Warrior, King, And Saint

Warrior, King, and Saint: The Medieval Histories about St. ÓláfrHaraldsson

Sverre Bagge

JEGP, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Volume 109, Number3, July 2010, pp. 281-321 (Article)

Published by University of Illinois PressDOI: 10.1353/egp.0.0147

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of Oslo (20 Jan 2014 12:59 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/egp/summary/v109/109.3.bagge.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/egp/summary/v109/109.3.bagge.html

Journal of English and Germanic Philology—July© 2010 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Warrior, King, and Saint: The Medieval Histories about St. Óláfr Haraldsson

Sverre Bagge, University of Bergen

The following article deals with the medieval literature about St. Óláfr Haraldsson (king 1015–30). Its aim is neither to discover the truth about Óláfr nor to solve the difficult problem of the textual relationship between the various works about him, but to examine the tradition as such. I intend to trace its development from the vague references to Óláfr’s life and reign in Passio Olavi (c. 1175) to the detailed narrative in Snorri Sturluson’s Separate Saga (c. 1225) and Heimskringla (c. 1230). I shall start with an overview of the main stages in the tradition and then turn to some crucial episodes that illustrate some of the main differences between the works. Finally, I shall discuss the various pictures of Óláfr and his reign, the re-lationship between the saint, the king, and the warrior and politician, as well as the understanding of the conflicts in which he was involved.

THE MaIn narraTIvE oF ST. ÓláFr’S lIFE and rEIGn

There is very little written evidence about Óláfr earlier than the second half of the twelfth century. In addition to the skaldic poetry, quoted in the later sagas, there are brief references to him in William of Jumièges’s and adam of Bremen’s histories, both from the second half of the eleventh century.1 Sæmundr’s and ari’s brief histories of the kings of norway from the first half of the twelfth century no doubt gave information about Óláfr but are both lost. The earliest extant account of any length is Passio Olavi, which is full of praise for Óláfr’s holiness, but contains no other factual information than his baptism in rouen, his exile to King Yaruslav of russia, and his death in the Battle of Stiklestad, dated to July 29, 1028.2 If Passio Olavi were representative of what was known about Óláfr in the twelfth

1. Guillaume de Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum ducum, ed. Jean Marx (rouen, 1914), pp. 79f.; adam Bremensis, Gesta Hamaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores in usum scholarum, 2 (=Gesta), ed. Bernhard Schmeidler (Hannover and leipzig: Hahn, 1917) II.57, II.61, pp. 117, 120–22. 2. Acta Sancti Olavi regis et martyris, ed. Gustav Storm, Monumenta Historica Norvegiæ (Kris-tiania: a. W. Brøgger, 1880), pp. 127–32.

century in Trondheim,3 the center of his cult, we would have to believe in a massive production of information about him in the following fifty years. although some stories about Óláfr may well have been invented, this is an unlikely conclusion, as the lack of exact information in Passio Olavi can be easily explained by the genre, hagiography. This can be illustrated by Theodoricus Monachus’s work which is approximately contemporary (composed between 1177 and 1188), belongs to the same milieu, and represents the same attitude,4 but which nevertheless shows its author’s awareness of writing history rather than hagiography.5 His units are the kings’ reigns rather than their lives. Whereas Passio Olavi depicts Óláfr as conforming to a universal ideal of holiness, Theodoricus gives exact information about the main events of his reign, as well as about its length. despite some differences, notably that the units are the kings’ lives rather than their reigns, the later kings’ sagas conform to the same pattern and should be regarded as histories or chronicles, similar to contemporary European works.6

Óláfr is the central figure in Theodoricus’s work and receives more space than any other king. Theodoricus’s main information about Óláfr can be summarized as follows:

1. In a discussion about Óláfr’s baptism, Theodoricus, in his account of Óláfr’s predecessor Óláfr Tryggvason, mentions the elder Óláfr meeting his namesake who was then three years old. However, Theodoricus himself inclines toward the hypothesis that Óláfr was baptized in rouen as an adult.

2. Óláfr begins his career in England where he reconciles King Ethel-

3. Suggested, although with some reservations, by lars Boje Mortensen and Else Mundal, “Erkebispesetet i nidaros—arnestad og verkstad for olavslitteraturen,” in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537. Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, Senter for middelalderstu-dier, nTnU, Skrifter no. 5, ed. Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir, 2003), pp. 366f. 4. Theodoricus Monachus, Historia de antiquitate regum Norvagiensium (=Theod.), ed. Gustav Storm, Monumenta Historica Norvegiæ (Kristiania: a. W. Brøgger, 1880), pp. 1–69, ch. 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19. on Theodoricus as a historian, see Sverre Bagge, “Theodoricus Monachus—Clerical Historiography in Twelfth-century norway,” Scandinavian Journal of History, 14 (1989), 113–33. 5. Felice lifshitz, “Beyond Positivism and Genre: Hagiographical Texts as Historical nar-rative,” Viator, 26 (1995), 95–112, rejects the distinction, at least before the twelfth century, when the beginning of state formation made political history possible. However, despite a certain amount of overlapping in practice, the distinction is clearly stated, e.g., in Einhard’s and Wipo’s prefaces; see Sverre Bagge, Kings, Politics and the Right Order of the World in German Historiography c. 950–1150 (leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 23f. and 190f. 6. Consequently, I cannot follow Carl Phelpstead, Holy Vikings. Saints’ Lives in the Old Icelandic Kings’ Sagas (Tempe, aZ: aCMrS, 2007), pp. 59–75, in his characterization of the sagas of holy kings as a kind of intermediate form between history and hagiography, which seems mainly to be based on the fact that the kings in question are regarded as saints. a distinction between genres must be based on formal criteria rather than theme or ideology. on the other hand, this still leaves open the question of the relative importance of sainthood in these narratives. See below, pp. 302–4.

282 Bagge

red with his brothers. after a pious hermit has predicted his future, he returns to norway with two ships, landing at Selja.

3. In Saudungssund, Óláfr captures Earl Hákon, one of the two rulers of norway, and makes him give up his claim and leave for Eng-land. He visits his mother and stepfather in the east, gaining the necessary support to defeat the other ruler, Earl Sveinn, at nesjar in the following spring.

4. as king of norway, Óláfr restores Christianity, gives good laws, and leads his subjects on the path to salvation. He marries ástrídr, a daughter of the king of Sweden, after her father has cancelled his engagement with her elder sister.

5. Cnut, king of denmark and England, attacks norway in alliance with norwegian magnates. Having defeated and killed Erlingr Skjálgsson, Óláfr leaves the country and finds refuge in russia.

6. after the death of Cnut’s deputy in norway, Earl Hákon, Óláfr returns but is killed in the Battle of Stiklestad.

What are the sources for this information? In his prologue, Theodoricus refers to the Icelanders as his informants, particularly their skaldic poetry,7 of which there is actually evidence in his work. Most scholars have also concluded from this and other statements that he had only oral informa-tion. However, it seems strange for Theodoricus to refer only to Icelandic oral evidence; there must have been plenty of oral storytelling in norway as well. as a matter of fact, Theodoricus never states unequivocally that he only had oral sources. His statement that he would begin his work with Haraldr hárfagri because he had no written evidence of the previous period suggests the opposite, and some other passages point in the same direction.8 Theodoricus may thus have known the works of Sæmundr or ari or both of them, but as these works are lost, we cannot know for sure, nor can we know how much he derived from them if he did know them. In any case, most of the information about Óláfr from the period 1030–c. 1180 must have been oral. after the parallel development of the Book Prose School in philology and the Weibull School of source criticism in history in the first half of the twentieth century, there was widespread—and partly well founded—skepticism against oral tradition for a long time. one of the triumphs of the Weibull School was to demonstrate that what had been earlier regard-ed as oral tradition could actually be explained by elaborations by later

7. Theod., prologus, p. 3. 8. “non quia dubitaverim etiam ante ejus ætatem fuisse in hac terra viros . . . conspicuous, quos . . . scriptorum inops delevit opinio” (Theod., p. 3, cf. p. 4). See also Sverre Bagge, “The Making of a Missionary King—the Medieval accounts of Óláfr Tryggvason and the Conversion of norway,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 105 (2006), 485–90, with references.

Warrior, King, and Saint 283

writers of information already known, for instance from skaldic poetry. However, all the information in the sagas or in an author like Theodoricus can hardly be explained in this way, and it goes without saying that some kind of oral storytelling must have been the basis of the earliest written sources, whether or not it can be traced back to the events themselves. Since the 1960s and above all from the beginning of this century, there has also been a revival of the study of oral tradition, internationally as well as in saga studies, although we are not dealing with a return to the nineteenth-century idea of an almost unchangeable oral tradition that can be easily reconstructed from the extant texts.9 Parallel examples show that stories of dramatic events, even including precise quotations of lines uttered by the agents, can survive for centuries in oral tradition.10 The problem when dealing with the sagas is that stories about the past can also be invented at almost any stage in the tradition and that there is no easy way to distinguish such inventions from the authentic stories. This is less of a problem in the present context, as my aim is not to uncover the truth about the actual Óláfr. In addition, the idea of an oral tradition underlying the texts serves to diminish the importance of the vexed question of the exact relationship between the extant texts. In many cases we may assume that authors of later texts knew stories narrated by their predecessors, even if they did not know these particular texts. The tra-dition about St. Óláfr does not consist of a series of individual texts which may or may not depend on each other but has a basis in oral storytelling and common knowledge. on the other hand, the existence of a series of texts also raises the question of deliberate changes and additions to the tradition. This applies particularly to Snorri. although we cannot exclude the possibility that he had oral information unknown to his predecessors, many of his changes are more easily explained as his own inventions. at least, this possibility should always be considered before any conclusion is drawn about oral sources.11

9. Theodore M. andersson, The Icelandic Family Saga (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967); Carol Clover, “The long Prose Form,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 101 (1986), 10–40; Tommy danielsson, Hrafnkels saga eller fallet med den undflyende traditionen (Hedemora: Gidlunds Förlag, 2002) and Sagorna om Norges kungar. Från Magnús gódi till Magnús Erlingsson (Hedemora: Gidlunds Förlag, 2002); Gísli Sigurdsson, The Medieval Icelandic Saga and Oral Tradition. A Discourse on Method (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Univ. Press, 2004); Theodore M. andersson, “Five Saga Books for a new Century,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 103 (2004), 139–55, The Growth of the Medieval Icelandic Sagas (1180–1280) (Ithaca, nY: Cornell Univ. Press, 2006), and “The oral Sources of Óláfs saga Helga in Heimskringla,” Saga-Book, 32 (2008), 5–38. 10. Knut liestøl, Upphavet til den islandske ættesaga (oslo: aschehoug, 1929); Bjarne Hodne, Personalhistoriske sagn. En studie i kildeverdi (oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1973), pp. 7–21, 35–38, and passim. 11. Thus, as will be clear from the following, I find that andersson, “The oral Sources,” goes too far in explaining Snorri’s additions to his predecessors as derived from oral sources.

284 Bagge

The previous summary of Theodoricus’s work forms the basic story of Óláfr and is to be found in all the following accounts. as we see, the focus here is on the beginning and end of Óláfr’s reign, whereas very little is said about his thirteen years as king. The extant manuscript of the other latin work, Historia Norwegie, probably approximately contemporary with that of Theodoricus, ends just before Óláfr’s arrival in norway, but contains more detailed information about Óláfr’s life in the period before.12 Ágrip,13 probably composed around 1190, which is the first extant vernacular work on Óláfr apart from the translation of Passio Olavi, contains largely the same information as Theodoricus’s work, but usually in an even more con-densed form. The Oldest Saga of St. Óláfr, usually dated to around 1200, is only preserved in fragments, but the extant and slightly later so-called Legendary Saga is probably a revised and somewhat abbreviated version of this work.14 Legendary Saga contains significantly more details than The-odoricus’s work. In particular, it devotes a substantial part to Óláfr’s early life and to his reign. Styrmir Kárason’s saga, which has been lost except for some excerpts in Flateyjarbók, seems to have been close to these two works, but its exact relationship to them is open to discussion.15

Óláfr’s life in Legendary Saga can be divided into three main parts: from Óláfr’s birth until he becomes the sole ruler of norway (ch. 1–28); Óláfr as the ruler of norway (ch. 29–61); and Óláfr’s exile, return to norway, and death at Stiklestad, the danish regime after his death, and his son Magnús’s election as king (ch. 62–89). a fourth part (ch. 90–107) deals with Óláfr’s miracles, mainly after his death. Whereas the first and the third parts have an approximate relative chronology—apart from a few comments on Óláfr’s reign which relates it to the absolute, Christian chronology—part 2 consists of a series of stories, each with its relative chronology but with no information on their chronological relationship to one another. despite the lack of chronology, the second part is given a more systematic treatment in Legendary Saga than, for instance, the corresponding part of oddr munkr’s saga of Óláfr Tryggvason, as it is organized thematically.16 The sequence is the following: (1) Óláfr as the sole ruler of norway, his

12. Historia Norwegie (=HN), ed. Inger Ekrem and lars Boje Mortensen, trans. Peter Fischer (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2003), ch. 18. 13. Ágrip af Noregskonungas·ogum (=Ágr.), ed. and trans. M. J. driscoll (london: viking Society, 1995). 14. Óláfs saga hins Helga. Die “Legendarische Saga” über Olaf den Heiligen (=Leg. Saga), ed. and trans. anne Heinrichs et al. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1982). 15. Theodore M. andersson, “Kings’ Sagas,” in Old Norse-Icelandic Literature. A Critical Guide, ed. Carol J. Clover and John lindow (Ithaca, nY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 211–13; anne Heinrichs, Der Óláfs páttr Geirstadaálfs. Eine Variantenstudie (Heidelberg 1989), pp. 12f., suggests that Styrmir’s work may have been just one of several lost sagas of Óláfr and that these additions cannot with any certainty be attributed to him. 16. at this point, it seems appropriate to defend the author against andersson’s accusa-tion of being “compositionally even less satisfactory than odd’s saga [of Óláfr Tryggvason]”


meeting with his two half-brothers, and a characterization of him; (2) Óláfr as a legislator and missionary king; (3) Óláfr’s negotiations with King olof of Sweden and his marriage to his daughter; (4) King Cnut’s first attempt to make norway submit to him and Óláfr’s relationship to the magnates; (5) a series of stories about Óláfr’s relationship to various people, includ-ing ásbjorn selsbani (below p. 306) and various Icelandic skalds. With Fagrskinna (c. 1220)17 we return once more to a relatively brief ac-count, but with a better balance between the various epochs of Óláfr’s life than in Theodoricus and Ágrip. Finally, we arrive at the longest and most detailed life of Óláfr—with the possible exception of Styrmir’s lost work—in Snorri Sturluson’s Separate Saga, probably composed in the middle of the 1220s and included, in a slightly revised form, in his Heimskringla, the history of the kings of norway until 1177 (c. 1230).18 Snorri’s work is particularly detailed regarding the middle part which covers around half the work, compared to one-third in Legendary Saga.19

The most important difference, however, is that Snorri has organized the whole saga, including the middle part, according to a strict chronology;20 we can follow Óláfr from year to year, and almost all events have a clear relative chronology. This is entirely a product of Snorri’s skill and imagina-tion, without any basis in fact or tradition. It is based on two simple prin-ciples: (1) a clear division between Óláfr’s first ten years which are entirely successful and his last five when he meets with increasing difficulties, and (2) his travels between three different winter residences: viken, oppland, and Trøndelag. Óláfr normally alternates between them, although occa-sionally spending two—or in one case even three—winters in the same place. His travels between these residences are arranged according to the easiest passage from one place to the other. Embassies and contacts with other countries take place in the most convenient location for the region in question. For instance, Óláfr deals with Swedish matters while in viken and with Iceland and the Western Isles while in Trøndelag. The relationship between these texts has been subject to much discus-sion and there is still no general agreement.21 Ágrip seems to have been

(andersson, Growth, p. 14). although Legendary Saga is worse regarding repetitions and inconsistencies, its composition is better. 17. Fagrskinna (=Fsk.), ed. Finnur Jónsson (Copenhagen: S. l. Møller, 1902–3). 18. Saga Ólafs konungs hins Helga. Den store saga om Olav den hellige, ed. o. a. Johnsen og Jón Helgason, I-II (oslo: J. dybwad, 1941); Heimskringla II (=HkrOH), ed. Finnur Jónsson (Copenhagen: S.l: Møller, 1893–1901). The references are to the latter, as the texts are in most cases identical. 19. The three parts of Legendary Saga cover 25, 30, and 35 pages respectively, compared to 77, 273, and 180 in Heimskringla. 20. Sverre Bagge, Society and Politics in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla (Berkeley, Ca: Univ. of California Press, 1991), pp. 34–43. 21. andersson, “Kings’ Sagas,” pp. 197–238.

286 Bagge

influenced by Theodoricus and Historia Norwegie, either directly or through common loans from Sæmundr and/or ari. Legendary Saga probably also derived information from these texts, but according to most scholars did not influence Fagrskinna and Snorri’s works, which are more likely to have used Oldest Saga. There are different opinions on the relationship between the latter two, either that Snorri used Fagrskinna or that Fagrskinna used Separate Saga which in turn influenced Heimskringla. of these texts, Ágrip and Fagrskinna mainly render the basic story, resembling abbreviated ver-sions of Theodoricus and Legendary Saga respectively, whereas only a frag-ment of Historia Norwegie’s version of Óláfr’s life is extant. The following will therefore mainly deal with Theodoricus, Legendary Saga, and Snorri, particularly the two latter, with only casual references to the three others.

ÓláFr’S EarlY lIFE

The sagas usually tell little about the kings’ childhoods. only Legendary Saga and Snorri give any information about Óláfr’s early years. The former is the more detailed.22 The author links Óláfr to the old dynasty through the story of Óláfr Geirstadaálfr23 and depicts a series of dangers from which his hero is saved. He is conceived almost at the last possible mo-ment, between his father Haraldr’s rejection of the Swedish Queen Sigrídr the Haughty and his decision to leave his wife ásta in favor of her. He is exposed by his grandfather and is saved at the last moment, when a mi-raculous light appears over him. These dangers have a dynastic aspect, as has also the miraculous intervention of his ancestor Óláfr Geirstadaálfr, in contrast to the biblical models in the story of Óláfr Tryggvason.24 This difference may possibly be the result of a different emphasis, on the mis-sionary in the case of Óláfr Tryggvason and on the king in the case of Óláfr Haraldsson. Óláfr Haraldsson was in the twelfth and thirteenth century the eternal king of norway, and the contemporary kings were his successors in a more direct sense than they were Óláfr Tryggvason’s. as Óláfr was probably not descended from the Hárfagri dynasty which the saga writers link to Ynglingatal,25 a possible origin of this story—or at least the part of it connected with Óláfr—is that it is an early attempt to create such a link. This link was later replaced by the “orthodox” connection to the branch

22. Leg. Saga, ch. 1–8. 23. The story is preserved in six different versions; see Heinrichs, Der Óláfs páttr Geir-stadaálfs, and Claus Krag, “rane Kongsfostre og olav Geirstadalv,” Historisk tidsskrift, 78 (1999), 21–47. 24. See most recently Bagge, “The Making,” pp. 495–99. 25. Claus Krag, “norge som odel i Harald Hårfagres ætt,” Historisk tidsskrift, 68 (1989), 288–302.


represented by Hálfdan svarti and his son Haraldr hárfagri, which may explain why Snorri omitted the story of Óláfr Geirstadaálfr.26

Legendary Saga’s report on Óláfr’s first twelve years contains a series of examples of his remarkable qualities, partly signs of his future sainthood, partly illustrations of his proud and haughty character.27 an example of the latter is when he saddles a ram instead of a horse for his stepfather Sigurdr sýr (pig), explaining his behavior by telling Sigurdr that he appears among kings like a ram among noble horses. This is the only one of these stories to be included in Snorri’s version, which, however, leaves out Óláfr’s ar-rogant words, letting Sigurdr comment on the difference between Óláfr’s character and his own.28 Thus, Snorri gives a modified version of Óláfr’s haughtiness, while omitting any signs of future sainthood. Having grown up—according to Legendary Saga and Snorri already at the age of twelve—Óláfr departs on a series of viking expeditions. These are celebrated in Sigvatr’s Vikingavísur which seems to have been the main source for the later prose narratives, despite considerable differences con-cerning the details and the sequence of the events. Without referring to any viking expeditions, Theodoricus confines himself to pointing out that Óláfr reconciled King Ethelred of England with his brothers.29 By contrast, the other latin work, Historia Norwegie, states quite openly that Óláfr was a viking and that he fought on Cnut’s side against the English.30 The two latin works thus take an opposite stand on this latter issue. of the vernacular sources, Fagrskinna and Snorri agree with Theodoricus, whereas Legendary Saga contains elements of both versions. The former seems to be the more likely interpretation of Sigvatr’s poem and is also supported by the oldest sources, William of Jumièges (c. 1070) and adam of Bremen.31

26. Gunnhild røthe, Helt, konge og helgen. Den hagiografiske tradisjon i Den legendariske saga, Heimskringla og Flateyjarbók (oslo: Unipub, 2004), p. 39. røthe also argues for a religious continuity (Helt, konge og helgen, pp. 41–54), but the connection is more likely to have been dynastic. See Heinrichs, Der Óláfrs páttr, pp. 104–11. 27. Leg. Saga, ch. 8. 28. HkrOH, ch. 2. 29. His source for this is probably a stanza by Óttarr; see ove Moberg, Olav Haraldsson, Knut den store och Sverige: studier i Olav den helliges förhållande till de nordiska grannländerna (lund: Gleerup, 1941), pp. 46–49, 61; cf. Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Co-penhagen: villadsen og Christensen, 1912–15), a I, p. 292, B I, p. 269, stanza 8. 30. HN, ch. 18, p. 100. 31. Leg. Saga, ch. 10–11; Fsk., ch. 25; HkrOH, ch. 27–28. against this background, it seems most likely that Óláfr actually fought on Cnut’s side, as maintained by Moberg, Olav Haralds-son, pp. 25–87, with references to earlier literature; see Sverre Bagge, “Mellom kildekritikk og historisk antropologi. olav den hellige, aristokratiet og rikssamlingen,” Historisk tidsskrift, 81 (2002), 179–84. For an alternative opinion, see olav Tveito, “Óláfr Haraldssons unge år og relasjonen til engelsk kongemakt. Momenter til et crux interpretum,” Collegium Medievale, 21 (2008), 158–81.

288 Bagge

Legendary Saga lists altogether fifteen battles which, insofar as the loca-tions can be identified, take place in the Baltic and the north Sea areas and as far south as in Spain. It is difficult to follow a clear chronology and geography, and there are many repetitions and inconsistencies. Eventually, however, Óláfr discovers his true vocation, first through divine revelation when about to leave for Spain, then when praying to God to save him in a desperate situation in Ireland,32 and finally after having consulted first a seeress, apparently pagan, and then a holy hermit, about his future.33 However, Óláfr also receives God’s aid during his viking expeditions.34 Moreover, Óláfr is also a good Christian at an earlier stage, comparing favorably in this respect with his rival Cnut during their stay together in london.35 In this way, the author of Legendary Saga oscillates between regarding the viking expeditions as an evil practice from which Óláfr turns away when receiving God’s vocation and a practice compatible with a holy life and God’s protection. The explanation of these inconsistencies is clearly the combination of several sources. Snorri’s version of Óláfr’s viking expeditions is essentially a rearrange-ment of that of Legendary Saga, aimed at eliminating inconsistencies and creating a clearer picture of the relative chronology and Óláfr’s move-ments. although following Legendary Saga in regarding Óláfr as a Christian since his baptism as a child, Snorri also softens the contrast between the saint and the viking during this stage of Óláfr’s life. Unlike the version in Legendary Saga, Óláfr does not become a viking “to amuse himself,” but out of necessity because his enemies had deprived him of his inheritance.36 on the other hand, Snorri omits the references to Óláfr’s piety at this stage, thus underlining the contrast between his life before and after God’s call to return to norway. actually, most of the sources explain Óláfr’s return to norway as the result of God’s calling.37 only Historia Norwegie seems to confine itself to a purely secular explanation, disappointment at Cnut’s

32. Leg. Saga, ch. 16–17. 33. Leg. Saga, ch. 18, p. 64. The story of the holy hermit, who is tested by Óláfr dressing up one of his men as himself, is also told about Óláfr Tryggvason in Historia Norwegie and Ágrip, which on several occasions have an alternative version to that of Theodoricus and oddr (Bagge, “The Making,” pp. 486f., 495–503). In this case, Theod., ch. 15, pp. 25f., has the same version as Legendary Saga but without the attempt to deceive the hermit. In contrast to Theodore M. andersson, “The First Icelandic King’s Saga: oddr Snorrason’s Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar or The Oldest Saga of St Óláfr?,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 103 (2004), 148f., I cannot see that this story gives any evidence about the chronological relationship between Legendary Saga and oddr’s Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar. 34. Leg. Saga, ch. 13, 16–17. 35. Leg. Saga, ch. 12–13. 36. Leg. Saga, ch. 8; HkrOH, ch. 35, p. 46. The same reason is given in HN, ch. 18, p. 100. 37. Ágrip, ed. driscoll, ch. 23; Fsk., ch. 25, p. 143; HkrOH, ch. 18.


failure to fulfil his promises, but as the extant text has a lacuna just at this point, there may originally have been such a reference there as well.38

The stories in Legendary Saga about Óláfr’s childhood as well as the many versions of the story of Óláfr Geirstadaálfr suggest the existence of an oral tradition about this topic, emphasizing dynastic continuity and Óláfr’s royal character rather than the religious aspect. nevertheless, the fact that many of these stories are omitted in Heimskringla may indicate that they played a relatively subordinate part in the tradition, as may also the lack of alternative versions in Legendary Saga. By contrast, the existence of Sigvatr’s Víkingavísur, quoted or paraphrased in most sources except Theodoricus, strongly indicates that this material was part of the basic information on Óláfr’s life, although Sigvatr’s stanzas allowed for different interpretations. The reason for Theodoricus’s omission of these stories is partly a wish to avoid depicting Óláfr as a viking and partly that his aim was to write history rather than biography, which means he regarded a king’s life before his accession to the throne as irrelevant.39

ÓláFr’S aCCESSIon To THE THronE

The narrative of Óláfr’s accession to the throne can in all the sources be di-vided into three main episodes: (1) Óláfr capturing the young Earl Hákon jarl in Saudungssund (in Sunnfjord in Western norway); (2) Óláfr’s visit to his mother and stepfather in oppland to gain further support; and (3) the battle of nesjar, where Earl Sveinn is defeated. The episode in Saudungssund40 is attested in two skaldic stanzas, both quoted in Heimskringla, Snorri’s only addition to Fagrskinna’s text, one attrib-uted to Óttarr and one to Sigvatr.41 Most scholars accept these attributions and thus regard the stanzas as authentic evidence from Óláfr’s own age. The stanzas give no details; they are poetic art rather than narrative, but Óttarr’s version nevertheless gives the essentials: Óláfr captured Hákon’s ship and its treasures and took Hákon and his men captive. Sigvatr only mentions a

38. HN, ch. 18, p. 104. 39. Whereas a clear distinction between history and biography existed in Classical an-tiquity, the genres tended to merge in the Middle ages, except in the case of hagiography, by far the most important biographic genre; see J. Gruber and F. Brunhölzl, “Biographie,” Lexikon des Mittelalters, II (Munich: deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, 2002), cols. 199–203. In some cases, however, there seems to have been a distinction between vita and gesta, as ex-pressed for instance in the difference between Wipo’s Gesta Chuonradi, devoted to Konrad’s reign, and the anonymous Vita Heinrici Quarti, with a stronger focus on Henry as a person; cf. Bagge, Kings, Politics, pp. 189f., 313–27. 40. For a more complete discussion of this episode, see Sverre Bagge, “nordic Uniqueness in the Middle ages? Political and literary aspects,” Gripla, xx (2009), 56–59. 41. HkrOH, ch. 30; Skjalded., a I, pp. 228, 294; B I, pp. 216, 271.

290 Bagge

“meeting” between the two but indicates the place, Saudungssund. Given the context, a poem about Óláfr’s victories, this most probably refers to a military encounter.42 The fact that the story is included in Theodoricus’s version43 also suggests that it must have been well known by the time he wrote. In any case, he cannot have invented it. It is not very flattering for Óláfr, as is evident from Theodoricus’s comment about Óláfr resorting to the ruse in order to avoid bloodshed. It is also more detailed than normal in Theodoricus. at least a core of the story may have originated in what Beyschlag calls “Begleitprosa,”44 which may then have been developed in oral or written narrative or both. It may also have been included in an earlier written text, for instance by Sæmundr or ari. The hypothesis of an earlier, oral or written, version before that of Theodoricus receives further support from Legendary saga, as it is obvi-ous that the version there is based on at least two others.45 The story is anticipated by two prophecies, one by a peasant and one by a Sami among Óláfr’s men. Then the trick with the rope is described twice. First, the earl’s ship is lifted up by the ropes and then dropped into the sea when Óláfr’s ships approach one another. next, the rear part of the ship is lifted by the ropes until it is so high that the van drops into the sea and sinks. The following dialogue between Óláfr and Hákon, after the latter has been taken captive, also seems to be a combination of two versions. First, Óláfr tries to make Hákon his man, which Hákon refuses, pointing to his loyalty to Cnut. next, Óláfr asks Hákon what he will do to save his life, which leads to Hákon accepting to leave the country and never to fight Óláfr as long as he is alive, as well as to report to Óláfr any attempt to attack him. This last condition is specific to Legendary Saga. although we are not dealing with a direct repetition of the first part in the second one, the discussion nevertheless seems to start anew with Óláfr’s question. It would therefore seem that the Legendary saga has combined two different versions of this dialogue, one ending with Hákon becoming Óláfr’s man and one where he leaves the country. The first version seems to have left a trace in Ágrip, according to which Óláfr makes Hákon king of the Hebrides.46 Finally, the version in Legendary Saga has a moralistic

42. Bagge, “Mellom kildekritikk,” pp. 181–83. 43. Theod. ch. 15, pp. 26f. 44. Siegfried Beyschlag, “Möglichkeiten mündlicher Überlieferung in der Königssaga,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 68 (1953), 109–39. on the relationship between poetry and prose in such stories, see also Bjarne Fidjestøl, “The Tale of Haraldr hardrádi and Porgils the Fisherman,” in Selected Papers, ed. odd Einar Haugen and Else Mundal, trans. Peter Foote (odense: odense Univ. Press, 1997), pp. 277–93. 45. Leg. Saga, ch. 19–21; cf. Sigurdur nordal, Om Olaf den helliges saga. En kritisk undersøgelse (Copenhagen: Gad, 1914), pp. 43–47. 46. nordal, Om Olaf den helliges saga, pp. 43–47, suggests Ágrip as one of the sources for the


aspect, although a different one from that of Theodoricus. Hákon and his men are drinking heavily and Hákon is so proud of his fine ships and equipment that, when seeing Óláfr’s ships, which he takes for merchant ships, he tries to make his sailing between them as impressive as possible. Thus, Hákon’s fate becomes an illustration of the proverb “pride goes be-fore a fall.” By contrast, both the inconsistencies and repetitions and the moralization are eliminated in the later versions in Fagrskinna and Snorri, which, at least from a modern point of view, represent the perfect, succinct saga narrative.47

all sources agree that Óláfr, after his success in Saudungssund, visited his mother, ásta, and his stepfather, Sigurdr, in ringerike. However, Theodo-ricus adds that Óláfr did this because the other earl, Sveinn, who resided in Trøndelag, collected an army against him and because Óláfr did not trust the people there.48 This differs from the other sources which agree that Sveinn did not react to Óláfr’s coup until the next spring. although Theodoricus does not report any fighting between Sveinn and Óláfr at this time, his glimpse of an engagement in Trøndelag may possibly allude to or be the origin of the story in Fagrskinna and Heimskringla about Óláfr’s unsuccessful expedition to Trøndelag in the autumn.49

Whereas Theodoricus gives no information about Óláfr’s stay in ringe-rike, the later sagas are quite detailed. Legendary Saga gives several versions of how Óláfr was entertained, from the very lavish to the more ascetic, which are harmonized in the statement in Fagrskinna, followed by Snorri, that they were served alternately meat and beer and bread, butter, and milk.50 In contrast to Legendary Saga, Snorri also develops the political as-pect of Óláfr’s reception.51 The speeches attributed to Óláfr, Sigurdr, and ásta show the ambitious young prince declaring his will to risk everything to gain his inheritance as well as illustrating the difference between his cautious and somewhat rustic stepfather and his aristocratic and ambitious mother. Thus, whereas Legendary Saga underlines the contrast and even the antagonism between the boy Óláfr and his stepfather more strongly than Snorri, Snorri is alone in emphasizing it on this latter occasion. at the same time, he shows Sigurdr aiding Óláfr in obtaining the support of the petty kings of the region. In a similar way, Snorri replaces Legendary

version in Legendary Saga, and explains the difference between the two texts by the extant version of Ágrip being an abbreviation. although this latter hypothesis is open to discussion, there seems to be some link between Ágrip and Legendary Saga (below p. 299). 47. Bagge, “nordic Uniqueness,” p. 299. 48. Leg. Saga, ch. 15, pp. 27ff. 49. Fsk., ch. 27, pp. 147–49; HkrOH, ch. 38–42. 50. Fsk., ch. 27, pp. 147f.; HkrOH, ch. 32–34. 51. For this and the following, see HkrOH, ch. 35–37, and Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 91f.

292 Bagge

Saga’s brief reference to Óláfr using gold and silver to gain the support of the leading men in the region with a deliberation scene among the petty kings, Óláfr’s alleged relatives (below p. 314). at this point, Legendary Saga introduces an episode that occurs later in Fagrskinna and Heimskringla: Óláfr’s coup against the petty kings.52 Most probably neither Snorri nor the author of Legendary Saga had any idea of when this coup took place, but there was clearly a well-known story about it. Placing it at the very beginning of Óláfr’s reign would have the advantage of showing the successful young king defeating his enemies one after the other, while at the same time it would seem a likely assumption that the petty kings of the east would react negatively to a newcomer try-ing to dominate them. on the other hand, Legendary Saga had just stated that Óláfr had gained a great following in the region. What was then the relationship between support and resistance? How could Óláfr get such support if all the rulers of the area were against him? These problems are probably Snorri’s reason for placing the coup at a later stage of Óláfr’s career. Moreover, this way of dealing with the story is the result of a more complex understanding of Óláfr’s relationship to the magnates on Snorri’s part. Finally, the fact that the story of Óláfr’s coup plays a role in Óláfr’s negotiations with King olof of Sweden results in Snorri placing it very elegantly in the context of these negotiations, shifting the focus between Sweden and Eastern norway and paralleling Óláfr’s recent coup with his Swedish namesake’s recent success in hunting.53

no skaldic stanzas are quoted in connection with Óláfr’s visit to ringe-rike. nevertheless, the fact that Theodoricus includes this story in his text suggests that it must have been mentioned in some previous source. although it is not difficult to imagine that Óláfr would visit his mother and stepfather after his arrival in the country, Theodoricus would seem unlikely to have invented such a detail; he could easily do without it. It is more difficult to decide whether it originated in some previous written source, such as Sæmundr or ari, or it had some basis in local tradition. In any case, the different versions of what Óláfr had to drink in Legendary Saga suggest that the author must have had more than one source. after Óláfr’s success during his first year in norway, he defeats his last enemy, Earl Sveinn, in the Battle of nesjar (between present-day larvik and Porsgrunn) in the following spring. The battle is celebrated in Sig-vatr’s poem Nesjarvisur which seems to have been the source of all extant narratives.54 Theodoricus’s and Ágrip’s versions are typically the most con-densed ones.

52. Leg. Saga, ch. 23; Fsk., ch. 27, pp. 155f.; HkrOH, ch. 74–75. 53. HkrOH, ch. 75, 89. 54. Skjalded., a I, pp. 228–32, B I, pp. 217–20; Theod. ch. 15, p. 28; Ágr. ch. 24; Leg. Saga, ch. 24–26; Fsk., ch. 27, pp. 150–54; HkrOH, ch. 48–51.


Legendary Saga’s additions to what may be considered the standard version are mainly intended to show Óláfr’s moral and intellectual supe-riority over his enemy Sveinn. He tries to persuade Sveinn to postpone the battle, as it is Palm Sunday—this is mentioned in Sigvatr’s stanza—and he does not want to fight on a holy day, but Sveinn refuses. nor do Sveinn and his men hear Mass before the battle, in contrast to Óláfr. In contrast to Fagrskinna and Snorri and to the more likely interpretation of Sigvatr’s stanza, Legendary Saga also lets Sveinn attack first, probably to acquit Óláfr of any suspicion of being the one who wanted to fight on a holy day. Toward the end of the battle, Sveinn is unable or unwill-ing to see that he is about to lose and has to be dragged away by his friend Einarr pambarskelfir, the representative of sense and morality in the enemy camp—Einarr had also tried to prevent Sveinn from fight-ing on a holy day. By contrast, the emphasis in Fagrskinna and Snorri is on Óláfr’s skill and heroism; there is no reference to moral objections against fighting on Palm Sunday. In this version, Óláfr is numerically inferior, while he is superior in Legendary Saga.55 He attacks first, moves his ship along that of Sveinn and boards it, carrying his banner with him, as mentioned by Sigvatr. By the end of the battle, Einarr plays the same role as in Legendary Saga, dragging Sveinn away. although Sigvatr does not mention Einarr, Sveinn’s escape seems to be based on a stanza according to which Sveinn ordered the stern of the ship to be cut off56—clearly in order to escape. Having reported Sveinn’s flight to Sweden and death, both the author of Legendary Saga and Snorri return to the aftermath of the battle. Sigurdr urges Óláfr to kill all the chieftains who have escaped from the battle, but Óláfr refuses, not wanting to thank God for the victory by killing honorable men. Sigurdr predicts that these men will chase Óláfr out of his kingdom, but that he will become a great saint after his death.57 Snorri changes Sigurdr’s prophecy into an observation about Óláfr’s character: with his domineering temper, he will never be able to trust the chieftains. nor do the enemies escape because of Óláfr’s chivalry, but because their fleet disperses and Óláfr gives up to pursue them. This points to a differ-ent interpretation by the two authors of Óláfr’s reign, which is expressed more clearly in their respective descriptions of the rebellion against Óláfr (below pp. 304–7).

55. Leg. Saga, ch. 24, quoting Sigvatr. all these stanzas form one poem in Skjalded., but this one is only preserved here. For the alternative version, see Skjalded., pp. 217, stanza 2, and 219, stanza 11. Cf. Johan Schreiner, Tradisjon og saga om Olav den hellige (oslo: det norske videnskapsakademi, 1926), p. 106. 56. Stanza 9, Skjalded., a I, p. 231, B I, p. 219. 57. Leg. Saga, ch. 26; cf. HkrOH, ch. 52.

294 Bagge

on the whole, the story in Legendary Saga has some infelicities but is less marred by repetitions and inconsistencies than many other passages of the work, which may possibly be explained by the unusually detailed account in Sigvatr’s poem. Most additions to Sigvatr can also be explained by elaboration of information from him. The only story that has no basis in Sigvatr is that of Einarr’s bow breaking, which is only to be found in Legendary Saga. Given Einarr’s central position in the narrative, such a story could have originated at almost any stage in the tradition. despite the somewhat awkward way in which it has been inserted in the text of Legendary Saga, it is more likely to have had its origin there than in oddr munkr’s account of the battle of Svolder.58

ÓláFr aS KInG

like most other writers dealing with St. Óláfr, with the exception of Snorri, Theodoricus has little to tell about Óláfr’s reign, including his work for the conversion of norway. The section dealing with this mainly contains panegyrics of a similar kind as in Passio Olavi, to which is added a brief passage about Óláfr’s marriage. There are not many more details in Legen-dary Saga, with the exception of Óláfr’s meeting with the pagan chieftain dala-Gudbrandr in Gudbrandsdalen, which is told in great detail and forms the climax of this part of the saga. The story also occurs in Snorri, whose version is almost identical with the one in Legendary Saga, but no-where else.59 Thus, the impression from Theodoricus as well as Legendary Saga is that surprisingly little was known about how the great missionary king converted his people. Theodoricus in particular would have given more information on this subject if he had had any. Generally, mission-ary work has a more central place in the sagas of Óláfr Tryggvason than

58. although andersson, “The First Icelandic King’s Saga,” pp. 150f., argues in favor of the opposite sequence, an important argument for the priority of Legendary Saga is that all sources mention Einarr as participating in the Battle of nesjar, whereas only oddr and Snorri mention him in connection with the Battle of Svolder. However, it is not necessary to assume that one of the texts has borrowed from the other. This may well be a motif from oral storytelling that could be used by two authors independently of one another. 59. The episode is usually believed to have formed part of an original Kristni Saga and to have been borrowed independently by the author of Legendary Saga and Snorri, together with the following sequence about the conversion/reconversion of the inner regions of Eastern norway. The version in Legendary Saga shows that it originally belonged in the story of Óláfr’s journey across norway on his way to exile in russia. Most of its information about the conversion is borrowed from similar stories in the Bible or hagiographic literature. See Theodore M. andersson, “lore and literature in a Scandinavian Conversion Episode,” in Idee, Gestalt, Geschichte: Festschrift Klaus von See. Studien zur europäischen Kulturtradition, ed. Gerd Wolfgang Weber (odense: odense Univ. Press, 1988), pp. 261–84.


in those of St. Óláfr, although the absence of details is the same in his case as well.60

Having converted Gudbrandsdalen and then later the inland farther south (Hedmark), Óláfr approaches the border of Sweden. This logically leads over to Óláfr’s attempt to achieve peace with his namesake King olof of Sweden by marrying his daughter Ingibjorg. However, after King olof has cancelled the engagement, marrying her off to King Yaruslav of russia, Óláfr has to be content with her younger sister ástrídr. The story occurs, in more or less detail and in various versions, in all other sources as well, including the two latin works.61 The source for the embassy to Sweden is a poem by Sigvatr, Austrfararvísur,62 but the poem says noth-ing about marriage negotiations,63 nor do the two latin sources give any details about this. Whereas all other sources mention the marriage shortly after Óláfr has become king of norway, Historia Norwegie lets it take place in England be-fore Óláfr’s return to norway, where King olof is also fighting together with Cnut.64 according to this source, the intended bride was Margareta, King olof’s sister and not his daughter, but otherwise the story seems to be the same. The author tells that Óláfr was deeply in love with Margareta, that she only reluctantly married King Yaruslav, and that her sister prevented a serious conflict by wisely marrying Óláfr. By contrast, all the other sources regard the marriage as a means to achieve peace with Sweden. although there is no particular reason to believe that the version in Historia Norwegie is the correct one,65 it serves as additional evidence that there was originally no connection between Sigvatr’s poem and Óláfr’s marriage. There must

60. Bagge, “The Making,” pp. 492, 503f. 61. Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 101–3. King olof’s reason for breaking the engagement is in most of the sources that Ingibj·org compared his success in hunting with Óláfr’s coup against the petty kings. 62. Skjalded., a I, pp. 233–40, B I, pp. 220–25. 63. This has been pointed out by a number of scholars since Curt Weibull in 1921 rejected the conclusions the saga writers drew from the poem; see Curt Weibull, Källkritik och historia (lund: aldus/Bonnier, 1964), pp. 118–37. later, ove Moberg maintained that the poem actually describes a mission to a powerful earl, rognvaldr, in Svealand in order to achieve a settlement with him, possibly in connection with Sveinn’s flight to Sweden after the Battle of nesjar (Moberg, Olav Haraldsson, pp. 88–147). later, otto von Friesen, “Fredsförhand-lingarna mellom olov Skotkonung och olav Haraldsson,” Historisk tidsskrift (Swedish), 62 (1942), 205–70, defended the saga tradition. although he may be right on some points—andersson, “oral Sources,” p. 13, finds his arguments “compelling”—the connection be-tween the journey to Sweden and the marriage negotiations still seems tenuous. Moreover, Hans Schottmann, “Friðgerðarsaga,” Studien zum Altgermanischen. Festschrift Heinrich Beck, ed. Heiko Uecker (Berlin 1994), pp. 539–53, argues convincingly that Snorri’s version of the story is more likely to be his own rearrangement than based on an independent oral tradition. 64. HN, ch. 28, p. 104. 65. However, a Swedish king (lacman) is mentioned by William of Jumièges as one of Cnut’s allies, together with Óláfr (Moberg, Olav Haraldsson, p. 45).

296 Bagge

have been traditions about Óláfr marrying a different Swedish princess than he was originally promised and about a journey to Sweden by one of Óláfr’s skalds but no information about the connection between these facts, nor about their date.

THE BaTTlE oF TUnGa

In all the sources, Óláfr’s expulsion from norway is caused by two events, Cnut’s arrival in the country and the Battle of Tunga in which Erlingr Skjálgsson was killed, but the chronological and causal relationship be-tween these events varies. The source for the battle of Tunga is obviously Sigvatr’s poem66 which is quoted in Legendary Saga, Fagrskinna, and Heims-kringla but was probably also known to Theodoricus.67 Sigvatr states that Erlingr fought bravely and continued fighting for a long time after all his men had been killed. He also laments Erlingr’s death, for which he blames Erlingr’s relative áslákr. according to all prose sources, Erlingr was killed against Óláfr’s will, but a skaldic stanza attributed to Óláfr and quoted in Legendary Saga, Fagrskinna, and Heimskringla expresses joy at Erlingr’s death.68 a closer examination of the dialogue between Óláfr and Erlingr, as rendered in Legendary Saga, points in the same direction:

Table 1

Leg Saga ch. 64, p. 156: Þa mællte konongrenn: “Við horfer þu nu i dag, Ærlingr” . . . Ærlingr sægir þa: “And-værðir skulu ærnirnir kloazc nu, eða villtu geva mer grið?” Konongrenn svarar: “A ann-værðum man þer sia, aðr en vit skiliumk.” En Ærlingr kástaðe þa vapnom . . . Konongrenn hafðe litla æxi i hændi ser. Ær-lingr kástaðe þa skilldinum oc tok hialm af hafði ser. Konongrenn stak œxarhyrnunni a kinn Ærlingi oc mællte: “Mærkia skal nu drotens svikarenn hværn at nockoro.” . . . “Ser þu nu”, quað hann, “at guð hævir þic sælldar i hændr mer? Oc er þu villt hafa lif, þa svær mer þann æið, at þu skallt alldri vera i mote mer heðan ifra.” . . . þa giængr Áslákr at Ærlingi oc hœggr hann banahog

66. Skjalded., a I, pp. 244–47, B I, pp. 228–31. 67. Theod., ch. 16, p. 30. 68. Skjalded., a I, p. 222, B I, p. 212. 69. These words occur in a stanza by Sigvatr, quoted in Heimskringla but not in Legendary Saga.

HkrOH ch. 176, pp. 405f.:Konungr . . . mælti svá: ‘ondurðr horfir þú við í dag, Erlingr’. Hann svarar: ‘ondurðir skulu ernir klóask’69 . . . Þá mælti konungr: ‘viltu á hond ganga, Erlingr?’ ‘Þat vil ek’ segir hann.

Þá tók hann hjálminn af hofði ser ok lagði niðr sverðit ok skjoldinn . . . Konungr stakk við honum øxarhyrnunni í kinn honum ok mælti: ‘merkja skal dróttinsvikann.’ Þá hljóp at Áslákr Fitjaskalli ok hjó með øxi í hofuð Erlingi . . ..


The exchange between Óláfr and Erlingr in Legendary Saga shows clear signs of being a combination of two versions or a reworking of an original one. Two elements point particularly in this direction. The first is the awkward way in which the question of pardon is introduced by Erlingr, following immediately upon his proclamation of resistance, combined with the fact that Erlingr twice lays down his arms before having received any promise about pardon. Moreover, Óláfr’s first reply seems a direct continuation of the first part of Erlingr’s line: Erlingr’s face will suffer before the two of them part, which may be understood as meaning that Óláfr will continue the fight until Erlingr is killed. The second is the repetition of the words about marking the traitor, the first time meaning cutting Erlingr’s cheek, the second killing him. If we omit Erlingr’s asking for pardon and the first interpretation of marking the traitor, we get a perfectly logical sequence: The two exchange words about eagles facing one another. Óláfr comments that the result of the fight will be visible on Erlingr’s face and kills him with the words about marking the traitor. or, more likely, in the light of Sigvatr’s stanza: he orders áslákr to do so. a further argument in favor of this inter-pretation is that both Óláfr and áslákr have a handaxe. Thus, Erlingr was killed by a handaxe, which makes Óláfr’s use of this arm suspicious. an attempt to acquit Óláfr of killing Erlingr might start from the words about marking the traitor. If attributed to Óláfr, they could be changed from

Table 1 (cont.)

med hanndœxi . . . oc mællte: “Sva mærkium ver drottens svikaran.”

Then the king said: “You turn against me today, Erlingr. Erlingr then says: “Face to face should the eagles fight, or will you pardon me?” The king answers: “The encounter will show on your face before we part” . . . . Erlingr threw away his arms . . . . The king had a little axe in his hands. Erlingr threw away his shield and took the helmet off his head. The king cut in Erlingr’s cheek with the point of his axe and said: “The traitor to the king should be marked in some way” . . . . “Do you see now,” he said, “that God has given you in my hands? And if you will live, then swear me the oath that you shall never turn against me from now on” . . . . Then Áslákr turned against Erlingr and gave him a deadly blow with his handaxe . . . and said “Thus we mark the traitor to the king.”

Then the king said: “You turn against me today, Erlingr.” Erlingr then says: “Face to face should the eagles fight.”Then the king said: “Will you submit to me, Erlingr?” “I will,” he said.

Then he took the helmet off his head and laid down the sword and the shield . . . .The king cut in his cheek with the point of his axe and said: “The traitor to the king should be marked.”

Then Áslákr rushed forward and struck his axe into Erlingr’s head . . . .

298 Bagge

meaning to kill Erlingr to cutting him in the cheek. alternatively, they could keep their original sense, but be attributed to a different person, namely áslákr. Ágrip, probably the oldest source, does the latter70 and Snorri later does the former, whereas Legendary Saga does both and thus gives the words two different meanings. The final exchange between Óláfr and áslákr contains the famous words about áslákr cutting norway out of Óláfr’s hands, while believing to be doing the opposite, but with some additions that weaken the rhetorical effect. Fagrskinna has almost the same version as Legendary Saga, whereas Snorri has avoided these infelicities and lets succinct and meaningful sentences follow one another in a logical order. Sigvatr’s poem gives no information about the circumstances around the battle of Tunga, and the prose sources show great variation. accord-ing to Theodoricus, Erlingr attacked Óláfr but was defeated, after which Cnut arrived with an enormous fleet and forced Óláfr to flee. By contrast, Fagrskinna and Snorri let the episode take place after Cnut has conquered norway and left for denmark. Óláfr, having remained passive in the east during Cnut’s stay, attempts a raid westwards with a small fleet, is chased by Erlingr, but manages to drag Erlingr’s ship away from the rest of his fleet and catch him in an ambush. Both authors also explain Óláfr’s exile with the reactions to Erlingr’s death.71 Legendary Saga represents an inter-mediate position, trying to combine the two explanations in a somewhat confused way. The author does not explain why Óláfr went westwards. He first says that Óláfr had thirteen ships, then that he had three, whereas Erlingr had eleven. The latter number fits in better with the following story, corresponding to the one in Fagrskinna and Snorri, of Erlingr pursu-ing Óláfr.72 after Erlingr’s death, Óláfr is forced to flee both because of Erlingr’s kinsmen and Cnut’s arrival. Thus, we are once more dealing with a relatively well-established story with considerable differences concerning its context.

THE BaTTlE oF STIKlESTad

The Battle of Stiklestad represents a climax in all the sources, although in different ways. Theodoricus devotes five chapters and around sixteen

70. “Svá skal marka nidinginn” (Ágr. ch. 26). 71. Fsk., ch. 28, p. 173; HkrOH, ch. 170–75. 72. according to Legendary Saga, Óláfr dragged Erlingr’s ship away by pretending to sail fast while actually reducing his speed (Leg. Saga, ch. 63–64), whereas the two later sources give the more likely version that he did sail fast but stopped to lay an ambush (Fsk., ch. 28, p. 174; HkrOH, ch. 175–76.


pages (ch. 16–20, pp. 28–44) to the battle, its background, and its af-termath, a large part of which consists of digressions, placing Óláfr’s martyrdom in the perspective of the history of salvation,73 while he deals briefly with Óláfr’s escape to russia and return after Earl Hákon’s death.74 By contrast, Legendary Saga deals with this part of the story in great detail and with more repetitions and inconsistencies than anywhere else in the work. Thus, Óláfr leaves his ships at Slygs to start his journey over land, but shortly afterwards sails northwards to Sunnmøre, moves to Tafjord, and starts his journey across the mountains from there.75 during his journey, he performs several miracles.76 on his way back to norway, Óláfr twice meets Kálfr árnason and receives his invitation to become king once more, but Kálfr’s brother Finnr warns Óláfr against trusting Kálfr.77 He also twice meets Porgeirr, the farmer, of Sul.78 The author repeatedly gives the numbers of the two armies meeting at Stiklestad, sometimes the same, sometimes different. Porsteinn knarrasmidr twice promises to be the first to wound the king, the second time also giving the reason that Óláfr has burnt his ship.79 Óláfr lets his men kill a man called Hrútr (ram), but the same Hrútr is afterwards listed among Óláfr’s enemies at Stiklestad. These repetitions and inconsistencies point to a rich and varied oral tradition about the last period of Óláfr’s life. Some of the information on his itiner-ary may also reflect local tradition. The Battle of Stiklestad represents a confrontation of the two different sides of Óláfr, the warrior king and the Christian saint and martyr. a martyr traditionally accepted death willingly, without resisting his killers.80 a king killed fighting might not easily be considered a martyr, although death in battle against pagans and heretics increasingly came to be regarded as a martyrdom during the period of the Crusades. However, very few royal saints were killed in battle, and none of the sources except Passio Olavi state that Óláfr was fighting pagans or heretics. How do our sources deal with this problem?

73. Bagge, “Theodoricus,” pp. 118f. 74. Theod., ch. 16; cf. Leg. Saga, ch. 72; cf. ch. 71. 75. Leg. Saga, ch. 65–66. 76. Leg. Saga, ch. 67. 77. Leg. Saga, ch. 73 and 79. 78. Leg. Saga, ch. 74 and 76. 79. Leg. Saga, ch. 79–80. 80. Erich Hoffmann, Die heiligen Könige bei den Angelsachsen und den skandinavischen Völkern. Königsheiliger und Königshaus, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins, 69 (neumünster: Karl Wachholz, 1975), pp. 58–89; Gabor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002), pp. 62–113; Haki antonsson, “Some observations on Martyrdom in Post-Conversion Scan-dinavia,” Saga-Book of the Viking Society for Northern Research, 28 (2004), 78f., and St Magnús of Orkney. A Scandinavian Martyr-Cult in Context, The northern World, 29 (leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 103–45, 221–25.

300 Bagge

Theodoricus starts his account of the battle with Óláfr’s wish to avoid bloodshed, sending the honest Finnr árnason to offer his enemies peace instead of the latter sending the false Kálfr to cheat Óláfr. only when this offer is rejected is Óláfr willing to fight, whereas his adversaries add to their guilt by stubbornly refusing to come to terms. Theodoricus adds an extra passage in which he insists on Óláfr’s saintly character and explains why he had to go to war, namely to prevent criminals and unjust men from persecuting the good ones, to establish Christ’s laws, and, if it had been possible, to make sons of abraham from the hardest stones.81 Óláfr knew from divine revelation that he would die in the battle—probably an allusion to the dream told in the later sources (below p. 302). He ad-heres to the biblical precept about loving one’s enemies and follows the example of the protomartyr Stephen who prayed for those who stoned him to death. However, Theodoricus also includes the basic facts about the battle as well as Óláfr’s preparations for it. He mentions Pórir hundr and Kálfr árnason as the leaders of the enemy army. at the beginning of the bat-tle, Bjorn, carrying Óláfr’s banner, is killed by Pórir hundr, then Óláfr is killed. Theodoricus states that Óláfr received an immense wound but refrains from going into further detail.82 He thus knows more details than he mentions, possibly the same as in the later sources. although Theodoricus differs from his successors in letting dagr Hringsson take part in the whole battle,83 he has the same division into two phases, with dagr renewing the attack after Óláfr’s death. He ends by commenting that defeat was turned into victory as in the case of Cologne after Ursula’s martyrdom. Óláfr’s martyrdom means the final victory for Christianity in norway, and after a brief interlude of danish rule, Óláfr is succeeded by his son Magnús. Finally, numerous miracles happen, thanks to Óláfr’s intervention. Whereas Theodoricus manages to create a consistent picture of the warrior and the saint in his account of Stiklestad, there is greater tension between the two in Legendary Saga and Snorri. Legendary Saga lets the battle start with Óláfr’s army charging with such a force that its front line

81. an allusion to luke 3:8 where John the Baptist tells the Jews, who boast at being the sons of abraham, that God can turn stones into the sons of abraham. Theodoricus turns the quotation into a characterization of Óláfr’s missionary zeal, aiming at softening hearts of stone. as andersson points out (Growth, pp. 504f.), this may be an implicit polemic against the negative picture of Óláfr reflected in Legendary Saga, but seems more likely to be a result of Theodoricus’s need for defining his death as a martyrdom. 82. “nos nil temere affirmare volumus nec officioso mendacio aliorum aures demulcere” (we do not want to state anything without foundation nor flatter other people’s ears with a courteous lie). Theod., ch. 19, p. 41. 83. Cf. Storm’s comment in Theod., p. 41.


advanced to the same position that the rear of the enemy army had held before. Then follows a description of Óláfr’s men’s bravery, skill, and willingness to fight, in the belief that those who fell would go directly to heaven, followed by the death of several men on both sides, mentioned by name,84 and finally Óláfr’s own death. Whereas Theodoricus does not state whether Óláfr fought in person, Legendary Saga probably implies that he did and in addition gives some quite martial glimpses of him, representing him as a keen and somewhat cynical warrior.85 Snorri at-tributes a more pious battle-cry to Óláfr than Legendary Saga: “Forward, Christ-men, cross-men, kings-men,”86 but also gives him a more active role in the battle, killing his former adherent Porgeirr and exchanging blows with Pórir hundr. Both authors give examples of Óláfr’s piety and his preparations for his martyrdom before as well as during the battle, for instance when giving money for Masses for his adversaries, when sending away all the pagans from the army, and in the dream about the ladder reaching to heaven im-mediately before the battle.87 However, the main shift from the warrior to the martyr takes place when Óláfr receives the first wound, the one in the leg. He then throws away his arms and embraces death like a true martyr. Both authors give the names of those who killed Óláfr but with some dif-ferences. Legendary Saga attributes the wound in the leg to a young and anonymous relative of Kálfr árnason, while Pórir hundr and Porsteinn knarrasmidr kill him. according to Snorri, Porsteinn knarrasmidr dealt Óláfr the wound in the leg, after which Pórir hundr pierced him with a spear in the stomach. Finally, Kálfr, either Kálfr árnason or his relative with the same name, cut him with an axe in the neck.88

Thus, unlike Theodoricus, neither of these authors has any qualms about giving details of Óláfr’s death. Concerning Legendary Saga, it is sur-prising that the author, contrary to his practice elsewhere, only gives one version. did he not know any other, or was he firmly convinced that the one he wrote down was the true one? Snorri’s account is clearly based on Legendary Saga or a similar version, but it is difficult to know whether the differences are the result of a deliberate choice on Snorri’s part or simply

84. This includes Bjorn digri, Óláfr’s marshal, who is killed twice; Erlend of Gjerde; Kolbein árnason, one of the árnason brothers; and áslákr of Fitjar, possibly identical with the man who killed Erlingr Skjálgsson and also mentioned as killed previously (Leg. Saga, ch. 81–82). 85. E.g., the battle cry: “Knyum, knyum, konongslidar, hardla, hardla boandamenn” (let us strike, let us strike hard, kingsmen, the farmers’ men) and the story of the Icelander Gizur svarti wanting sheep for slaughter, who is shown two men by Óláfr before the battle begins. He kills one and cuts a leg off on the other. 86. “fram, fram Krists-menn, kross-menn, konungsmenn” (HkrOH, ch. 226, p. 487). 87. Leg. Saga, ch. 78, pp. 184f.; HkrOH, ch. 214. 88. HkrOH, ch. 228.

302 Bagge

of the use of a slightly different source. In case of the former, the most likely explanation is that Snorri regarded Porsteinn as a too low-ranking and insignificant person to deal Óláfr a fatal wound; he is only allowed to wound him in the leg—in contemporary allegories of the body politic the part of the body signifying the common people.89 Moreover, Snorri has a special reason for letting Pórir pierce Óláfr with a spear: this must be the spear that Pórir received from his sister-in-law Sigrídr, who told him that it had killed her son and urged him to use it to pierce Óláfr.90 Finally, Kálfr’s axe later plays a part in the scene when Óláfr’s son Magnús forces him to visit the battlefield of Stiklestad.91

Immediately after Óláfr’s death, Legendary Saga states that there was an eclipse of the sun and that Pórir saw Óláfr’s soul being taken up to heaven by God’s angels. He is dressed in the most costly purple, and his face is white as snow. Pórir then leaves for Jerusalem where he dies. Snorri also mentions the eclipse, but without placing it immediately after Óláfr’s death. He omits Pórir’s revelation but tells how he took care of Óláfr’s body and that a wound on his hand was healed by Óláfr’s blood. The Battle of Stiklestad is the subject of a relatively detailed narrative in all the sources, including Theodoricus, partly based on skaldic poetry, partly on earlier accounts, oral or written. The tradition about this crucial event is likely to have been substantial. To judge from the extant sources, however, it would seem that a basic story about the main facts had been developed relatively early, although there was discussion concerning the exact way in which Óláfr died and who killed him, as is evident from Theo-doricus’s version. The greatest flora of tradition seems to have developed in connection with the prelude to the battle, to some extent also with the aftermath, as is particularly evident in Legendary Saga. The Battle of Stik-lestad also represents the most explicit version of the meeting between the secular and the religious interpretation of Óláfr’s life and reign. Both the author of Legendary Saga and Snorri trace the transition from warrior to martyr to the moment when Óláfr receives the first wound, although the former emphasizes the supernatural aspect more strongly. However,

89. En tale mot biskopene, ed. anne Holtsmark, Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-akademi i Oslo. Hist.-fil. Klasse 1930 no. 9 (oslo: Jacob dybwad, 1931), p. 2. 90. Bjarne Fidjestøl, “The legend of Pórir hundr,” in Selected Papers, pp. 168–83. Snorri is the first to state that Pórir used a spear to kill Óláfr; according to the oldest source, Sigvatr, he used an axe. Snorri has thus introduced the spear because of the episode with Sigrídr (below p. 310). He may also have intended an allusion to the legend of longinus, the centurion who pierced Christ’s side with a spear and was cured from blindness by a drop of Christ’s blood. This allusion occurs, in a more direct form, in one of the interpolations of Snorri’s Separate Saga, possibly derived from Styrmir’s lost work, and in some pictorial representations of Óláfr’s death. 91. Hkr. Magnúss saga ins góda, ch. 14.


both are in greater need of such a transition than Theodoricus, who in-stead focuses on Óláfr’s reasons for waging war, in accordance with the ideology, propagated by his patron and dedicatee, archbishop Eysteinn Erlendsson, that those who die fighting pagans, heretics, or criminals are granted eternal salvation.92

THE BaSIC STorY—FroM THEodorICUS To SnorrI

The fact that the basic story is found for the first time in Theodoricus does not necessarily mean that he is the source of all later versions. Whereas Ágrip is commonly believed to have used his text, most other sagas prob-ably did not, but may have received the same information in other ways. one possibility is that a similar version occurred as early as in Sæmundr and/or ari. other possibilities are skaldic poetry and oral transmission or a combination of the two. If we look at each text separately, the follow-ing conclusions suggest themselves. The main stories in Theodoricus’s account seem to be based on an earlier tradition, oral or written, and in some cases on skaldic poetry, which Theodoricus clearly knew, with the possible inclusion of “Begleitprosa.” The additions to Theodoricus’s terse narrative may, in some cases, be based on a richer tradition than the one known to Theodoricus, but as he deliberately omits details and shows little interest in vivid and dramatic narrative, he may often have known as much as his successors. The general impression of the tradition is that it contains considerably more information about the beginning and end of Óláfr’s reign than about the middle, which in turn means more information about its secular than its religious aspects, in contrast to the less exten-sive tradition about Óláfr Tryggvason. If Theodoricus had known more about Óláfr’s missionary activities, he would most likely have mentioned it. Taken together, the relatively detailed stories discussed above give the impression of having been formed as narrative units at a fairly early stage, although in some cases, such as the episode in Saudungssund, in quite a number of different versions. By contrast, their context has often been vague, as is particularly evident in the stories of Óláfr’s viking expeditions, his marriage, and the Battle of Tunga, where the circumstances and the chronology vary significantly in the sources.

92. antonsson, “Some observations,” pp. 79–87; Sverre Bagge, “den heroiske tid—kirke-reform og kirkekamp 1153–1214,” in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537. Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, Senter for middelalderstudier, nTnU, Skrifter no. 5, ed. Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir, 2003), p. 69.

304 Bagge

ÓláFr’S EnEMIES

Having thus identified some kind of basic story, let us turn to the major in-terpretations of Óláfr’s reign, notably the great conflict between him and his internal and external enemies, which ended in his death at Stiklestad. all the norwegian-Icelandic sources agree that Óláfr was exiled by Cnut in alliance with some norwegian magnates and was killed in battle93 and, with the exception of Passio Olavi, they also give the names of at least some of these magnates. although giving little concrete information about these persons, Theodoricus is quite explicit about the moral issues involved: Cnut is “cupidus alieni” and bribes the norwegian magnates to desert Óláfr,94 whereas Óláfr fights for justice and only takes up arms when there is no other alternative. The later authors do not comment much on Cnut’s motives. Concerning the norwegian magnates, they offer two explana-tions: Cnut’s bribes and opposition to Óláfr’s strict justice. However, only two sources give more details, Legendary Saga and Snorri. Legendary Saga mentions three embassies from Cnut to norway, the first one claiming tax as a sign of submission, the two others attempting to bribe the magnates to desert Óláfr.95 The two latter no doubt refer to the same event, dated to Óláfr’s eleventh year. The first one, dated to the same year, may do so as well, although it is quite possible that Cnut did in fact send two embassies. The sequences for these embassies differ markedly. Óláfr’s reaction to the first is to present the matter to the pings which reject the claim. The second is followed by Óláfr’s attack and that of King anund of Sweden on Scania, and the third by further informa-tion about Óláfr’s conflicts with various magnates, notably Pórir hundr. as usual, the explanation for this repetition is likely to be the use of two different sources. It must be added, however, that the version where Cnut’s claim is followed by Óláfr’s counterattack seems to have been intended to acquit Óláfr of being the aggressor in the conflict. This is confirmed by Fagrskinna’s version which lets Óláfr’s and anund’s attack precede Cnut’s embassy to the norwegian magnates.96

despite his three examples of Cnut attempting to gain norway, the author of Legendary Saga shifts the focus from him to the internal nor-wegian opposition. For the first time, we are provided with information

93. The only exception is adam of Bremen, Gesta, II.61, pp. 120–22, who gives several versions of Óláfr’s death, including death in battle. although adam is the oldest source, the reason for this is most likely a lack of information about norwegian conditions. 94. Theod., ch. 18. 95. Leg. Saga, ch. 45, 59, 62. 96. Fsk., ch. 27, pp. 160f.; cf. Moberg, Olav Haraldsson, pp. 148–78.


about individual motives for resisting Óláfr. The main example of this is the story of ásbjorn selsbani, which occurs for the first time in the Oldest Saga and then in Legendary Saga and Snorri.97 ásbjorn sails from northern norway to Sola to buy grain from his uncle Erlingr Skjálgsson. as Óláfr has banned the export of grain from Southern norway, his ármadr Selpórir confiscates ásbjorn’s cargo and sends him home empty-handed. In the next year, ásbjorn kills Selpórir in Óláfr’s presence, is taken captive, and sentenced to death, but is saved by Erlingr, who forces Óláfr to accept compensation, after which Óláfr demands that ásbjorn take Selpórir’s place. When ásbjorn fails to fulfill the condition for his release, he is killed by one of Óláfr’s men. This story immediately follows the comment about Óláfr’s strict justice, of which it is clearly intended as an example. It is also followed by a comment stating that this was one of many conflicts between Óláfr and Erlingr. However, the author does not mention any direct effects of ásbjorn’s death. The story of ásbjorn contains no skaldic stanzas, which, combined with the fact that it only occurs in three sources, may give rise to suspi-cions that it is a late invention. However, it was hardly invented by the author of Oldest Saga. nor is it difficult to explain why it does not occur in Theodoricus, who usually omits or abbreviates such stories and who may have found it sufficient to point to various magnates’ hatred of Óláfr without going into detail about its origin. The fact that Fagrskinna omits the story of ásbjorn may have a similar explanation. This work deals briefly with Óláfr’s reign and in general contains little information about the inner struggles in norway. as the story deals with dramatic events that are likely to be remembered locally, I am inclined to believe that it contains a kernel of truth, although some of the details, such as ásbjorn killing Selpórir at the very moment he tells how ásbjorn cried or that Pórir’s head dropped into Óláfr’s lap, make the story too good to be credible. In the introduction to the story of ásbjorn, both Oldest Saga and Leg-endary Saga briefly mention a series of other episodes leading to conflicts between Óláfr and individual magnates, mainly Pórir hundr, who only manages to achieve reconciliation with difficulty after having killed Karli, “a good man” (godan mann), in Bjarmaland.98 In the latter context, the author states that Óláfr, upon learning of the disloyalty toward him, or-ders four men to be killed, including Pórir hundr’s nephew (the son of his sister) and Grjótgardr, whose wife was later married to Kálfr árnason. The two others are anonymous. afterwards, Pórir kills three men for Óláfr

97. Gustav Storm, ed. and intr., Otte Brudstykker af Den ældste Saga om Olav den hellige (Chris-tiania: Grøndahl, 1893), pp. 3f.; Leg. Saga, ch. 47–49; HkrOH, ch. 117–20, 123. 98. Storm, Otte Brudstykker, p. 2; Leg. Saga, ch. 46.

306 Bagge

who were his closest friends. The author of Legendary Saga may well have intended these killings as examples of Óláfr’s strict justice to which the magnates reacted, but the connection is not obvious; the wish for revenge leading to a series of killings, as in the feuds described in the Icelandic sagas, would seem an equally likely motive. Thus, when Óláfr has killed four men for Pórir and Pórir has killed three for Óláfr, Pórir restores the balance by killing Óláfr himself at Stiklestad. This statement in Legendary Saga is more likely to derive from a written source than from oral tradition. In Theodoricus’s case, we can easily imag-ine a basis in either oral or written storytelling that has been condensed in the brief references to factual events, as Theodoricus was not particu-larly interested in narrative. This is not the case in Legendary Saga, which contains a number of stories, some of which are even very well narrated. Consequently, it is unlikely that the author knew stories without rendering them in his text. By contrast, he may well have known ari’s or Sæmundr’s lost works,99 both of which were probably very brief. Thus, he may have borrowed the information about the four men killed by Óláfr from one or both of these predecessors, despite being able to identify only two of them. In the original—probably oral—sources, this information must have been based on concrete stories about named men; it would make little sense to invent the killing of just four anonymous men. Legendary Saga’s somewhat cryptic presentation of Óláfr’s conflicts with the magnates must have represented a challenge for Snorri who devotes more space to these conflicts than any other writer. His starting point is the story of ásbjorn, where he largely follows his predecessor, although adding a few more details.100 He gives more of ásbjorn’s background, telling of his ambition to become the leading man in the region by ar-ranging lavish parties for the people there. He has ásbjorn meet Selpórir before arriving at Erlingr’s place and be warned about Óláfr’s ban. He constructs a dialogue between ásbjorn and Erlingr in which ásbjorn ex-presses his disbelief in Erlingr’s fear of Óláfr and asks whether he has become the king’s slave—an ironic anticipation of ásbjorn’s own fate. Finally, in rendering Óláfr’s comment when ásbjorn has killed Selpórir, he lets him emphasize the insult to his honor, whereas Legendary Saga pays more attention to the breach of the peace of Easter. However, the main difference between the two works is that Snorri is more precise regarding the consequences of this episode for the relationship between Óláfr on the one hand and Erlingr and Pórir hundr on the other.

99. The fact that Fagrskinna, ch. 27, p. 160, has exactly the same passage may serve as an argument for its origin in one of these texts. See also Schreiner, Tradisjon og saga, pp. 6–13. 100. For a comparison of the two versions, see Schreiner, Tradisjon og saga, pp. 73–76.


Erlingr had been the leading man in Western norway since the reign of Óláfr Tryggvason, a position Óláfr attempts to reduce.101 a compromise is reached between the two adversaries just before ásbjorn’s fatal expedition to the south, an agreement Erlingr does not want to break. In order to aid ásbjorn without breaking Óláfr’s ban, he therefore permits him to buy grain from his slaves, whom he regards as not being under the law. later, he tries to save ásbjorn’s life while still hoping to retain Óláfr’s friend-ship. although Snorri does not explain in detail what happened after ásbjorn had been reconciled and had broken the agreement, he makes it clear that the relationship between Óláfr and Erlingr had deteriorated and that Erlingr was ripe for Cnut’s overtures. Thus, in Erlingr’s case we are dealing with a conflict of interests which, according to Snorri, could be partly resolved by compromises, but was nevertheless exacerbated by ásbjorn’s foolish actions. Erlingr was not one of Óláfr’s killers; on the contrary, he was himself killed by Óláfr. as we have seen, all sources try to acquit Óláfr of the responsibility for Erlingr’s death. at least in Theodoricus, it seems clear that the reason for this attitude was to show Óláfr’s clemency toward his enemies. By contrast, Snorri seems to represent a more political attitude, contrasting the success that resulted from Óláfr saving Hákon’s life and the disastrous consequences of Erlingr’s death. on both occasions, Óláfr was in an inferior position, which necessitated reducing the number of his enemies. an additional consideration may have been to show that the breach between the two men was not inevitable. They respected each other and would have been able to cooperate, had their friendship not been destroyed, first by ásbjorn, then by áslákr. This point is further em-phasized in the way Snorri—following Fagrskinna—changes the context of the battle, placing it after Cnut has conquered the whole country. To Snorri, an agreement with Erlingr is now Óláfr’s last chance to restore his power in norway, whereas in Theodoricus, his victory over Erlingr is cancelled by Cnut’s arrival. Thus, Óláfr’s words about áslákr cutting norway out of his hands become particularly meaningful in Snorri’s version. Concerning Pórir hundr, only Snorri specifies the kinship between him and ásbjorn, stating that ásbjorn’s father, Sigurdr, also mentioned in Leg-endary Saga, was Pórir’s brother. as Sigurdr was already dead when ásbjorn was killed, his mother had to turn to Pórir, the nearest of his uncles, to seek revenge. according to Snorri, she gave him the spear that had killed ásbjorn as a farewell gift, urging him to pierce Óláfr with it, which shocked Pórir so much that he would have walked straight into the sea if his men

101. on Erlingr’s position, see Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 78f., 125–28.

308 Bagge

had not prevented him. next, Snorri tells that Pórir used the spear to kill Karli, who had taken part in the killing of ásbjorn.102

as we have seen, according to Legendary Saga, Pórir had already killed Karli at the time of ásbjorn’s fatal expedition to the south. a modern observer may well forgive Snorri for changing the sequence between the two events, given Legendary Saga’s record of inconsistency and confused sequences. However, there are also other reasons for being suspicious of Snorri’s version. The episode of Pórir and Karli is one of the most vivid and memorable stories in Heimskringla, but Karli is not killed until he and Pórir have spent the whole summer together on a combined trading and viking expedition to Bjarmaland, after which they begin to quarrel over the booty.103 Thus, Pórir apparently has another motive for killing Karli. Moreover, why would Karli have joined Pórir in an expedition after hav-ing participated in the killing of his relative? despite the fact that Snorri tries to answer this question, the story seems to have a tenuous link with that of ásbjorn, which suggests that there may originally have been no connection between Karli’s death and that of ásbjorn. Whereas factual, or at least traditional, evidence may have existed for the expedition to Bjarmaland, and possibly also for Karli as one of Óláfr’s men, the story of Pórir avenging ásbjorn by killing Karli is likely to be Snorri’s own in-vention. By contrast, Karli’s death may well be one of the reasons for the enmity between Pórir and Óláfr. apparently, there were also others. Legendary Saga identifies two of the men Óláfr killed for Pórir as his sister’s son and Grjótgardr. Snorri repeats the statement about Óláfr killing four men for Pórir in the speech immedi-ately before the Battle of Stiklestad in which Pórir explains his reasons for fighting Óláfr.104 Here Pórir names ásbjorn, his brother’s son; Pórir and Grjótgardr, his sister’s sons; and Olvi, their father. In Heimskringla, Grjót-gardr is thus the son of Olvi, whom Óláfr killed early in his reign because of his participation in a pagan cult and whose wife he married to Kálfr árnason who was then his friend. on this occasion, however, Snorri does not mention that this wife was Pórir’s sister.105 according to Heimskringla, Óláfr later killed both Pórir and Grjótgardr, the former because he had accepted gold from Cnut to betray him, the latter because he wanted to avenge his brother. Curiously enough, however, Snorri makes little use of this motive in Pórir’s case; he only mentions it on this occasion. By contrast, the death of the two young men has a decisive influence on Kálfr árnason, as they

102. HkrOH, ch. 123, 133. 103. HkrOH, ch. 133; Bagge, “nordic Uniqueness,” pp. 59f. 104. Leg. Saga, ch. 62; HkrOH, ch. 219. 105. HkrOH, ch. 110; cf. HkrOH, ch.107–9.


are his stepsons.106 This identification is not to be found in any other source. did Snorri simply invent this story in order to find a reasonable explanation for Kálfr’s defection? or did he even invent the defection itself? Olvi is one of the leading men in Trøndelag, a position Kálfr adopts when Óláfr gives him Olvi’s widow in marriage. Kálfr is thus in debt to Óláfr. on the other hand, he is also pressured from his wife, who even-tually urges him to join Óláfr’s enemies after Óláfr has killed both her sons. In Legendary Saga, Kálfr is a continual adversary of Óláfr and already fights against him at nesjar. nor is he said to have any reason for being grateful to Óláfr. Before the Battle of Stiklestad, Óláfr blames two of his enemies for forgetting the benefits he has conferred on them, but does not direct this accusation at Kálfr. Even stranger, there is no such accusa-tion in the corresponding passage in Heimskringla’s version; nor does Kálfr on the same occasion blame Óláfr for the death of Olvi and his sons.107 It therefore seems that the story of Kálfr’s conflict of loyalty after the death of his stepsons is Snorri’s invention and is based on the information in Legendary Saga or a similar source about Óláfr killing Grjótgardr and Kálfr marrying his widow.108

Finally, there are some reasons to suspect the identity of the two women named Sigrídr in Snorri’s narrative, as they do not occur anywhere else. Sigrídr is also the name of the prototype of an aggressive woman, Sigrídr the Haughty, who killed Óláfr’s father. Thus, when there is no other evi-dence than Snorri’s for Karli’s involvement in ásbjorn’s death and when a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation for Pórir killing him exists, it is possible that the whole story of Sigrídr with the bloody spear and Pórir taking revenge for ásbjorn is Snorri’s invention.109 The corresponding lack of evidence for the existence not only of the other Sigrídr, later married to Kálfr, but also of her two sons, suggests a similar conclusion in this case as well. It must be admitted, however, that some kind of kinship between Pórir and ásbjorn did exist according to Legendary Saga, which might have given Pórir a motive for turning against Óláfr, even if we reject revenge as a motive for killing Karli. Moreover, when she gives Pórir the bloody spear, Sigrídr does not ask him to kill Karli but to kill Óláfr, which he does by piercing him, apparently with the same spear, at Stiklestad. In a similar way, Finnr’s violent hatred of his brother Kálfr is more easily explained if

106. HkrOH, ch. 165, 166, 183. 107. Leg. Saga, ch. 62; HkrOH, ch. 219. 108. See Schreiner, Tradisjon og saga, pp. 77f., who also regards this story as Snorri’s inven-tion and suggests that the name Olvi is derived from one of Sigvat’s poems about a pagan named Olvi who denied him hospitality for the night. By contrast, the name Grjótgardr seems appropriate for an adversary of Óláfr, as it indicates descent from the earls of lade. 109. Jenny Jochens, Old Norse Images of Women (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), pp. 176f.

310 Bagge

Kálfr had defected from Óláfr than if the two brothers had just happened to join different sides.110 Kálfr may actually have been given Grjótgardr’s widow by Óláfr and then have defected for some other reason than the death of her sons. Snorri’s main reason for inventing these stories is Pórir’s and Kálfr’s central role in the opposition against Óláfr and above all the fact that they are, or are suspected of being, Óláfr’s killers. They therefore need a strong motive, and the strongest motive Snorri could imagine was revenge. This is the motive of all three killers, although the first one, Porsteinn knarr-asmidr, who wants revenge for the ship Óláfr confiscated, seems almost like a parody compared to the two others. By contrast, both Kálfr and Pórir are important magnates who are mentioned several times earlier in Legendary Saga and are very prominent in Heimskringla. Pórir is one of Óláfr’s greatest enemies, who, according to both sagas, has conducted a prolonged feud against him. despite some references to his Sami magic, he is described less negatively than Kálfr and is the first to whom God reveals Óláfr’s sanctity. Kálfr is a traitor in Heimskringla, although as the result of strong provocation. Snorri also hints that he may have been guilty of killing Óláfr, but is not certain. The reference to Kálfr’s anonymous relative in Legendary saga suggests the same. Kálfr is also portrayed very negatively in Legendary Saga, as false and untrustworthy. nevertheless, Kálfr takes part in bringing Óláfr’s son Magnús back to norway and in promoting his acceptance as king. In the case of both these men, we have to consider that they belonged to important families whose descendants continued to have a prominent position long afterwards.111 Pórir was the great-grandfather of vidkunn of Bjarkøy, a friend of King Sigurdr jórsalafari in the early twelfth century and the foster father of his son, and the estate of Bjarkøy was one of the wealthiest in the country in the following centuries. The descendants of the árnasons married into the royal family and belonged to the elite in the twelfth century and possibly later. Family interests may thus have had some importance in the development of tradition, but apparently worked in different ways. Pórir had a good reason to be Óláfr’s enemy and was thus respectable, whereas Kálfr must have been a kind of black sheep in the árnason family, whether or not he had defected from Óláfr’s cause. However, his or his brothers’ descendants wished that he had not killed Óláfr and therefore invented either an anonymous relative or another man by the same name as the real killer. In addition to Erlingr, Pórir, and Kálfr, Óláfr’s most prominent ad-

110. Leg. Saga, ch. 73, 85; HkrOH, ch. 231. 111. Fidjestøl, “The legend,” p. 170.


versaries were Hárekr of Pjotta and Einarr pambarskelfir, both of whom had been provoked by Óláfr’s reduction of their power or his lending of support to their local rivals. Snorri mentions no cases of violence between Einarr and Óláfr, whereas Hárekr kills Grankell,112 the father of one of Óláfr’s retainers, and consequently has to join Óláfr’s enemies to avoid revenge. Hárekr becomes one of the leaders of the army fighting Óláfr at Stiklestad, but does not play a prominent role as he was probably too old to fight actively. Einarr is in England during the battle. as Cnut has not fulfilled his promises to him, Einarr sees no reason to hurry home to defend his cause, but prefers to hold back and await the outcome.113 In addition to these major figures, both Legendary Saga and Snorri mention a number of lesser men in the enemy army whom Óláfr confronts with their ingratitude toward him before the battle.114

The concentration of Óláfr’s failures to his five last years enables Snor-ri to create a consistent plot out of his conflicts with the chieftains. By contrast, the vague chronology of Legendary Saga suggests to the reader that the enmity was there all the time, without giving much information about individual motives for turning against the king. This picture neither supports nor contradicts the author’s generalization about Óláfr’s strict justice combined with Cnut’s gold as the reason for the opposition against him. although both explanations also occur in Heimskringla, the detailed account of Óláfr engaging in one conflict after the other during the last five years of his reign points to additional and more complex motives. Through his inventions and changes to the tradition, Snorri manages to create a strong network of the men opposing Óláfr, all of whom have good reasons for fighting him, which also serves to explain the turning point in Óláfr’s reign in his eleventh year. I have earlier claimed that Snorri essentially depicts the conflicts as a series of power struggles between Óláfr and individual magnates.115 Power is important in the case of all the men mentioned above but it is not the only factor. neither Pórir nor Kálfr wants a conflict with Óláfr; they are both forced by women demanding revenge who appeal to their sense of shame and honor. Pórir is almost out of his mind, having received the bloody sword, and Kálfr has good reasons to be grateful to Óláfr besides risking the friendship with his brothers. In the case of Erlingr, his conflict with Óláfr might, in Snorri’s opinion, have been solved, had it not been for his loyalty to ásbjorn. an additional argument for the importance of revenge as a motive in Snorri’s thinking is the fact that these episodes are

112. HkrOH, ch. 169. 113. HkrOH, ch. 194; Bagge, Society and Politics, p. 84. 114. Leg. Saga, ch. 79; HkrOH, ch. 225. 115. Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 66–70, 81–90.

312 Bagge

likely to have been his own invention. It would therefore seem that he has reduced the importance of power as a motive in favor of revenge. on the other hand, none of the three magnates takes up arms against Óláfr until Cnut has made his claim and a strong alliance can be formed against him. The concern for honor and revenge is combined with political realism. This emphasis on the individual motives weakens the two general ex-planations Snorri has borrowed from his predecessors. The leaders of the opposition willingly accept Cnut’s bribes, but this is not their decisive motive; their experience with Óláfr is more important. Generally, Snorri attaches less importance to Cnut than most of his predecessors do; the brave norwegians cannot be conquered by the danes; they are themselves able to depose their king.116 nor can the conflicts be explained as the result of Óláfr’s strict justice. The detailed accounts of Óláfr’s behavior toward the men who later became his enemies hardly confirm the picture of a king acting out of concern for strict justice, neither from a modern nor from a thirteenth-century point of view. although it is more than a conventional piece of religious rhetoric, it is not Snorri’s real explanation of Óláfr’s fall. Where do Snorri’s sympathies lie? In contrast to his predecessors, he not only gives a detailed account of why Óláfr’s adversaries turned against him, but also deals with their preparations for the Battle of Stiklestad without any word of condemnation. He even attributes a speech to the danish bishop Sigurdr, which condemns Óláfr as a robber and evildoer. The fact that Snorri allows people to present their arguments in speeches does not necessarily mean that he agrees with them. However, his sympathy clearly lies in what later terminology would call a balanced constitution, the king ruling in cooperation with the people, represented by the aristocracy, and listening to the advice of the leading men in the country. His two famous examples of confrontations between the king and the people, ásbjorn of Medalhús against Hákon the good and Porgný r logmadr against King olof of Sweden,117 illustrate this ideal quite well. The latter example in particular has been regarded as an expression of the Icelandic magnate Snorri’s attitude toward the norwegian king.118 However, Snorri makes it clear that Porgný r’s accusation against King olof of Sweden cannot be directed against the norwegian Óláfr, who listens to his people when they want peace with their neighbors. nor does Snorri depict a constant

116. Bagge, “Mellom kildekritikk,” p. 191. 117. Hkr. Hákonar saga goda, ch. 15; HkrOH, ch. 80. 118. Moberg, Olav den hellige, pp. 207–15. Whereas Moberg regards the story as Snorri’s invention, von Friesen, “Fredsförhandlingarna,” pp. 246–54, defends its authenticity by pointing to oral information available to Snorri during his stay in Sweden in 1219. although such information may well have existed, we do not know to what extent Snorri adapted it to his own purpose.


conflict between Óláfr and the aristocracy. He lists a number of magnates on Óláfr’s side,119 and he gives specific reasons for the individual mag-nates who turn against him. Snorri’s opinion of kingship in general may be better illustrated by the discussion among the petty kings whether to accept Óláfr as their ruler (above p. 293): on the one hand, a strong king can easily reduce the power and independence of the magnates. on the other hand, such a man is also able to reward his friends and punish his enemies. as an Icelander, Snorri may have additionally taken consolation from the argument he attributes to Hrœrekr about the advantages of a distant king. nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the impression that Snorri blames Óláfr. a characteristic expression of his attitude is found in the words he attributes to Erlingr Skjálgsson during one of their meetings: “I serve you best when I serve you voluntarily.”120 Snorri seems to agree with Erlingr that it would have been in both men’s interest if Óláfr had allowed Er-lingr to keep his position in Western norway rather than try to reduce his power. Here Snorri may have had in mind another great magnate whose power the contemporary king wanted to diminish, namely his friend and patron Earl Skúli.121 Moreover, Óláfr’s behavior in the series of conflicts during the last five years of his reign probably seemed incredibly stupid to Snorri. He alienates Erlingr Skjálgsson by insisting on the death penalty for his nephew for killing a lowborn man, descended from slaves, despite the fact that Erlingr is willing to pay whatever Óláfr wants in return for ásbjorn’s life. He then demands that ásbjorn take over the position as royal representative, which, according to the view expressed in Snorri’s narrative, was extremely humiliating and unlikely to lead to lasting peace. after ásbjorn’s death and Pórir’s revenge, he has Finnr árnason humiliate Pórir who, like Erlingr, would probably have been willing to pay compen-sation to retain Óláfr’s friendship. at Erlingr’s surrender in the Battle of Tunga, Óláfr insists on humiliating him before pardoning him, although this leads to áslákr’s fatal blow and would, in any case, probably have made it difficult for Óláfr to gain Erlingr’s friendship. Finally, at the time when Cnut prepares his attack on norway and several of the leading men have joined him, he kills both of Kálfr’s stepsons, thus causing another impor-tant magnate and old friend to join the enemy camp. one last episode

119. In addition to the árnasons from Møre, this includes a whole network in Eastern norway as well as an ally in northern norway, áskell Grankellsson (allegedly the man who killed ásbjorn selsbani but commonly mainly the rival of Hárekr of Tjotta). See Bagge, “Mellom kildekritikk,” pp. 184–87. 120. “sú mun pér min pjónosta hallkvæmst, er ek veiti pér med sjálfrædi” (HkrOH, ch. 60, p. 89). 121. Sverre Bagge, Spielregeln der Mächtigen. Mittelalterliche Politik zwischen Gewohnheit und Konvention, ed. Claudia Garnier and Hermann Kamp (darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-gesellschaft, 2010), pp. 135–42.

314 Bagge

completes the picture: the story of the skald Steinn Skaptason who kills Óláfr’s ármadr but is protected by Porbergr árnason.122 This story is related briefly in Legendary Saga, where it is simply an episode used to illustrate Steinn’s difficult character. In Heimskringla it completes the picture cre-ated by the concentration of all Óláfr’s conflicts with the chieftains to his last five years: Óláfr is a stubborn king who challenges too many enemies at the same time and refuses reasonable compromises. By insisting on the death penalty for Steinn, Óláfr almost causes his closest friends, the árnasons, to turn against him. We do not know what Snorri really thought about these episodes—after all, Óláfr was not any tyrant from the old days, but the eternal king of norway, resting in a shrine in the Cathedral of nidaros—but it is un-derstandable that Snorri needed an excuse for such behavior, which he found in the statement about Óláfr’s strict justice. However, in defense of the real Óláfr, it must be added that some of these stories are Snorri’s constructions. did Snorri need an excuse for the magnates to turn against Óláfr, particularly for those who killed him? did he find it psychologically implausible that such men betrayed their king just for gold and silver? or did he simply examine the available sources for any trace of motives, developing those he found into complete stories explaining the actions of Óláfr’s main adversaries? To Snorri, the fact that so many leading men in the country turned against Óláfr was a serious problem that needed an explanation. Consequently, he did his best to explain the actions of Óláfr’s adversaries, despite the negative consequences of this for Óláfr himself. In any case, Snorri gives both a more complex account of the re-bellion against Óláfr and shows greater understanding for his adversaries. Ultimately, however, he shows them to have been wrong. Óláfr’s alleged tyranny was replaced by an even worse despotism exercised by the danes, and Óláfr’s holiness—which Snorri did not doubt—was used to throw off the danish yoke and place Óláfr’s son on the throne.

THE dIFFErEnT PICTUrES oF ÓláFr

The previous discussion of Legendary Saga’s and Snorri’s narratives of Óláfr’s reign has given a complex picture of secular and religious as well as positive and negative features. Some differences can also be traced in the other versions, although the complexity is less prominent there. The-odoricus gives a consistent picture of Óláfr as a saint and a rex iustus; Ágrip gives a similar but more superficial picture, whereas Fagrskinna mainly

122. HkrOH, ch. 138; cf. Leg. Saga, ch. 58, p. 138.


focuses on the political aspect, although without in any way contradicting the rex iustus portrait of the previous sources. Legendary Saga presents two successive characterizations of Óláfr, both in pairs.123 The first one begins with a detailed description of Óláfr’s ap-pearance in the traditional saga style, while adding some comments about his character: He was a wise man and saw what the best course of action was when he allowed time for consideration, but if something happened suddenly, he became dangerous. This is followed by a religious section, emphasizing Óláfr’s respect for churches and Christianity and listing his many good deeds to the poor and needy in a way resembling a litany, after which follows his severity toward pagans and evildoers. Both parts of the characterization, but particularly the religious, contain a whole series of alliterations. The second characterization is divided into one negative and one positive part. according to the former, Óláfr was arrogant, tyrannical, revengeful and mean, proud and irascible, and a ruler of this world. By contrast, the latter describes him as mild and modest, kind-hearted and sociable, prudent and amiable, generous and noble, famous and just, a good ruler and attentive to God’s law and that of good men. not surpris-ingly, the author adds that the latter characterization was the correct one. despite Óláfr’s recognized sanctity, negative opinions about him thus existed as late as in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, or at least records of such opinions. Snorri has two corresponding characterizations placed in different phases of Óláfr’s life, the secular one in the beginning and another, more religious, in a similar place as the one in Legendary Saga, after Óláfr has become king.124 The first description, resembling that of Legendary Saga, deals with Óláfr’s appearance, but continues with an account of his various skills: he was a good archer, extremely skillful with the spear, and a good swimmer as well as skillful in handicraft, both when practicing it himself and in appreciating the work of others. This information is not found in Legendary Saga, but the part about handicraft may be derived from the statement there, repeated in Heimskringla, that Óláfr had carved the head decorating the stern of his ship in the Battle of nesjar.125 Finally, Snorri describes Óláfr’s character and intellectual skills, his courage, intelligence and strength, and his ambition always to be the first, which, Snorri adds, was reasonable considering his dignity and birth. This description accords well with the one in Legendary Saga, except for the somewhat cryptic passage there about Óláfr being dangerous when he

123. Leg. Saga, ch. 28. 124. Hkr., Óláfs saga helga, ch. 3; Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 181–86; Bjarne Fidjestøl, “European and native Tradition in Óláfs saga helga,” in Selected Papers, pp. 184–200. 125. Leg. Saga, ch. 24, p. 74; Hkr., ch. 47.

316 Bagge

acted without thinking. Óláfr’s hot temper is mentioned in both sagas, but there is no direct example of disaster resulting from a spontaneous action by Óláfr, unless the author of Legendary Saga here alludes to the episode of ásbjorn selsbani. Snorri’s second description deals with Óláfr’s day, which begins with Mass and the canonical hours and continues with Óláfr meeting people and settling matters between them. Snorri concludes with Óláfr’s legislation and zeal for justice and Christianity, also an expression of the rex iustus ideal, but with a greater emphasis on public virtues and with no mention of kindness to the poor. Finally, a character portrait is added, somewhat different from the earlier one, describing Óláfr as a man of high moral standards, patient, a man of few words, generous but fond of money. The combination of generosity and love of money seems somewhat paradoxical, although less so than it immediately appears: a lot of money is needed to be generous. However, it does point to a weakness in Óláfr’s character. Finally, Snorri adds a third portrait of Óláfr, after his exile, in preparation for his sainthood, which gradually manifests itself during the two last years of his life. There are similar contrasts in the narrative. Explicitly, the author of Legendary Saga continuously presents Óláfr as a saint and a rex iustus. He is morally superior to his enemies, the two earls as well as those fighting him at Stiklestad. He performs miracles, he dies as a martyr, and his soul is seen ascending to heaven. on the other hand, there are a number of features contradicting this picture. The young Óláfr’s behavior toward his stepfather is very far from showing him as a model of a good son and even less a saint. He goes on viking expeditions to amuse himself, and the author makes no attempt to hide his violent activities, although already at this stage, they are interspersed with asceticism and piety. The story of Óláfr’s meeting with his half-brothers, which immediately precedes the first characterization of him, also underlines his warlike character and his similarity to his half-brother and successor, Haraldr, and the contrast between both and the peaceful and agricultural attitude of his stepfather and other half-brother (which, in Snorri, is two other half-brothers).126 While his brother wishes to have cows, Haraldr wants to have enough men to eat all his brother’s cows in one meal. Óláfr’s preparations for his martyrdom at Stiklestad are mixed with aggression and cynical com-ments on the death of his enemies. as in other respects, Legendary Saga is a mixture of opposing elements, apparently without much attempt on behalf of the author to deal with the relationship between them.

126. Leg. Saga, ch. 27. The story is essentially the same in Snorri, but is given an exact date in his relative chronology based on the assumption that Harald, born in 1015, was three years old at the time (HkrOH, ch. 76).


one of Snorri’s challenges—probably the main one—in reorganizing this material was harmonizing and developing the various elements in order to modify the contrasts in the previous tradition, at least to a point. one element in this is simply the development of the “objective” saga style. Snorri mostly refrains from authorial comments, presenting his actors on the stage and either letting them express their motives them-selves or simply reporting what they did. However, he also modifies some of the most drastic expressions of piety as well as of arrogance. although not particularly well behaved as a boy, Óláfr’s words and actions are less drastic than in Legendary Saga. He does not become a viking to amuse himself, but because he has no other way of gaining a decent livelihood. on the other hand, many of the more extreme expressions of his piety have been modified. Most importantly, Snorri to a considerable extent solves the contradictions with the help of his chronology, actually paint-ing three successive portraits of Óláfr, as the viking, the king, and the saint respectively,127 ending with showing Óláfr accepting death as a true Christian martyr. Snorri’s greatest challenge—and greatest success—in this field is his account of Óláfr’s relationship with his enemies and his fall. He is the only writer who considers the story from the point of view of Óláfr’s enemies. By focusing on their motives, and even by constructing stories that give them motives, he is able to present a more complex understanding of Óláfr’s fall than his predecessors. In describing the conflicts partly as a normal struggle between great men for power, and partly—and with particular emphasis on the men who killed Óláfr—as a struggle for revenge, he is able to explain the actions of both parties, while at the same time creating a synthesis of the widely diverging elements found in Legendary Saga. The tensions are still there, but rather than being the result of contradictory information from a mixture of sources, as in Legendary Saga, they give a convincing impression of complexity of character.

ConClUSIon

We have followed the development of the story of St. Óláfr over a period of around fifty years, from around 1180 until around 1230. If we consider

127. Bagge, Society and Politics, pp. 181–86. on this point, I accept Phelpstead’s criticism that I have failed to do justice to all three of Snorri’s portraits of Óláfr (Phelpstead, Holy Vikings, p. 140). The saint is an equally important aspect of Snorri’s Óláfr as is the warrior and the king, and, as the comparison with Legendary Saga shows, Snorri has exerted himself to make this portrait as convincing as possible. Still, I cannot follow Phelpstead (Holy Vikings, p. 118, etc.) in regarding sainthood as the main element in Snorri’s saga of Óláfr.

318 Bagge

the difference between the first and the last work we have dealt with, it is easy to leap to the conclusion that an enormous change has taken place during these fifty years, leading to the “invention” of the Óláfr known by most modern readers of the sagas. This impression is wrong. Quite a substantial part of this story must have been known to our earliest author, Theodoricus, who, in his terse and succinct way, renders a fair number of the episodes told in greater detail by his successors and shows that much of what was included in the later sagas was known to him and his con-temporaries, at least concerning the first and last phase of Óláfr’s reign. as Theodoricus was very selective in what he included, he may also have known some episodes of which no trace remains in his work, although this is of course impossible to prove. It would seem, however, that the material about the “secular” Óláfr was more substantial than that for the “religious” Óláfr, which serves as an additional explanation for the brevity of Theodoricus’s account. The exact character of the tradition before Theodoricus is, of course, impossible to determine. From Legendary Saga we can conclude that a great variety of traditions, both oral and written, must have existed, par-ticularly concerning the early and late phases of Óláfr’s reign. The age of these traditions is difficult to determine, but the existence of skaldic poetry, partly combined with “Begleitprosa,” may suggest that at least some of them go back to Óláfr’s own lifetime. This applies in particular to his early viking expeditions, the episode in Saudungssund, and the Battle of nesjar, and to some extent also to the names of his main adversaries and perhaps even to the Battle of Stiklestad, although in this case, as well as concerning Óláfr’s journeys from norway and back to Stiklestad, it would seem from Legendary Saga that we are dealing with a very fertile tradition, producing ever more stories of the great king and saint. nevertheless, we are not only dealing with continuity, but also with change. The great, revolutionary intervention in the tradition is repre-sented by Snorri, who creates a consistent chronology out of the mass of separate stories, most of which were unrelated to one another in the earlier tradition, chronologically as well as causally, and who is also the first to attempt a consistent, or almost consistent interpretation of the struggle between Óláfr and his enemies. From a present-day point of view of historical truth, this revolution has not been without costs: originally totally unrelated stories are linked together and not only speeches, but also individual persons and their actions have been invented. The result, however, is an entirely new kind of narrative. What conclusions can we draw from these observations to the general development of the saga literature? The problem has recently been dealt with by Theodore M. andersson, whose focus, however, is mainly on the


Icelandic family sagas and for whom the final stage in the evolution is represented by Njáls saga from the late thirteenth century.128 although the family sagas and the kings’ sagas have much in common, there are also differences between them. The kings’ sagas show closer similarity to the classical and contemporary latin historiography, through features like pro-logues, invented speeches, and above all chronology. Theodoricus’s work is an example of advanced, theological historiography already around 1180, whereas Historia Norwegie represents a more classicizing latin tradition. However, the influence from these traditions on vernacular historiography is more difficult to ascertain. The dry, terse style of Ágrip, and to some extent of Fagrskinna, may have been influenced from Theodoricus’s latin prose,129 but ari, who writes in the same style in his extant Íslendingabók, seems an equally likely source of inspiration. The step from this listing of facts to epic narrative is taken in Oldest Saga, today mainly known from Legendary Saga and the approximately contemporary saga of Óláfr Tryggvason by oddr munkr, with serious costs regarding coherence as well as consistency. Most of the epic material is clearly derived, directly or indirectly, from oral tradition, but its organization in a longer narrative has presented a prob-lem. We may nevertheless wonder whether the chaotic narrative of these works can be explained by the relationship between written text and oral performance at this stage. We know that texts at this time, and largely also later, were meant to be read aloud, perhaps to serve as a source for oral storytelling. Could we imagine the author of Legendary Saga including a number of different versions in his text, not because of carelessness, but in order to have a variety of material available for various oral performances? The development from this saga to Snorri would then mean a change in the status of the text, from raw material for oral performance to literary prose, intended to be performed in one particular way. Between these two stages, we meet an early masterpiece, Sverris saga, not dealt with by andersson, probably because of its limited importance for the development leading to Njáls saga. Here the combination of vivid narrative and precise chronology is already perfect and the individual episodes to some extent also serve to explain major changes in the rela-tionship between Sverrir and his adversaries, although from this point of view, a modern reader would be likely to miss more explicit conclusions.130

128. andersson, Growth (on oddr, Legendary Saga, and the story of Magnús and Haraldr in Morkinskinna) (pp. 21–59, 86–101), and on Njáls saga and the whole development (pp. 183–210). 129. on influence from latin on Ágrip, see Tor Ulset, Det genetiske forholdet mellom Ágrip, Historia Norwegiæ og Historia de antiquitate regum norwagiensium (oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1983). 130. Sverre Bagge, From Gang Leader to the Lord’s Anointed. Kingship in Sverris saga and Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar (odense: odense Univ. Press, 1996), pp. 15–51, and passim.

320 Bagge

Sverris saga, with the exception of the very early part, Gryla, probably only covering the period until 1178, also represents the same objective narra-tive as Snorri’s works and is likely to have served as his model. There is, however, a great difference in that Sverris saga deals with contemporary history where at least a relative chronology was easy to establish, whereas Snorri had no evidence for his chronology of Óláfr’s reign. The signifi-cance of Sverris saga for the development of the sagas is difficult to establish because of the uncertainty about its date. Gryla can be dated to 1185–88, and at least a major part of the saga may have already been written during Sverrir’s lifetime, but most of the saga may also be as late as from around 1220.131 This uncertainty, together with the general uncertainty about the dates of the kings’ sagas and the fact that most of them were, after all, written in a relatively short period, should warn us against drawing too firm conclusions about their development from one stage to another; we may also imagine the coexistence of various approaches. nor is the latest necessarily the best. admittedly, there is no doubt about the brilliance of the last work dis-cussed here—that of Snorri—but it also seems appropriate to celebrate another author whose brilliance is more difficult to appreciate for modern readers, namely Theodoricus Monachus. as the works of his predecessors Sæmundr and ari have been lost, we do not know how original he actu-ally was, but if he really did not have any written sources, he must have made a careful selection of various information from oral sources and presented it in a clear and succinct form. In this way, he aimed at creat-ing a consistent picture of the great king and saint, while evaluating the evidence according to contemporary critical standards. He shows a clear awareness of the genre of history as opposed to biography and hagiogra-phy, and he avoids the inconsistencies and repetitions of Legendary Saga. Finally, he manages to integrate the life and reign of a saint and ruler at the outskirts of the inhabited earth, unknown to most of his European contemporaries, in the great history of salvation. Theodoricus’s work is diametrically opposed to that of Snorri, but together the two demonstrate the rich historiographic tradition of the northern world.

131. See most recently Bagge, Gang Leader, pp. 15–18; Claus Krag, Kong Sverre. Norges største middelalderkonge (oslo: aschehoug, 2005), pp. 46–48; and Porleifur Hauksson, Sverris saga, Íslenzk fornrit, 30 (reykjavík: Hid íslenzka fornritafélag, 2007), pp. lX–lXI, all with references to earlier literature.


Documents

Warrior, King, And Saint