plik

Journal of English and Germanic Philology—July

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.

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.

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.

f.; 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,

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,

but which nevertheless shows its author’s

awareness of writing history rather than hagiography.

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.

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:

. 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.

. 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.

. 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.

. 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.

. 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.

. 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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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),

–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,

(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.

Ágrip,

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.

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.

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.

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]”

Warrior, King, and Saint

285

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)

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).

Snorri’s work

is particularly detailed regarding the middle part which covers around
half the work, compared to one-third in Legendary Saga.

The most important difference, however, is that Snorri has organized the
whole saga, including the middle part, according to a strict chronology;

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.

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.

The author links Óláfr to the old dynasty through

the story of Óláfr Geirstadaálfr

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.

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,

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

287

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

(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,

(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,

and finally after having consulted first

a seeress, apparently pagan, and then a holy hermit, about his future.

However, Óláfr also receives God’s aid during his viking expeditions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

289

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.

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.

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 Saudungssund

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.

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.

The fact that the story is included in Theodoricus’s

version

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,”

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.

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.

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

Warrior, King, and Saint

291

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.

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.

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.

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.

In contrast to Legendary Saga, Snorri also develops the political as-

pect of Óláfr’s reception.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

293

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.

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 off

—

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.

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.

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.

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

295

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

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.

The source for the embassy to

Sweden is a poem by Sigvatr, Austrfararvísur,

but the poem says noth-

ing about marriage negotiations,

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.

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,

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 poem

which is quoted in Legendary Saga, Fagrskinna, and Heims-

kringla but was probably also known to Theodoricus.

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.

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’

. . . 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 . . ..

Warrior, King, and Saint

297

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 latter

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.

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.

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

299

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,

while he deals

briefly with Óláfr’s escape to russia and return after Earl Hákon’s death.

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.

during his journey,

he performs several miracles.

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.

also twice meets Porgeirr, the farmer, of Sul.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

301

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,

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.

Snorri at-

tributes a more pious battle-cry to Óláfr than Legendary Saga: “Forward,
Christ-men, cross-men, kings-men,”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Finally,

Kálfr’s axe later plays a part in the scene when Óláfr’s son Magnús forces
him to visit the battlefield of Stiklestad.

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

303

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.

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 battle

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,

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.

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.

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

305

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.

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.

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,

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.

–13.

100. For a comparison of the two versions, see Schreiner, Tradisjon og saga, pp. 73–76.

Warrior, King, and Saint

307

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

309

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

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

311

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

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

313

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.

, 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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

315

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).

Warrior, King, and Saint

317

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

Warrior, King, and Saint

319

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.

Warrior, King, and Saint

321