskinna continues

to use Haraldr har?ra?i as the negative pole of royal authority, whileSnorri depolarizes the two kings. He even converts Ol?fr's wordsfrom the invidious original into an expression of modesty. Ol?frmerely suggests that despite the increased size of his retinue he isneither as powerful nor as intimidating as his father.These passages inMorkinskinna align the peaceable Ol?fr against anaggressive Haraldr and keep the contrastive strategy in place. On thepeaceful side of the balance Ol?fr is in the company of Magnus g?oi.It was one of Magnus's characteristics that he put domestic securityahead of foreign conquest, with the result that he refrained from intervening in England and eventually judged it best to leave Denmarkto Sveinn Ulfsson. Ol?fr inherits his restraint. When he is urged byKing Knutr of Denmark to join an expedition against England, hedeclines, citing the fate of his far more accomplished father at Stamford Bridge. He is therefore content to give Kn?tr sixty ships for hisenterprise while he remains behind in Norway. Ol?fr is thus, according to Morkinskinna, the polar opposite of Haraldr and the naturalheir of Magnus, but Snorri moderates the contrast to Haraldr andeliminates altogether Ol?fr's refusal, in emulation of Magnus go?i, to

join the attack on England, despite the fact that these subtractionsleave him with a mini-saga of no more than seven pages. In Morkinskinna Ol?fr has paradigmatic value, inHeimskringla very little.

Magnus berfcettr clearly reverts to the behavioral model establishedby Haraldr har?ra?i, though again more overtly inMorkinskinna thanin Heimskringla. Magnus's autocratic streak is illuminated by Morkinskinna's account of his dealings with the east Norwegian chieftainSveinki Steinarsson, who fails to submit. Magnus dispatches his officials to recall the chieftain to his duty and require that he perform

g?oa jDJ?nostu ok s miliga fylg? (Unger, p. 137.34; FJ, p. 308.13),but they are treated first to ironical riddles and finally to an obscenedismissal. Magnus follows up in person, but is headed off by the regional chieftains, who conduct exquisitely delicate negotiations lead



15/25

68 Anderssoning to a minimal three-year exile for Sveinki. As it turns out, Magnusis obliged to recall him even before that term is up in order to containthe depredations of robbers and bandits. The whole episode is clearlyseen as a credit to Sveinki and a humiliation for Magnus. Particularlytelling is the need for Sveinki to deal with the local banditry, traditionally a preeminent duty of kings. Snorri drops the whole episode, presumably in the interest of sparing Magnus the embarrassment. According to his version (p. 218) Magnus alone suppresses the robbersand vikings. That leads to a direct comparison with his father ?l?frand his grandfather Haraldr Sigur?arson: Hann var ma?r rpskr okhersk?r ok starfsamr ok l?kari ? pllu Haraldi, fp?urfp?ur s?num, ?skaplyndi heldr en fe?r s?num. This comparison is not found in

Morkinskinna, where it would clearly have had a negative valence. InHeimskringla it is placed in the context of Magnus's achievements andhas no negative connotations.

Although Magnus is not compared toHaraldr har?ra?i at this juncture inMorkinskinna, such a comparison ismade later during his expedition to Ireland. Here Magnus harangues his men, urging the expedition (conjecturally) for the greater glory of Norway and for thesake of plentiful booty.14 But his men are not so certain, and theirspokesman replies (Unger, p. 153.22-29; FJ, p. 333.1-10): Herra,allir mundu [)ess b?nir at vinna y?r til s mOar, en hrseddir eru v?rum npkkut ? |)essu landi, hvat til s mOar vill gerask. Er land {Dettafjplmennt en f?lkit svikalt, ok er oss uggr ?, hv? til ver?r geymt. F?rsv? um fraenda y?varn, Harald konung, at fyrst var honum allt uppgefit ?Englandi, }}ar sem hann kom vi?. En p? lauk sv?, at hann l?zk[Dar sj?lfr. Myndi vinum J3?num JDvkkja allra bezt, at \)? hef?ir kyrrsetit ? |)?nu r?ki, sv? gott sem |d? ?tt um at vela. Magnus is naturallynot inclined to accept such advice and dies abroad in circumstances

not unlike those that brought about the downfall of Haraldr har?ra?i.The advice pinpoints the issue of foolhardy foreign adventurism andprudent domestic policy once again. Significantly, Snorri eliminatesthe exchange of speeches (p. 233) and thus continues to blur the distinction. He concludes (p. 237) with a temporizing balance betweenMagnus's successes at home and his risk-taking abroad. Magnus isfully cognizant of the risks and relativizes them with the maxim Tilfraeg?ar skal konung hafa, en ekki til langlifis (p. 237). The authorof Morkinskinna took no such balanced view of Magnus's reign.

14Unger, p. 153.12, conjectured enn til s m&ar v?ru r?ki N?regi. Finnur J?nsson(p. 332.19-20) omitted the conjecture.



16/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 69SIGURDR J?RSALAFARI AND EYSTEINN MAGN?SSON

Turning to Magnus's sons, we find that Morkinskinna carries throughthe same contrastive pattern in the most explicit terms yet. Sigur?rJ?rsalafari, like Haraldr har?ra?i before him, is famed for his adventures in the Mediterranean and Constantinople, while Eysteinn, evenmore obviously than Magnus go?i, is a peaceful and constructive stayat-home. The two kings ultimately work out the contrast in the wordsof their famous flyting. Their confrontation is by no means value-freebecause the author makes it abundantly clear that Sigur?r is

a flawedpersonality. At the height of his trajectory in Constantinople a sageprophesies that his honor will be shaped like the lion, massive in theforequarters but tapering off further on (Unger, p. 165.20-23; FJ,p. 351.25-29). That inauspicious prophecy is later confirmed by Eysteinn, who predicts that his brother will succumb to some dire calamity ( npkkuru ?>ungu ?felli ?Unger, p. 170.29-30; FJ, p. 359.20).The calamity in question is amadness that haunts Sigur?r at unpredictable intervals through the last chapters of his saga. In the firstepisode he casts his most valuable book into the fire and slaps hisqueen. In another episode he almost drowns a certain Jon for no apparent reason. In yet a third he is barely restrained from a wantonconsumption of meat on a Friday, and in a fourth he craves meat anda woman on Christmas. Finally, at an advanced age, he abandons hiswife and takes a new one, who in turn abandons him before he dies.Several of these episodes turn into tests of retainers with enoughcourage to oppose his irrational behavior. There is no doubt inMorkinskinna that Sigur?r ends his days as a capricious madman.

Snorri, on the other hand, curtails his symptoms drastically. In thefirst place, he eliminates the invidious prophecies voiced by the sagein Constantinople and by Eysteinn, but he also reduces the suggestionof madness. In the cameo Chapter 22 (p. 262) he merely notes thatSigur?r was subject to uncontrollable fits of mirth, though in Chapter28 he does retain the episode in which Sigur?r nearly drowns a man(here an anonymous Icelander). All the other indications of madness

disappear. It is particularly telling that Snorri deletes the ones thatrun counter to Church prohibitions (fasting rules and divorce), as ifhe were trying to portray Sigur?r as a better Christian. That tendencyis perhaps borne out by a new chapter (24) in which Snorri creditsSigur?r with a crusade in Sweden.

Snorri succeeds in closing the personality gap between Sigur?r andEysteinn to such an extent that Sverre Bagge (p. 156) judges that



17/25

7 o AnderssonSnorri's kingship ideal is a composite of both types. I believe there isenough residue from the bias in Morkinskinna to convince us thatSnorri retains a preference for Eysteinn, but he certainly does muchto tone down the negative portrait of Sigur?r inMorkinskinna. This isno doubt a conscious operation because Snorri seems to be cognizantof the opposition inMorkinskinna. His comparison of Magnus berf ttr with Haraldr har?ra?i (p. 218) shows that he recognized thispart of the continuity inMorkinskinna, but Morkinskinna also alignedEysteinn with Magnus go?i (Unger, p. 189.30-32; FJ, p. 388.3-6).Snorri retains that comparison as well (p. 263), but the parallelismsare otherwise so blurred that the overall contrast of types is no longerso obvious.

InMorkinskinna the contrast culminated in the flyting between Sigur?r and Eysteinn, which subsumes the two personality strains datingback to Magnus go?i and Haraldr har?ra?i. In an interesting speculation on Snorri Sturluson's appearance, Helgi ?>orl?ksson studied theflyting on the supposition that Snorri's changes in Heimskringla hintthat he is recasting Eysteinn in his own image.15 In the course of hisdiscussion he arrives at the same general conclusions stated here:1.That Snorri favors Eysteinn, and 2. that he minimizes the opposition between the two brothers (p. 175). I do not propose another detailed analysis of the flyting, but I believe there are several indicationsof Snorri's tendency to moderate invidious comparisons. Eysteinn isthe manifest winner inMorkinskinna, and probably inHeimskringla aswell, but Snorri makes a number of changes in order to balance thescore.

On the evening in question Morkinskinna notes that Sigur?r is taciturn, a mood which, in the context of this saga, could be construed asa sign of his approaching madness. Snorri removes the onus by stating that everyone, not just Sigur?r, was taciturn. InMorkinskinna thehost of the feast appeals to Eysteinn because Sigur?r and his men are

given to arrogant behavior. Snorri drops that charge. InMorkinskinnaEysteinn shows signs of being irritated by his brother's responses, sothat he appears to be more challenging. In Heimskringla he ismerelytrying to lighten the atmosphere in the hope of making the situationless charged and antagonistic. To the characterization inMorkinskinna

15 Hvernig var Snorri ? sj?n? in Snorri. Atta aida minning (Reykjavik: Soguf?lag,1979), pp. 161-81 (esp. 174-80). On the flyting see also Marianne E. Kalinke, Sigurd

ar saga J?rsalafara: The Fictionalization of Fact inMorkinskinna,' Scandinavian Studies,56 (1984), 152-67 (esp. 162-65). Kalinke, like Bagge, sees the ideals represented bythe two kings as being equally balanced. Whaley, Heimskringla, p. 101, takes a viewcloser to the one advanced here.



18/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 71Snorri adds that Eysteinn is handsomer, better at the law, and moreeloquent, assets that were no doubt dear to Snorri's heart and servedto counterbalance Sigur?r's military prowess. Finally, Snorri reducesEysteinn's concluding speech by about two thirds, from thirty-threelines in Unger's edition (p. 187.7-40) or forty-four lines in FinnurJ?nsson's edition (pp. 384.1-385.10) to a mere nine lines in Heimskringla (p. 261). The effect inMorkinskinna is that Eysteinn delivers anoverwhelming and crushing final statement that makes his case incontrovertible. In Heimskringla the debate spends itself in a more sticho

mythic and inconclusive exchange, in which the winner is not quite sopredetermined by the rhetoric.A comparison such as the one presented here is contingent on theaccuracy of the transmitted texts. In the case of Heimskringla we probably have something approximating Snorri's text, though not in everydetail.16 In the case of Morkinskinna the latitude for doubt is considerable, and there are strong suspicions that the extant text is an interpolated version of the original text available to Snorri, although theextent of the interpolations cannot be ascertained. Thus each individual comparison offered above is subject to doubt. On the otherhand, the overall tendency is so consistent that the total comparisoncan hardly be disqualified on the basis of individual questions. Itseems apparent that Morkinskinna gives a politicized version of theperiod 1030?1130, in which a set of peaceful monarchs dedicated tosound domestic policy is opposed to a set of warrior kings of morequestionable character and rashly engaged in foreign exploits. Itseems equally clear that Snorri set about neutralizing the oppositionand softening the original critique of the foreign adventurers. We

may suspect further that the politicized version inMorkinskinna is inspired by an Icelandic distrust of Norwegian foreign policy, and thatSnorri's adjustment of that perspective is intended to remove thesigns of Icelandic distrust in order to promote better relations withthe mother country. To test that hypothesis we must look at a contemporary book that is specifically about Icelandic-Norwegian relationsand may very well have been authored by Snorri himself.

THE POLITICS OF EGILS SAGAIn 1985 Melissa Berman published a paper in which she classed J?ms

vikinga saga, Orkneyinga saga, and F reyinga saga as political sagas

16On the textual situation see Whaley, Heimskringla, pp. 41-62.



19/25

72 Anderssonbecause they center on the political dealings of provincial chieftainswith the kings of Norway and Denmark.17 At the conclusion of herpaper she notes that they share their political features with Egils saga,in which the Myramenn of Iceland clash with a series of Norwegian

monarchs over a period of some seventy-five years. She points outthat J?msv?kinga saga is distinctly anti-royalist and that Orkneyinga sagais royalist, while F reyinga saga mediates between the two postures.Berman judges that Egils saga is closest to the mediating position.There is no doubt that the tension between provincial chieftains,eventually Icelanders, and the Norwegian crown is thematic in Egilssaga. The saga begins with the story of Haraldr h?rfagri's suppressionof the petty kings of Norway, a story told with obvious sympathy forthe cause of the losers. Haraldr's policy is referred to as enslavement(?pj?n), and his crushing of the resistance is ruthless.18 It leads to extensive emigration and the settling of Iceland (p. 12), which may thusbe regarded as a product of royal aggression. The question posed inthe early chapters is how local chieftains will respond to the newthreat, and the more honorable alternative appears to be resistance.Splvi klofi is politically clear-sighted, chooses to resist, is forced intoexile, but continues to assail the king from abroad. Kveld-Ulfr is similarly clear-sighted and has no difficulty in resisting King Haraldr'sblandishments. When his son I>?r?lfr is swayed by the prospect ofroyal service, Kveld-Ulfr foresees the consequences (p. 15): Haraldr

mun ver?a at miklum ska?a m?num fraendum.?>?r?lfr's experience with Haraldr bears out his father's worst fears.

Despite a predilection for high living, E?r?lfr is a model retainer andserves the king faithfully. When he is slandered by his enemies, hecannot believe that the king will credit such malice (p. 37), but hisconfidence ismisplaced, with the result that he is removed from hislucrative position and kept at court under the king's watchful eye. Itis of course a considerable criticism of the king that he is unable to

distinguish between faithful service and palpable malice. Kveld-Ulfrcan only repeat his dire predictions and advise his son to take servicewith the English, Danish, or Swedish king (p. 46), a recommendation that does not speak well for their Norwegian brother. Haraldr's17Melissa A. Berman, The Political Sagas, Scandinavian Studies, 57 (1985), 113-29.Since the writing of my paper Preben Meulengracht S0rensen has provided a muchfuller account of the political implications in Egils saga and the tension between theIcelandic ideals of individual freedom and the centralized authority of the Norwegian

kingship. See his Fort lling og cere: Studier i Islendingesagaerne (Arhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 1993), pp. 127-47. Meulengracht S0rensen warns that the political thememay not reflect current events as much as the underlying social ideal.

18Egils saga, pp. 8 and 12.



20/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 73

wrongful suspicion goes so far that he has one of I>?r?lfr's shipsseized, thus provoking retaliation and open hostility. Kveld-Ulfr nowharks back to his refrain, reminding ?>?r?lfr once again of his advicethat service with the king would bring no luck for him or his family(p. 46). E?r?lfr remains principled to the end, and in the final confrontation he refuses to accept a forced settlement (nauSungars tt,

p. 52). He falls in a gallant last assault three feet from the king (p. 54).The question of whether it is advisable to serve the king is nowraised again, this time with respect to Kveld-Ulfr's other son SkallaGr?mr. Skalla-Grimr declines point-blank, noting that he is unlikelyto have more luck than his more distinguished brother. That enablesKveld-Ulfr to invert his refrain by approving Skalla-Grimr's action onthe grounds that he will incur only harm and no benefit from theking. They take revenge for ?>?r?lfr's death by killing the two royalagents who had seized his ship. The break between Kveld-Ulfr'sfamily and King Haraldr is thus complete, and the author concludesthis section of the saga by stating that after Kveld-Ulfr's emigrationthe king not only seizes all their property but nurses a special hatredagainst the whole clan and continues to retaliate (p. 77). This intransigence is reminiscent of his earlier ruthlessness against the pettykings (p. 11).The tone and tenor of this story are clearly weighted in favor ofKveld-Ulfr's family. He and Skalla-Grimr form an intelligent and effective opposition to an expansionist king. The idyllic description oftheir newly settled home in Iceland (p. 77) is calculated not only as afavorable contrast to a Norway that has passed under the king's irongrip, but also as a just reward for their political acumen. I>?r?lfr, forall his brilliance, does not share their wisdom and dies at the hands ofa king who ismorally blind. There can be no doubt that Kveld-Ulfr'skin group holds the high ground in this confrontation.The second stage in the conflict between the Myramenn and the

Norwegian monarchy is not only more drawn out but also more complex and difficult to interpret. It pits Skalla-Grimr's sons ?>?r?lfr andEgill against King Haraldr's son Eir?kr bl?o0x. ?>?r?lfr courts the favor of Prince Eir?kr with some success, but King Haraldr, now advanced in years, warns his son that the Myramenn are all ofsamennmiklir and that Eir?kr will live to regret his new friendship (p. 93).But Eir?kr persists and sends an ax to Iceland as a gift for SkallaGrimr, who receives it in meditative silence. When ?>?r?lfr preparesto set sail once more, his father warns that he is not likely to return ifhe leaves now, and he sends the ax back with a dismissive stanza. I>?r?lfr conceals the hostile gesture by throwing the ax overboard and



21/25

74 Anderssongiving Eir?kr a sail ostensibly as a reciprocal gift from Skalla-Grimr.This system of silences speaks louder than words about the deep riftbetween the two families.

As it turns out, ?>?r?lfr does not fall victim to the feud, but succumbs in battle in the service of King ^Ethelstan of England. It is leftto his younger brother Egill to take up the family cudgel. Egill responds to amagic attempt on his life by killing Eirikr's steward B?rOrin a scene of drunken confusion (pp. 106?11). ?>?rir Hr?aldssonnotes his hereditary propensity to underestimate the king's wrath,and Eir?kr bursts out in a belated recognition of the truth in his father's words and the realization that the Myramenn are not to be trusted(p. 114). His wife Gunnhildr later specifies the threat by predictingthat Skalla-Grimr's progeny will ultimately kill some of his close kin(p. 123).It is at this juncture that the lead passes into the hands of Gunn

hildr, who becomes the most implacable enemy of the Myramenn, arole justified in stanza 29 (p. 165). She instructs her brothers Eyvindrskreyja and Alfr askma?r to waylay one or both of Skalla-Grimr's sons,but they succeed only in killing two of ?>?r?lfr's men (p. 125). In retaliation Egill seizes Eyvindr's ships, though Eyvindr himself is able toescape. At this point relations can presumably no longer be mended,and Egill is twice warned. King iTthelstan suggests that it would bebest for him to stay in England, and Arinbjprn warns him not to settlein Norway as long as Gunnhildr holds sway.Prudence is not in Egill's nature, and he exacerbates the quarrel bygoing to law with a certain Berg-Qnundr in order to recover an inheritance to which he feels entitled. Unabashed, he appeals to KingEir?kr to give him the benefit of the law, and surprisingly Eir?kr doesso (p. 152). Egill cites the case to the GulajDing, where Berg-Qnundrfeels confident in the protection of king and queen, and where Gunnhildr in fact breaks up the court when it seems about to find for Egill(p. 157). With the peaceful remedies exhausted, Egill challenges Berg

Qnundr to a duel but is overborne by Eir?kr. Egill then departs witha thunderous denunciation of the legal breaches. Eir?kr is determinedto kill him at the first opportunity, but Egill turns the tables and killsone of the king's men before escaping. The king must content himselfwith outlawing Egill the whole length of Norway (p. 164).That seems only to inspire Egill to greater outrages. He kills BergQnundr in an ingeniously designed nocturnal ambush, then kills theking's foster son Fr?Oi to boot. These killings are followed up bytwelve more, which include the king's own son Rpgnvaldr, and Egillconcludes his campaign by planting a scorn pole to spite and curse



22/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 75Eir?kr and Gunnhildr. Ostensibly as a result they lose their footholdin Norway and go to York, where Gunnhildr exercises her magic inorder to lure Egill from Iceland. He is now at the mercy of his archenemies, and despite Arinbjprn's eloquent pleas for his release, itseems hardly credible that Eir?kr does in fact allow him to return toIceland.

The story of Egill and Eir?kr is balanced on a sword's edge. It isno longer possible to conclude simply that the Norwegian king haswronged the Icelander. At several junctures Eir?kr seems almost implausibly patient. At others Egill seems wantonly overreactive and litigious. There is always some justification for his action, but often nonecessity. He does not need to kill the steward B?rOr. He does not needto prosecute Berg-Qnundr in the teeth of such obvious, and not unjustified, royal disfavor. He certainly does not need to kill the king'sfoster son and son and plant a scorn pole. At some point Egill goestoo far and vindicates the royal opinion that his family is congenitallydangerous and not to be trusted.On the other hand, Eir?kr is remarkably restrained in allowing Egillaccess to the courts, and spectacularly so in letting Egill out of hisclutches in York. There are also signs of a conscious authorial strategyto shift royal aggressiveness from Eir?kr to his notorious wife Gunnhildr. To be sure, Haraldr h?rfagri was also subjected to maliciousadvice in his dealings with I>?r?lfr, but the reader feels that he shouldhave penetrated the deception easily. In Eirikr's case there appears tobe no malice and a genuine instinct for leniency.

How, then, are we to understand the clash between Egill and Eir?kr? Who bears the primary responsibility? Surely it is Egill. We areleft with the impression that a more moderate and circumspect Egillcould have gotten all or most of what he wanted. It is only his uncompromising and unreflective nature that stands in the way of his wishes.But how does that recognition accord with the anti-royal rhetoricaimed at Haraldr h?rfagri earlier in the saga? Is the author moderating his view of the Norwegian crown as he progresses, or is he illustrating the idea from Morkinskinna that some kings are good and somebad? Or is he serving notice that the circumstances of the originalalienation of the nobles in the days of Haraldr h?rfagri are not duplicated in every generation, and that the aggression is sometimes thedoing of the provincials?

Perhaps we must conclude that the saga does no more than statethat there has been (or once was), a long-standing feud between the

Myramenn and the house of Haraldr h?rfagri. Perhaps the thrust ispurely historical, and not political in the sense that it suggests an on



23/25

76 Anderssongoing disaffection between Icelanders (represented by one clan) andthe Norwegian throne (represented by Haraldr and his sons). Theidea that history is variable and that circumstances change may besupported by Egill's experience with King H?kon Aoalsteinsf?stri.

Egill brings his inheritance case before the king, and H?kon, thoughmindful of the injury done his kin, allows him access to the law, justas Eir?kr had done. Not content with that, Egill presses for anotherinheritance, which H?kon has already seized. Arinbjprn intercedesfor him yet again, but H?kon's patience is exhausted and nothingcomes of his efforts. Once more Egill seems to have pressed his claimsbeyond reason.

Egill's final contact with the Norwegian king comes about indirectly.H?kon decides to send a certain ?orsteinn Eir?ksson to V?rmland ona perilous mission to collect overdue taxes. Egill assumes the task forhim and carries it out with legendary prowess. H?kon is reconciledwith Porsteinn, and Egill returns to Iceland. The author makes thesignificant comment that there is no mention of further duels or slayings after Egill settled down in Iceland (p. 257). It is as if trouble isconfined to the Norwegian scene and vanishes in a more orderly andless autocratic Icelandic environment.There is, however, one final indication that autocracy is not restricted to Norway. In advanced old age Egill reappears one moretime in all his chieftainly authority to settle a quarrel between his sonf>orsteinn and a certain Steinarr Qnundarson. He settles it dictatorially, invoking historical privilege on the basis that all the land in thedistrict was distributed in the form of gifts from his father SkallaGrimr. In other words, the Myramenn retain a sort of moral title tothe land and the right to retract what they once bestowed. This is afinal, highly questionable example of Egill's propensity to give himselfevery possible benefit of the law in support of his own claims. Hisclaim is comparable to the earlier ones in Norway, to the extent thatboth are historical in nature. Egill severs his ties with Norway but isnot deterred from pursuing his interests there. He will forego noright because his rights are grounded in history. The Myramenn area historical entity, coeval with the centralized monarchy in Norwayand therefore coentitled. In historical terms at least, the conflict between the Myramenn and the Norwegian crown is a confrontation ofequals.It is difficult to determine which side the author favors in this conflict. Haraldr h?rfagri is, at the very least, flawed in his judgment, butEir?kr and H?kon are by no means portrayed negatively. It is therefore not possible to align Egils saga with J?msv?kinga saga as anti



24/25

The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 77royalist, or with Orkneyinga saga as royalist. Itmust be sufficient to saythat Egils saga, along with the other political sagas, deals with theissue of relations between kings and provincial chieftains.

CONCLUSIONHow does the thrust of Egils saga conform to the tone of the kings'sagas in the period 1220?1230? Morkinskinna distinguished dramatically between kings in pursuit of foreign glory (Haraldr har?ra?i,Magnus berfcettr, and Sigur?r J?rsalafari) and those devoted to domestic prosperity (Magnus go?i, ?l?fr kyrri, and Eysteinn Magnusson). At the same time, the prototype of the foreign adventurer type,Haraldr har?ra?i, is burdened with a series of episodes in which hedoes not quite measure up to individual Icelanders. The Icelandicbias inMorkinskinna thus seems quite palpable. It patronizes with political advice and invidious comparisons. It suggests that good kingsattend to the welfare of their countrymen but that bad kings covetforeign lands.

That message does not coincide with Egils saga, in which the Norwegian kings are not embroiled in foreign adventures. On the otherhand, Haraldr h?rfagri is critically portrayed, and Eir?kr is embarrassed by Egill to an even greater degree than Haraldr har?ra?i isembarrassed by his Icelandic visitors. The collision between royal authority and Icelandic assertiveness is about equally pronounced inboth texts. Heimskringla, as we have seen, takes a rather different viewof the Norwegian monarchy. Haraldr h?rfagri is toned down in comparison with Egils saga and is no longer quite so inexorable in hiscampaign against the petty kings.19 In those portions of Heimskringladependent on Morkinskinna there is also a programmatic moderationof the aggressive qualities proper to the foreign adventurer type in

Morkinskinna, as well as an elimination of the subversive p ttir thatwere so calculatedly compromising for Haraldr har?ra?i in the earlierwork. The practical question that confronts us here is whether Egilssaga is more nearly associated with the stage of Icelandic literaturerepresented by Morkinskinna around 1220 or with the stage thatevolved a decade later inHeimskringla.20

19Compare Splvi klofi's powerful speech against Haraldr in Egils saga (p. 8) with thetrimmed version inHms i : 105. Haraldr's suppression of resistance in Egils saga (pp. 11-12) has no counterpart in Heimskringla (1 : 117-18).

20J?nas Kristj?nsson suggested a date as late as 1240 in Egils saga og konungas?gur in Sj?tiu ritger?ir helga?ar Jakobi Benediktssyni 20. j?l? 19JJ, vol. 2, ed. Einar G.



25/25

78 AnderssonAlthough the political sensibility in Egils saga by no means matchesthe contrastive paradigm inMorkinskinna, it nonetheless betrays thesame preoccupation with heavily charged relations between Norwe

gian kings and notable Icelanders. The author of Egils saga has thesame general perspective as the author of Morkinskinna, one that subsumes Norway and Iceland and is fixed on the interaction betweenthe two. Heimskringla simplifies that perspective and no longer implicates Iceland in Norwegian affairs. It therefore seems more likely that

Egils saga belongs to the earlier literary stage around 1220 rather thanthe later one around 1230.This chronology remains no more than a plausibility among others.There is no reason why Snorri, if he authored both Egils saga and

Heimskringla, could not have written politically contradictory books atthe same time around 1230, one conceivably for a Norwegian audience, the other for an Icelandic audience. Nor is it impossible that hecould have abandoned the political neutrality of Heimskringla in orderto write a more problematical book on the Icelandic experience of

Norway some years later, perhaps as late as 1240. But the best guessmight be that Egils saga was written in the heat generated by the Norwegian-Icelandic trade war of 1215-1220, about the same time asMorkinskinna, and that it embodies a new sense of Icelandic identityand assertiveness engendered by recent history.There is, as I suggested at the outset, a larger point to be madehere. Sverre Bagge, in his broad-ranging and compendious work onSnorri, has tried to read Heimskringla as an autonomous work. Heattempts this reading in conscious opposition to the philological preoccupation that has dominated the study of the kings' sagas for morethan a hundred years. His experiment deserves to be welcomed enthusiastically. At the same time, we need to bear in mind that theliterary interaction between Heimskringla and other contemporaryworks provides a set of clues to the political attitudes prevalent at thetime of composition. The present essay has therefore attempted toread Heimskringla in its literary and political context, not so much asan isolated monument but rather as a rejoinder in an ongoing political discussion.

P?tursson and Jonas Kristj?nsson (Reykjavik: Stofnun ?rna Magn?ssonar, 1977), 44972. In a later paper he settled on a date around 1230, but still after Heimskringla: VarSnorri Sturluson upphafsma?ur Islendingasagna? Andvari, 32 (1990), 85-105.

Documents

He Politics of Snorri Sturluson