the politics of snorri sturluson

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

Accessed: 09/10/2013 12:33

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof English and Germanic Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 12:33:20 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27710941?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


The Politics of Snorri Sturluson

Theodore M. Andersson, Stanford University

Despite Snorri Sturluson's predominant position in the classical saga

writing of medieval Iceland, there has been surprisingly little analysis of his great history of the Norwegian kings (Heimskringla) since the

publication of Gustav Storm's initial synthesis of 1873. The scattered

landmarks are books by Sigur?ur Nordal (1920), Hallvard Lie (1937), Gudmund Sandvik (1955), and the indispensable edition of Bjarni

A?albjarnarson (1941-1951). In 1991 the drought was suddenly re

lieved by the appearance of two new books by Sverre Bagge and Diana

Whaley.1 Bagge gives us three hundred dense pages of historical anal

ysis, and Whaley provides a graceful literary introduction in less than

half that compass. Bagge writes more for a scholarly audience, Whaley more for the general reader, but they have collaborated in making a

major work of medieval historiography broadly accessible for the first

time, especially to those who do not read the Scandinavian languages. The special importance of Bagge's book is that it approaches Heims

kringla not from the standpoint of the traditional philologist or literary historian, but rather from the standpoint of the social and political his

torian.2 This shift of emphasis is most welcome, but revolutions eventu

ally give way to new syntheses, and the historical and philological view

?Sverre Bagge, Society and Politics in Snorri Sturlusons Heimskringla (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1991); Diana Whaley, Heimskringla: An Introduction (London: Vi

king Society for Northern Research, 1991). For the older literature readers may refer to the ample bibliographies provided by both Bagge and Whaley.

21 have reviewed Bagge's book enthusiastically in this journal (JEGP, 92 [1993], 279 81) and, at greater length, in the context of a review article in Medievalia et Human?stica,

New Series, 19 (1992), 197-210. Since the writing of the present essay in the fall of

1992 Klaus von See has proposed an analysis very similar to my own in a paper entitled "Snorris Konzeption einer nordischen Sonderkultur" in Snorri Sturluson: Kolloquium anl??lich der J50. Wiederkehr seines Todestages, ed. Alois Wolf (T?bingen: Gunter Narr

Verlag, 1993), pp. 141-77. The difference is that von See locates the central political theme, which I seek to identify in the following pages, not in Morkinskinna, as I do,

but rather in Snorri (p. 167): "Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen einem wikingerhaft schweifenden, im Ausland nach Ruhm und Beute strebenden K?nigtum und einem

bauernfreundlichen, um den inneren Frieden und die Rechtsordnung des eigenen Landes bem?hten K?nigtum ist f?r Snorri das Generalthema der norwegischen und der

skandinavischen Geschichte ?berhaupt." I believe that Snorri inherited and revised this theme. My remarks therefore turn out to be a response to von See no less than Bagge.

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



56 Anderss on

points should ultimately combine with rather than stand in opposition to one another. Bagge's task was to establish some parity between

the historical and philological disciplines, not to harmonize them. He

writes as follows (p. 6): "Philologists in particular may miss one aspect, the analysis of Snorri's sources and his relationship to his predecessors.

This is the aspect of Heimskringla and the saga literature that has been

treated most extensively?almost exclusively?hitherto, and though far from all problems have been solved, I am not interested in this con

text in making further contributions to this field. . . ." The present es

say aims at making just such a contribution. It is intended to supple ment Bagge's study by testing the text of Heimskringla against Snorri's

chief source for the period 1030-1130 (Morkinskinna). The compari son will, I hope, not be carried out in a spirit of unregenerate philol ogy, but will be guided by Bagge's line of political inquiry. What can we

learn about Snorri's political bent by measuring it against Morkinskinna ?

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1215-1220

It is generally agreed that Morkinskinna was composed around 1220

and the corresponding sections of Heimskringla perhaps a decade or

so later. The period just before 1220 is therefore of particular impor tance in establishing the circumstances under which these histories

were written. It seems evident that the unknown author of Morkin

skinna was politically engaged, while Snorri's first visit to Norway in

1218?1220 would have placed him at the very center of political de

velopments in Iceland and Norway (Whaley, pp. 32-33). These de

velopments were characterized by more than a little tension. In fact

the period 1215-1220 saw what amounted to a trade war between

Iceland and Norway (Whaley, pp. 28 and 33). In 1215 Saemundr J?nsson at Oddi and I>orvaldr Gizurarson at

Hruni had set prices on the goods of some Norwegian merchants. In

1216 Saemundr's son Pall went to Bergen and was treated to such

retaliatory abuse that he left Bergen and was drowned on the way to

Trondheim. In 1217 Saemundr gave vent to his wrath by exacting fines from Bergen and Greenland merchants. In 1218 the Greenland

traders killed Saemundr's brother Ormr in reprisal. In 1219 Norway appears to have imposed an embargo on shipping to Iceland, and in

1220 Jarl Skuli actually contemplated a naval expedition against Ice

land.3 These events have been seen in the context of the long-stand

3These events may be traced in Sturla ?>or?arson's Islendinga saga, ed. Orn?lfur

Thorsson et al. in Sturlunga saga, vol. i (Reykjavik: Svart ? hv?tu, 1988), 254-62, and

H?konar saga, ed. Gudbrand Vigfusson, Hakonar saga, Rolls Series, 88 (London: Her



The Politics of Snorri Sturluson 57

ing designs on Iceland by the Norwegian kings, a view that is, as we

will see, borne out by the underlying suspicion of Norwegian motives in Morkinskinna.4

The trade war originated in southern Iceland, but there is evidence

of a traditional opposition to foreign intrusion in northern Iceland as

well, specifically in Eyjafjpr?r. King Haraldr Gormsson's plan to attack

Iceland is firmly resisted in a stanza by Eyj?lfr Valger?arson at Mp?ru vellir, and Eyj?lfr 's son Einarr jDveraringr is alleged to have composed a like-minded stanza as well as being credited with the famous speech in Snorri's Ol?fs saga helga in opposition to Ol?fr Haraldsson's request for the surrender of Grimsey in Eyjafjpr?r.5 Political resistance there

fore had strong precedents in Eyjafjpr?r, and this is precisely the area

in which Morkinskinna is most likely to have been written.6 It is conse

quently understandable if we detect in Morkinskinna a deep-seated ap

prehension about Norwegian foreign policy. I have argued elsewhere that Morkinskinna builds its version of Nor

wegian history between 1030 and 1130 on two contrastive sets of

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

H?konar saga H?konarsonar etter Sth. 8 fol., AM 325 VIH, 40 og AM 304, 40, Norsk His

torisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, Norr0ne Tekster, 2 (Oslo: I kommisjon hos Forlagssentra len, 1977), pp. 27, 35-36. See also Islandske annaler indtil 1578, ed. Gustav Storm

(Christiania: Gr0ndahl & S0ns Bogtrykkeri, 1888), pp. 23, 63, 125, 183, 255, 326. 4 See J?n J?hannesson, A History of the Old Icelandic Commonwealth, trans. Haraldur

Bessason, University of Manitoba Icelandic Studies, 2 (N.p.: Univ. of Manitoba Press,

i974)> PP- 239-40- , 5 Haraldr Gormsson's planned attack is reported by Snorri in Ol?fs saga Tryggvasonar

(Chap. 33), ed. Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, Islenzk fornrit, 26 (Reykjavik: HiS ?slenzka

fornritaf?lag, 1941), 315-17. On this passage see Bo Almqvist, Norr0n niddiktning. Tra

ditionshistoriska studier i versmagi, vol. 1: Nid mot furstar (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,

1965), pp. 119-85. Eyj?lfr ValgerSarson's stanza is as follows (from Finnur J?nsson, Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning [Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1908-15], vol. lB, 95): "Selit maSr v?pn viS verSi, / verSi dynr ef m? sverSa, / ver?um Hropts at her?a / hlj?S;

eigum slpg rj?Sa; / ver skulum Gorms af gomlu / Gandvikr |3oku landi / (hpr? es vpn at ver?i / v?pnhr?S) snor biSa" (No one should cash in his weapons?let there be a din

of swords if it comes to that. We must sing Odin's tune and redden our weapons. Here

in the old misty land of the northern seas we will await Gorm's son?a tough battle is

in store). The Grimsey incident is related in Snorri's Ol?fs saga helga (chap. 125), ed.

Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, Islenzk fornrit, 27 (Reykjavik: Hi? ?slenzka fornritaf?lag, 1945), pp. 215-17. The stanza attributed to Einarr Eyj?lfsson in one manuscript is as follows

(ibid., p. xlix): "Trautt erumk lausa at lata, / leiS es oss konungs reiSi, / gjarn es gramr at ?rna, / Grimsey, of trpS fleyja. / Hpldum ver fyr hildar, / hann es dyrr konungr, styri / holmgjarSar, fremsk hilmir / hagli peitu nagla" (I am reluctant to let Grimsey go,

though we are loath to anger the king?the king is eager to cross the sea. Let us with

hold from the battle leader?though he is an esteemed king?the buckle of the island

belt [i.e., the buckle of the surrounding sea = island = Iceland]?the king stands out

in spear storms). On the background of the Grimsey episode see Bjarni ASalbjarnar son's introduction to Ol?fs saga helga, pp. xlvii-1.

6 On the location o?. Morkinskinna see Eivind Kv?len, Den eldste norske kongesoga. Mork inskinna og Hryggjarstykki (Oslo: N.p., 1925), pp. 46?53.



58 Andersson

kings, to whom I will refer as the "foreign adventurer" type and the

"builder and lawmaker" type.7 These kings may be paired and con

trasted as follows ("foreign adventurers" in the first column, "builders

and lawmakers" in the second):

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

The contrast emerges especially clearly in Morkinskinna because the careers of the first and last pairs are contemporary and intertwined.

The characters of these kings are therefore constantly set off against one another. Snorri loses some of the comparative effect because he

works more in terms of single biographies and thus disentangles the careers of Haraldr har?ra?i and Magnus go?i. He nonetheless retains

the two distinct types, which Sverre Bagge refers to as the "warrior

hero" and the "peaceful ruler" (p. 139), or the "warrior, strong-willed and aggressive" and the "mild lover of peace" (p. 156).

In Morkinskinna there is a clear preference for the kings dedicated to domestic welfare and a corresponding negative view of the foreign adventurers. The bias is so clear that it suggests a condemnation of

Norwegian expansionism on the part of an Icelandic writer and a

forceful recommendation that Norwegian kings should devote them

selves to social progress within Norway. In political terms this outlook

might very well be a reflex of the tensions between Iceland and Nor

way in the period 1215-1220. When we turn to Heimskringla, how

ever, we find that bias considerably moderated. Snorri seems to have

been at pains to remove the Icelandic perspective on Norwegian af

fairs and to rebalance in some measure the contrast between warrior

kings and commonweal kings. I will therefore argue that in the period 1030?1130 Heimskringla represents

a royalist readjustment by

com

parison to the immediate source Morkinskinna.

HARALDR HARDR?BI AND MAGNUS G?DI

The author of Morkinskinna takes a decidedly mixed view of Haraldr

har?ra?i, who is described as being valiant and resourceful but also

untrustworthy and deceitful.8 His portrait is further complicated by a

7 "Snorri Sturluson and the Saga School at MunkaJDver?" in Snorri Sturluson, ed. Alois

Wolf, pp. 9-25 (esp. 16-17). 8Gustav Indreb0 contributed an interesting article on this contradiction to the vol

ume for Finnur J?nsson: "Harald hardraade i Morkinskinna" in Festskrift til Finnur

J?nsson 29. Maj 1928 (Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1928), pp. 173-80. He be

lieved that the core story was based on skaldic authority and was positive with respect




series of Islendinga pcettir, most of which show off the wit and wisdom

of individual Icelanders somewhat to the detriment of King Haraldr.

We can only remind ourselves of the gist here, but the general ten

dentiousness of the p ttir hardly requires detailed demonstration.9

The first, "Halld?rs jD?ttr Snorrasonar," is perhaps the most indicative

of all. In it the Icelander both confronts and confounds the king,

concluding his dealings with the aging monarch with a dismissive

"eldisk argalinn n?" (the old reprobate is aging now).10 The well

known "Au?unar J)?ttr" is wittier, but also presents an Icelander who

is stout enough to stand up to Haraldr and canny enough to subdue

him with words and a superior display of tact. In addition, "Au?unar

|)?ttr" formulates a comparison between Haraldr and Sveinn Ulfsson

that tends to favor the Danish king. In "Brands JD?ttr prva" the Ice

lander manages to give the king a silent lesson in the rules of gener

osity. In "I>orvar?ar {)?ttr kr?kunefs" another Icelander takes the

king's gruff reception in stride and fares much better with his kins man Eysteinn orri. "Sneglu-Halla |}?ttr" is characterized by a series

of farcical episodes at the Norwegian court, in which the king plays the autocrat and Halli consistently has the best of it. In "Odds JD?ttr

Ofeigssonar" the Icelandic trader Oddr outwits an ill-disposed Har

aldr with the aid of a Norwegian accomplice. The focus of these p ttir is a portrayal of Haraldr har?ra?i as the

moral or intellectual loser in his dealings with Icelandic visitors. That

to Haraldr, while the pcettir (and the final comparison with Magnus g?Si) were nega tive and secondary additions. I find the negative tonalities to be rather consistent

throughout. 9 For a survey of the pcettir in Morkinskinna see Heinrich Gimmler, Die Thcettir der

Morkinskinna. Ein Beitrag zur ?berlieferungsproblematik und zur Typologie der altnordischen

Kurzerz?hlung (Diss. Frankfurt am Main, 1976). The pcettir referred to in this paper are:

"Halld?rs |)?ttr Snorrasonar," "AuSunar ]}?ttr," "Brands [)?ttr orva," "?orvarSar Jr?ttr kr?kunefs," "Sneglu-Halla {)?ttr," "Odds {)?ttr Ofeigssonar," "Gull-?su-t>?rSar |)?ttr," and "HreiSars Jr?ttr heimska." Gimmler addresses the problem of interpolation in gen eral on pp. 44-49, then reviews the pcettir individually. He suggests that six of the eight

pcettir discussed here were not in the original redaction of Morkinskinna (only "AuSunar

|)?ttr" and "Gull-?su-?>?rSar ]3?ttr" are not designated as interpolations). On the other

hand, Jonna Louis-Jensen has shown in Kongesagastudier. Kompilationen Hulda-Hrokkin

skinna, Bibliotheca Arnamagnaeana, 32 (Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1977), pp. 69, 77-78, that some of the suspect pcettir ("AuSunar [)?ttr," "Sneglu-Halla fr?ttr," "Halld?rs

[}?ttr," "HreiSars Jr?ttr," and "Brands Jr?ttr") may well have been in the original redac tion. Since many of the pcettir are inspired by an anti-royalist tendency that is consonant

with Morkinskinna as a whole, I will assume for the sake of argument that they origi nated with Morkinskinna. They may not be the original creations of the Morkinskinna

author, but he could well have refashioned them for his project. 10C. R. Unger, ed., Morkinskinna. Pergamentsbog fra f0rste halvdel af det trettende aar

hundrede (Christiania: Bentzen's Bogtrykkeri, 1867), p. 51 (hereafter "Unger"), and Finnur J?nsson, ed., Morkinskinna, Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur,

53 (Copenhagen: J.j0rgensen & Co., 1932), p. 155 (hereafter "FJ").



6o Andersson

depiction runs exactly counter to the drift of Haraldr's adventures in

the Mediterranean, and for the most part his fortunes in Norway and

Denmark. In these latter contexts he emerges regularly as the supe

rior intellect, though hardly a model of scrupulous conduct. It is as if

his powers were more than adequate to deal with any race other than

the Icelanders, a reading that would no doubt have been as gratifying to the author's countrymen as it would have been objectionable to

loyal Norwegians. If Snorri suppressed even some of the p ttir in

Morkinskinna, we can only surmise that one consideration was to re

move the sting for a Norwegian readership. Indeed, Snorri seems to have been intent on removing the Ice

landic presence altogether, for example, a reference to Gizurr Isleifs son (Unger, p. 103; FJ, p. 251), or the consecration of the Icelandic

bishop Magnus Einarsson in Norway (Unger, pp. 200-201; FJ,

p. 404), or the mention of Sigur?r slembidj?kn's stay with I>orgils Oddason at Saurb r (Unger, p. 204; FJ, p. 409 [presumably from

Hryggjarstykki]). We can observe that with the disappearance of the

intrusive Icelandic presence in Snorri's Heimskringla went the intru

sive Icelandic view of Norwegian kingship found in Morkinskinna.

Snorri no longer admits Icelanders for political coloring but only for

the sake of their stanzas.11

At one point Snorri even seems to offer an explanation for the sup

pression of the Icelandic p ttir. He acknowledges that he knows more

of King Haraldr than he has written (Hms 3:118): "En Jdo er miklu

fleira ?ritat hans fraeg?arverka. K0mr til J)ess ofr oi v?r ok J}at annat, at ver viljum eigi setja ? bcekr vitnislausar spgur." The phrase "vitnis

lausar spgur" suggests a certain distaste, which could be inspired not

so much by the problem of attestation as by the l?se majest? just below

the surface of the p ttir. That impression can only be strengthened when the paragraph continues with a digression on Haraldr's special

friendship for Iceland. Snorri seems to dedicate himself here to a

normalization of relations between Iceland and Norway. That tendency is carried one step further in the following para

graph, where Snorri discredits Haraldr's greatest Icelandic detractor, Halld?rr Snorrason. Snorri not only omits all of King Haraldr's prov ocations duly noted in Morkinskinna, but goes on to explain why Hall

dorr was an impossible presence at the Norwegian court (Hms 3 :

120): "Halld?rr var ma?r f?maeltr ok stir?or?r, bermaeltr ok stri?lund

a?r ok ?mj?kr, en J)at kom illa \)? vi? konung, er hann haf?i gn?ga

11A good example of such retention is the mention of Porleikr fagri in Heimskringla, vol. 3, ed. Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, Islenzk fornrit, 28 (Reykjavik: HiS ?slenzka fornrita

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




a?ra me? ser gpfga menn ok |)j?nostufulla." Far from being a hero of

self-assertiveness, as in Morkinskinna, Halld?rr simply becomes an un

serviceable courtier in Snorri's reincarnation of him.

The point is driven home by contrast in yet a third paragraph, which describes the ideal Icelandic courtier, Ulfr Ospaksson (Hms

3:120): "Hann var inn vitrasti ma?r, snjallr ? m?li, skprungr mikill,

tryggr ok einfaldr." When Ulfr stallari dies many pages later, King Haraldr stands over his grave and delivers a handsome eulogy (Hms

3:175): "Ear liggr s? n?, er dyggvastr var ok dr?ttinhollastr." The

eulogy is taken over from Morkinskinna (Unger, pp. 111-12; FJ,

p. 265), but not the deliberate juxtaposition of Halld?rr Snorrason

and Ulfr stallari. That juxtaposition seems quite calculated; an Ice

lander who is not pj?nostufullr stands next to another Icelander who

is dr?ttinhollastr. Service to the crown was not on the Morkinskinna

agenda, but it was clearly in Snorri's mind when he suppressed King Haraldr's antagonists and applauded his friends.

Another clue to Snorri's attitude lies in his use of H?konar saga Ivarssonar. As Gustav Storm noted in 1873, tf?s is the only saga in the

whole corpus dedicated to a Norwegian chieftain unconnected to a

royal house.12 That in itself raises interesting questions about its gene sis. Why would an Icelandic writer have turned to the career of this

somewhat marginal figure? The answer must lie not only in H?kon's

heroic dimensions but also in the perception that he was an opposi tion figure in Norway and thus appealed to the Icelanders in a period of frictions with Norway. This is certainly the way he is portrayed by the author of Morkinskinna, who contrasts him to King Haraldr much as he sets up a series of Icelandic opposition figures.

Morkinskinna tells the story of how H?kon parts company with

Finnr Arnason, the latter allying himself with the Danish king Sveinn

Ulfsson while H?kon offers his service to King Haraldr in Norway. He distinguishes himself in the Norwegian victory at the Battle of

Niz, but also secretly secures the escape of King Haraldr's antagonist Sveinn Ulfsson. H?kon subsequently visits Haraldr at court, and the

king offers him the hand of Magnus go?i's daughter Ragnhildr. She

hesitates to marry a man of lesser status, but the marriage takes place

12 Gustav Storm, Snorre Sturlass?ns Historieskrivning. En kritisk Unders?gelse (Copenha gen: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri, 1873), p. 49. The fragments of H?konar saga Ivarssonar

were published by Storm (pp. 236-59) and by J?n Helgason and Jakob Benediktsson, H?konar saga ivarssonar, Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur, 62 (Copen

hagen: J. J0rgensen, 1952). For the most recent discussion of the saga see Bjarne Fid

jest0l, Det norrfine fyrstediktet (0vre Ervik: Alvheim 8c Eide, 1982), pp. 15-17, and Rus

sell G. Poole, Viking Poems on War and Peace: A Study in Skaldic Narrative (Toronto: Univ.

of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 66-68.



62 Andersson

on the supposition that Haraldr will appoint H?kon as jail. Haraldr

fails to do so, and H?kon avenges himself by killing a number of the

king's men and destroying their property.13 He then sails off on a

viking expedition while Ragnhildr takes asylum in Denmark.

There Sveinn Ulfsson offers H?kon the province of Halland in re

turn for capturing his marauding kinsman Asmundr Bjarnason. In

stead, H?kon delivers Asmundr's head. Though angered by the death

of his kinsman, King Sveinn is as good as his word and grants H?kon

his jarldom in Halland, where he settles with his wife Ragnhildr. The story concludes with a pitched battle between King Haraldr and

H?kon in Sweden. Haraldr wins the battle, but H?kon boldly recap tures his banner and ambushes some of Haraldr's men, thus forcing the king to concede that their triumphs are equal.

This is the tale of a distinguished man who volunteers his assistance to King Haraldr and renders valuable service. Haraldr rewards him

with a marriage, presumably in a bid to retain his service, but fails to

observe the terms of the contract and obliges him to transfer his loy

alty to his Danish rival Sveinn Ulfsson. Despite some provocation Sveinn is scrupulous in discharging his commitment to H?kon, and

thus contrasts favorably with King Haraldr. H?kon eventually loses the contest but wins the moral victory. That victory is reminiscent of

what we find in the p ttir, for example "Au?unar J^attr," which also

pits Sveinn Ulfsson against Haraldr har?ra?i in a moral contest.

The story told in Heimskringla is quite different. In this version King Haraldr needs H?kon's help in coming to terms with the ?r ndir

after the killing of Einarr JDambarskelfir and his son Eindri?i. It is no

longer the king who offers Ragnhildr's hand in marriage, but H?kon

who stipulates it. In contrast to Morkinskinna, Haraldr declines to

grant the jarldom in advance and thus does not allow the marriage to

go forward. H?kon then retaliates by taking service with Sveinn Ulfs

son, but he kills the king's nephew Asmundr and is banished. At this

point H?kon returns to

Norway, makes peace with Haraldr, receives

his jarldom, and marries Ragnhildr. He later distinguishes himself in

the Battle of Niz but secretly helps Sveinn Ulfsson escape. Apprised of the secret, Haraldr sets out to take revenge, but H?kon is able to

escape to Sweden. Here the pitched battle is described as in Morkin

skinna, but Haraldr's comment about equal triumphs and H?kon's re

prisals are omitted.

13Unger, p. 85; FJ, p. 221. Snorri omits this detail from Heimskringla, but E?r?lfr

takes similar reprisals in Egils saga, Islenzk fornrit, vol. 2, ed. SigurSur Nordal (Reyk

javik: HiS ?slenzka fornritaf?lag, 1933), 47-48.



The Politics of Snorri S tur lus on 63

Snorri's version of the story is clearly exculpatory with respect to

Haraldr har?ra?i. The king no longer lures H?kon into an agreement that he then fails to keep. H?kon makes his own terms, and Haraldr

is candid about what he will and will not do. The marriage does not

take place under false auspices. At the same time Sveinn Ulfsson is

reduced in stature. Rather than rewarding H?kon, he banishes him.

Back in Norway the marriage and jarldom are arranged without de

ception and precede the Battle of Niz, so that H?kon's betrayal in

facilitating the escape of Sveinn Ulfsson is more palpable. Finally, H?kon's flamboyant moral victory in Sweden is somewhat curtailed.

Perhaps most significant is Snorri's suppression of the brilliant mar

riage portrait in Morkinskinna, in which the anguished tug between

status considerations and personal affection engage the reader's spe

cial sympathy for H?kon and Ragnhildr. Snorri's version of H?konar

saga Ivarssonar thus rebalances the scales in favor of King Haraldr in

the same sense as his deletion of Islendinga pcettir. His interpretation of Haraldr's career is considerably more royalist than what we read in

Morkinskinna. Because H?konar saga is so fragmentary,

we cannot

know how either version compares with the original, but a clear con

trast between the biases in Morkinskinna and Heimskringla seems in

disputable. It remains to ask whether Snorri reduces the contrast between King

Haraldr and King Magnus in the same way he readjusts Haraldr's

relations with such antagonists as Halld?rr Snorrason and H?kon

Ivarsson. A palpable difference is that Morkinskinna neglects Magnus's

early reign and picks up the story only after Haraldr's return to Nor

way (ca. 1046). From the outset the focus in Morkinskinna is on Mag nus's moral rather than his political stature. His clash with Haraldr over the royal mooring is calculated to demonstrate hereditary firm ness of character. His visit with his steward I>orkell dy?rill illustrates

how he insists on but also acknowledges faithful service. There fol

lows an episode in which he rewards good advice given him before

the Battle of Hlyrsk?gr, and another in which he rewards a certain

Ormr with a jarldom even though Ormr spared the life of his enemy. That act draws the author's explicit approval because it shows that

Magnus judges the quality of the man to be more important than a

personal difference (Unger, p. 24; FJ, p. 103). The story line then turns once more to the direct relations between

the coregents Magnus and Haraldr. In one encounter Magnus is able to help a relative of K?lfr Arnason's escape Haraldr's clutches. In a

second Haraldr proves to be grasping in his collection of taxes and

provokes the opposition of Einarr |)ambarskelfir. At the Eyra|}ing an



64 Andersson

old man rises to enunciate the view that the greater allegiance is owed to King Magnus (Unger, p. 27; FJ, p. 108). In yet a third encounter

Haraldr composes some offensive verses at the expense of Magnus's

taciturn brother I>?rir. Magnus retaliates by instructing I>?rir to recite an even deadlier reply. All three passages suggest that Magnus is ca

pable of defending his turf against his more aggressive uncle. They culminate in a visit by Arn?rr jarlask?ld, who recites poems in honor

of both kings, but Haraldr comments that his dr?pa is ephemeral, while Magnus's will be recited "as long as the northern lands are

peopled" (Unger, p. 32; FJ, p. 118). Two other episodes are less obviously tendentious. In the first both

Haraldr and Magnus try their hand healing a boy who has lost the

capacity to dream, but it is finally Haraldr who succeeds. In the sec

ond Saint Olaf signals to Magnus that he should refrain from sleeping with a certain Margr?ta. That may of course suggest that Magnus is to be seen as Olafs special charge and true heir, but the comparison of kings becomes even more explicit in the only Islendinga p?ttr at

tached specifically to Magnus, "Hrei?ars |)?ttr heimska." The gist of

the story is again that Magnus is able to defend his interests, in this case a man commended to his keeping, against Haraldr.

All of the incidents thus far are designed to establish Magnus as a

model of probity and competence, and to shed a correspondingly un

favorable light on Haraldr. No space is devoted to what might be con

sidered Magnus's political career. Only at the very end of his saga does he go off to harry in Denmark with his uncle, but even this epi sode serves to illustrate his wisdom and farsightedness. Foreseeing his

death, Magnus contrives to have his mother free the Danish captive

Porgils, a kinsman of Sveinn Ulfsson's, so that she will be welcome to

take refuge in Denmark when he can no longer protect her. A final

comparison between Magnus and Haraldr is attributed to Sveinn

Ulfsson, who capers unidentified before the Norwegian host and comments that there is a significant difference between the two Nor

wegians?he himself was guilty of betraying Magnus, whereas Har

aldr betrayed him. Sveinn thus adds his voice to the poetic voice of Arn?rr jarlask?ld, whose panegyrics seem to have implied a prefer ence for Magnus, and to the legal voice of the old man at the Eyra

JDing. The comparisons are plentiful and invidious; they clearly reso

nate in favor of Magnus. The political difference is summed up by

Magnus himself on his deathbed (FJ, p. 143 [from Flateyjarb?k]): "Ok

kann vera, at sumum ver?i myrkari ok kaldari ra? Haralds konungs, fraenda m?ns, en min."

Whereas the author of Morkinskinna is interested almost exclusively




in Magnus the moral man, Snorri is interested primarily in Magnus the political man. In Snorri's recreation, Magnus's political career is

far from unblemished. He is moved to take reprisals against those

who fought against his father at Stiklarsta?ir, and he must be recalled to a more scrupulous observance of H?kon g?oi's laws, especially by

Sighvatr's "Berspglisvisur." In the foreign arena Magnus pursues his

goals aggressively. He secures the Danish succession, then loses it to

Sveinn Ulfsson but regains it in three successive victories, though only after destroying the fortress of the Jomsvikings and subduing the

Wends with the aid of Saint Olaf. Finally he extends his ambition to

England, but wisely refrains from pressing his good fortune.

In these chapters Magnus appears as a daring but prudent military leader, an image not hinted at in Morkinskinna. On the other hand, Snorri drops the morally paradigmatic incidents of Morkinskinna al

most without exception. Of the implied comparisons between Haraldr

and Magnus there remains only the contested mooring site (pp. 103

4). But, as in the case of Haraldr, Snorri gives us to understand that

he knows more than he writes. He knows that there were more dis

agreements, though he tries to dismiss them as the work of malicious men (p. 102): "Br?tt ger?usk greinir ? um sam|3ykki konunganna, ok

v?ru margir sv? illgjarnir, at f>eira gengu sv? illa ? milli." And again on p. 104: "Vio sl?kar greinir ger?isk br?tt umr ?a ?vitra manna til

|)ess, at konungum var? sundr|}ykki at. Mart fannsk \)? til ^>ess, er

konungum jr?tti sinn veg hv?rum, p?tt h?r s? f?tt ritat." It is as if

Snorri does not want to hear of the dissension between the kings. He

certainly does not want to use Magnus

to cast a shadow on Haraldr.

To be sure, Magnus emerges as an extraordinarily popular king

(p. 105): "Si?an anda?isk Magnus konungr go?i, ok var hann allmjpk harmdau?i allri anby?u." Or again (p. 107): "Allra konunga var hann

vinsaelstr, bae?i lofu?u hann vinir ok ?vinir." But the invidious com

parisons with Haraldr that operate so clearly in Morkinskinna are

abandoned completely. The judgments of Arn?rr jarlask?ld, the old man at the Eyra?>ing, and Sveinn Ulfsson on the battlefield are not

repeated. On the contrary, Snorri makes every effort to suggest that

Haraldr and Magnus cooperated in reasonable amity. That tendency emerges in such small touches as Snorri's revised treatment of the

attempt on Sveinn Ulfsson's part to win Haraldr over for an alliance

against Magnus. Haraldr's response in Morkinskinna is simply non

committal (Unger, p. 17; FJ, p. 88), but in Heimskringla (p. 96) he

responds angrily to the idea of betraying his kinsman. It might even

appear that Snorri works against the idea of an implied contrast by

comparing King Haraldr at the end of his saga (p. 201) not with Magn



66 Andersson

?s but rather with Saint Olaf. The comparison, though attributed to

Halld?rr Snorrason, is surely intended to favor Haraldr har?ra?i's

memory. By further implication it counteracts the view promoted in

Morkinskinna that Magnus is under Saint Olafs special protection. In sum, Morkinskinna creates a

sharp contrast between Magnus and

Haraldr. Magnus is in every way exemplary, much beloved by the

people and almost saintly in his final days. Haraldr, on the other

hand, is autocratic, ambitious, and unreliable. Snorri goes to consid

erable lengths to reduce the gap by retouching both portraits. In his

interpretation Magnus is popular but by no means saintly. He makes

political mistakes at the beginning of his career, and though he has no adventures to match Haraldr's

Varangian romance, he is much

involved in military expeditions in the Baltic and Denmark. It is only at the end of his career that he sees the wisdom of withdrawing from

foreign entanglements. Haraldr, on the other hand, is much soft

ened. His dealings with Magnus are troubled to be sure, but they re

main within the bounds dictated by kinship and treaty obligations. His

penchant for trickery, especially in dealing with Halld?rr Snorrason

and H?kon Ivarsson, is greatly moderated, and reemerges only after

Magnus's death in his machinations against Einarr JDambarskelfir and

K?lfr Arnason. Snorri thus goes a long way toward neutralizing the

morality tale inherited from Morkinskinna.

?L?FR KYRRI AND MAGNUS BERF TTR

The sagas of Magnus and Haraldr occupy half or more of the extant

Morkinskinna, 120 of 237 pages in Unger's edition and, including the

supplements from Flateyjarbok, 285 of 462 pages in Finnur J?nsson's edition. By contrast the story of ?l?fr kyrri is notoriously brief, seven

pages in Unger's edition, eleven in Finnur J?nsson's edition, and only seven in Bjarni A?albjarnarson's Heimskringla. We would hardly ex

pect to find many clues to a political reading in so short a text, but

there are nonetheless at least two instances of tendentiousness. Mor

kinskinna (Unger, p. 127.1-12; FJ, p. 291.13-28) includes a very enthusiastic review of ?l?fr explicitly at the expense of Haraldr har?

ra?i. It reads in part: "Ok skipa?i ?l?fr konungr |Deim mprgum hlu

tum til vaeg?ar, er Haraldr konungr, fa?ir hans, haf?i reist me? freku

ok haldit sv?."

This authorial comment is followed up by a speech in which ?l?fr

specifies the difference between his reign and Haraldr's: "N? skal ek

k?tr vera, er ek s? bae?i ? ly? m?num glae?i ok frelsi. ... En ? dpgum




fp?ur m?ns var ly?r ]Dessi undir aga miklum ok ?tta, ok f?lu \)? flestir menn gull sitt ok gersimar, en n? s? ek ? hverjum y?rum sk?na ?>at, er ?. Ok er y?vart frelsi min glae?i."

The comparison is not quite so glowing in Heimskringla. Here Ol?fr

is asked to explain why he has a larger retinue than the law prescribes when he makes his rounds of Norway, and he must reply a little de

fensively (p. 207): "Eigi fae ek betr styrt rikinu ok eigi er meiri ?gn af

m?r en af fp?ur m?num, }}?tt ek hafa h?lfa fleira li? en hann haf?i, en engi pynding gengr m?r til ]Dessa vi? y?r e?a {Dat, at ek vilja J^yngja kostum y?rum."

In other words, the author o? Morkinskinna continues

to use Haraldr har?ra?i as the negative pole of royal authority, while

Snorri depolarizes the two kings. He even converts Ol?fr's words

from the invidious original into an expression of modesty. Ol?fr

merely suggests that despite the increased size of his retinue he is

neither as powerful nor as intimidating as his father.

These passages in Morkinskinna align the peaceable Ol?fr against an

aggressive Haraldr and keep the contrastive strategy in place. On the

peaceful side of the balance Ol?fr is in the company of Magnus g?oi. It was one of Magnus's characteristics that he put domestic security ahead of foreign conquest, with the result that he refrained from in

tervening in England and eventually judged it best to leave Denmark to Sveinn Ulfsson. Ol?fr inherits his restraint. When he is urged by

King Knutr of Denmark to join an expedition against England, he

declines, citing the fate of his far more accomplished father at Stam

ford Bridge. He is therefore content to give Kn?tr sixty ships for his

enterprise while he remains behind in Norway. Ol?fr is thus, accord

ing to Morkinskinna, the polar opposite of Haraldr and the natural

heir of Magnus, but Snorri moderates the contrast to Haraldr and

eliminates altogether Ol?fr's refusal, in emulation of Magnus go?i, to

join the attack on England, despite the fact that these subtractions

leave him with a mini-saga of no more than seven pages. In Morkin

skinna Ol?fr has paradigmatic value, in Heimskringla very little.

Magnus berfcettr clearly reverts to the behavioral model established

by Haraldr har?ra?i, though again more overtly in Morkinskinna than

in Heimskringla. Magnus's autocratic streak is illuminated by Morkin

skinna's account of his dealings with the east Norwegian chieftain

Sveinki Steinarsson, who fails to submit. Magnus dispatches his offi

cials to recall the chieftain to his duty and require that he perform

"g?oa jDJ?nostu ok s miliga fylg?" (Unger, p. 137.34; FJ, p. 308.13), but they are treated first to ironical riddles and finally to an obscene

dismissal. Magnus follows up in person, but is headed off by the re

gional chieftains, who conduct exquisitely delicate negotiations lead



68 Andersson

ing to a minimal three-year exile for Sveinki. As it turns out, Magnus is obliged to recall him even before that term is up in order to contain

the depredations of robbers and bandits. The whole episode is clearly seen as a credit to Sveinki and a humiliation for Magnus. Particularly

telling is the need for Sveinki to deal with the local banditry, tradition

ally a preeminent duty of kings. Snorri drops the whole episode, pre

sumably in the interest of sparing Magnus the embarrassment. Ac

cording to his version (p. 218) Magnus alone suppresses the robbers

and vikings. That leads to a direct comparison with his father ?l?fr and his grandfather Haraldr Sigur?arson: "Hann var ma?r rpskr ok

hersk?r ok starfsamr ok l?kari ? pllu Haraldi, fp?urfp?ur s?num, ?

skaplyndi heldr en fe?r s?num." This comparison is not found in

Morkinskinna, where it would clearly have had a negative valence. In

Heimskringla it is placed in the context of Magnus's achievements and

has no negative

connotations.

Although Magnus is not compared to Haraldr har?ra?i at this junc ture in Morkinskinna, such a comparison is made later during his ex

pedition to Ireland. Here Magnus harangues his men, urging the ex

pedition (conjecturally) "for the greater glory of Norway" and for the

sake of plentiful booty.14 But his men are not so certain, and their

spokesman replies (Unger, p. 153.22-29; FJ, p. 333.1-10): "Herra,

allir mundu [)ess b?nir at vinna y?r til s mOar, en hrseddir eru v?r um npkkut ? |)essu landi, hvat til s mOar vill gerask. Er land {Detta fjplmennt en f?lkit svikalt, ok er oss uggr ?, hv? til ver?r geymt. F?r

sv? um fraenda y?varn, Harald konung, at fyrst var honum allt upp

gefit ? Englandi, }}ar sem hann kom vi?. En p? lauk sv?, at hann l?zk

[Dar sj?lfr. Myndi vinum J3?num JDvkkja allra bezt, at \)? hef?ir kyrr setit ? |)?nu r?ki, sv? gott sem |d? ?tt um at vela." Magnus is naturally not inclined to accept such advice and dies abroad in circumstances not unlike those that brought about the downfall of Haraldr har?ra?i.

The advice pinpoints the issue of foolhardy foreign adventurism and

prudent domestic policy once again. Significantly, Snorri eliminates

the exchange of speeches (p. 233) and thus continues to blur the dis

tinction. He concludes (p. 237) with a temporizing balance between

Magnus's successes at home and his risk-taking abroad. Magnus is

fully cognizant of the risks and relativizes them with the maxim "Til

fraeg?ar skal konung hafa, en ekki til langlifis" (p. 237). The author

of Morkinskinna took no such balanced view of Magnus's reign.

14Unger, p. 153.12, conjectured "enn til s m&ar v?ru r?ki N?regi." Finnur J?nsson

(p. 332.19-20) omitted the conjecture.




SIGURDR J?RSALAFARI AND EYSTEINN MAGN?SSON

Turning to Magnus's sons, we find that Morkinskinna carries through the same contrastive pattern in the most explicit terms yet. Sigur?r

J?rsalafari, like Haraldr har?ra?i before him, is famed for his adven tures in the Mediterranean and Constantinople, while Eysteinn, even

more obviously than Magnus go?i, is a peaceful and constructive stay at-home. The two kings ultimately work out the contrast in the words

of their famous flyting. Their confrontation is by no means value-free

because the author makes it abundantly clear that Sigur?r is a flawed

personality. At the height of his trajectory in Constantinople a sage

prophesies that his honor will be shaped like the lion, massive in the

forequarters but tapering off further on (Unger, p. 165.20-23; FJ, p. 351.25-29). That inauspicious prophecy is later confirmed by Ey steinn, who predicts that his brother will succumb to "some dire calam

ity" ("npkkuru ?>ungu ?felli"?Unger, p. 170.29-30; FJ, p. 359.20). The calamity in question is a madness that haunts Sigur?r at unpre

dictable intervals through the last chapters of his saga. In the first

episode he casts his most valuable book into the fire and slaps his

queen. In another episode he almost drowns a certain Jon for no ap

parent reason. In yet a third he is barely restrained from a wanton

consumption of meat on a Friday, and in a fourth he craves meat and a woman on Christmas. Finally, at an advanced age, he abandons his

wife and takes a new one, who in turn abandons him before he dies. Several of these episodes turn into tests of retainers with enough courage to oppose his irrational behavior. There is no doubt in Mork inskinna that Sigur?r ends his days as a capricious madman.

Snorri, on the other hand, curtails his symptoms drastically. In the first place, he eliminates the invidious prophecies voiced by the sage in Constantinople and by Eysteinn, but he also reduces the suggestion of madness. In the cameo Chapter 22 (p. 262) he merely notes that

Sigur?r was subject to uncontrollable fits of mirth, though in Chapter 28 he does retain the episode in which Sigur?r nearly drowns a man

(here an anonymous Icelander). All the other indications of madness

disappear. It is particularly telling that Snorri deletes the ones that run counter to Church prohibitions (fasting rules and divorce), as if

he were trying to portray Sigur?r as a better Christian. That tendency is perhaps borne out by a new chapter (24) in which Snorri credits

Sigur?r with a crusade in Sweden.

Snorri succeeds in closing the personality gap between Sigur?r and

Eysteinn to such an extent that Sverre Bagge (p. 156) judges that



7 o Andersson

Snorri's kingship ideal is a composite of both types. I believe there is

enough residue from the bias in Morkinskinna to convince us that

Snorri retains a preference for Eysteinn, but he certainly does much to tone down the negative portrait of Sigur?r in Morkinskinna. This is no doubt a conscious operation because Snorri seems to be cognizant of the opposition in Morkinskinna. His comparison of Magnus ber

f ttr with Haraldr har?ra?i (p. 218) shows that he recognized this

part of the continuity in Morkinskinna, but Morkinskinna also aligned Eysteinn with Magnus go?i (Unger, p. 189.30-32; FJ, p. 388.3-6). Snorri retains that comparison as well (p. 263), but the parallelisms are otherwise so blurred that the overall contrast of types is no longer so obvious.

In Morkinskinna the contrast culminated in the flyting between Sig ur?r and Eysteinn, which subsumes the two personality strains dating back to Magnus go?i and Haraldr har?ra?i. In an interesting specu lation on Snorri Sturluson's appearance, Helgi ?>orl?ksson studied the

flyting on the supposition that Snorri's changes in Heimskringla hint

that he is recasting Eysteinn in his own image.15 In the course of his

discussion he arrives at the same general

conclusions stated here:

1. That Snorri favors Eysteinn, and 2. that he minimizes the opposi tion between the two brothers (p. 175). I do not propose another de

tailed analysis of the flyting, but I believe there are several indications

of Snorri's tendency to moderate invidious comparisons. Eysteinn is

the manifest winner in Morkinskinna, and probably in Heimskringla as

well, but Snorri makes a number of changes in order to balance the score.

On the evening in question Morkinskinna notes that Sigur?r is taci

turn, a mood which, in the context of this saga, could be construed as

a sign of his approaching madness. Snorri removes the onus by stat

ing that everyone, not just Sigur?r, was taciturn. In Morkinskinna the

host of the feast appeals to Eysteinn because Sigur?r and his men are

given to arrogant behavior. Snorri drops that charge. In Morkinskinna

Eysteinn shows signs of being irritated by his brother's responses, so

that he appears to be more challenging. In Heimskringla he is merely

trying to lighten the atmosphere in the hope of making the situation

less charged and antagonistic. To the characterization in Morkinskinna

15"Hvernig var Snorri ? sj?n?" in Snorri. Atta aida minning (Reykjavik: Soguf?lag,

1979), pp. 161-81 (esp. 174-80). On the flyting see also Marianne E. Kalinke, "Sigurd ar saga J?rsalafara: The Fictionalization of Fact in Morkinskinna,'" Scandinavian Studies,

56 (1984), 152-67 (esp. 162-65). Kalinke, like Bagge, sees the ideals represented by the two kings as being equally balanced. Whaley, Heimskringla, p. 101, takes a view

closer to the one advanced here.




Snorri adds that Eysteinn is handsomer, better at the law, and more

eloquent, assets that were no doubt dear to Snorri's heart and served to counterbalance Sigur?r's military prowess. Finally, Snorri reduces

Eysteinn's concluding speech by about two thirds, from thirty-three lines in Unger's edition (p. 187.7-40) or forty-four lines in Finnur

J?nsson's edition (pp. 384.1-385.10) to a mere nine lines in Heims

kringla (p. 261). The effect in Morkinskinna is that Eysteinn delivers an

overwhelming and crushing final statement that makes his case incon

trovertible. In Heimskringla the debate spends itself in a more sticho

mythic and inconclusive exchange, in which the winner is not quite so

predetermined by the rhetoric.

A comparison such as the one presented here is contingent on the

accuracy of the transmitted texts. In the case of Heimskringla we prob ably have something approximating Snorri's text, though not in every detail.16 In the case of Morkinskinna the latitude for doubt is consid

erable, and there are strong suspicions

that the extant text is an inter

polated version of the original text available to Snorri, although the extent of the interpolations cannot be ascertained. Thus each indi

vidual comparison offered above is subject to doubt. On the other

hand, the overall tendency is so consistent that the total comparison can hardly be disqualified on the basis of individual questions. It seems apparent that Morkinskinna gives a politicized version of the

period 1030?1130, in which a set of peaceful monarchs dedicated to

sound domestic policy is opposed to a set of warrior kings of more

questionable character and rashly engaged in foreign exploits. It seems equally clear that Snorri set about neutralizing the opposition and softening the original critique of the foreign adventurers. We

may suspect further that the politicized version in Morkinskinna is in

spired by an Icelandic distrust of Norwegian foreign policy, and that

Snorri's adjustment of that perspective is intended to remove the

signs of Icelandic distrust in order to promote better relations with

the mother country. To test that hypothesis we must look at a contem

porary book that is specifically about Icelandic-Norwegian relations

and may very well have been authored by Snorri himself.

THE POLITICS OF EGILS SAGA

In 1985 Melissa Berman published a paper in which she classed J?ms vikinga saga, Orkneyinga saga, and F reyinga saga as

"political sagas"

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



72 Andersson

because they center on the political dealings of provincial chieftains

with the kings of Norway and Denmark.17 At the conclusion of her

paper she notes that they share their political features with Egils saga, in which the Myramenn of Iceland clash with a series of Norwegian

monarchs over a period of some

seventy-five years. She points out

that J?msv?kinga saga is distinctly anti-royalist and that Orkneyinga saga is royalist, while F reyinga saga mediates between the two postures.

Berman judges that Egils saga is closest to the mediating position. There is no doubt that the tension between provincial chieftains,

eventually Icelanders, and the Norwegian crown is thematic in Egils saga. The saga begins with the story of Haraldr h?rfagri's suppression of the petty kings of Norway, a story told with obvious sympathy for

the cause of the losers. Haraldr's policy is referred to as "enslavement"

(?pj?n), and his crushing of the resistance is ruthless.18 It leads to ex

tensive emigration and the settling of Iceland (p. 12), which may thus

be regarded as a product of royal aggression. The question posed in

the early chapters is how local chieftains will respond to the new

threat, and the more honorable alternative appears to be resistance.

Splvi klofi is politically clear-sighted, chooses to resist, is forced into

exile, but continues to assail the king from abroad. Kveld-Ulfr is simi

larly clear-sighted and has no difficulty in resisting King Haraldr's

blandishments. When his son I>?r?lfr is swayed by the prospect of

royal service, Kveld-Ulfr foresees the consequences (p. 15): "Haraldr mun ver?a at miklum ska?a m?num fraendum."

?>?r?lfr's experience with Haraldr bears out his father's worst fears.

Despite a predilection for high living, E?r?lfr is a model retainer and serves the king faithfully. When he is slandered by his enemies, he cannot believe that the king will credit such malice (p. 37), but his

confidence is misplaced, with the result that he is removed from his

lucrative position and kept at court under the king's watchful eye. It

is of course a considerable criticism of the king that he is unable to

distinguish between faithful service and palpable malice. Kveld-Ulfr can only repeat his dire predictions and advise his son to take service

with the English, Danish, or Swedish king (p. 46), a recommenda

tion that does not speak well for their Norwegian brother. Haraldr's

17Melissa A. Berman, "The Political Sagas," Scandinavian Studies, 57 (1985), 113-29. Since the writing of my paper Preben Meulengracht S0rensen has provided a much

fuller account of the political implications in Egils saga and the tension between the

Icelandic ideals of individual freedom and the centralized authority of the Norwegian

kingship. See his Fort lling og cere: Studier i Islendingesagaerne (Arhus: Aarhus Univer

sitetsforlag, 1993), pp. 127-47. Meulengracht S0rensen warns that the political theme

may not reflect current events as much as the underlying social ideal.

18Egils saga, pp. 8 and 12.




wrongful suspicion goes so far that he has one of I>?r?lfr's ships seized, thus provoking retaliation and open hostility. Kveld-Ulfr now

harks back to his refrain, reminding ?>?r?lfr once again of his advice

that service with the king would bring no luck for him or his family

(p. 46). E?r?lfr remains principled to the end, and in the final con

frontation he refuses to accept a forced settlement (nauSungars tt,

p. 52). He falls in a gallant last assault three feet from the king (p. 54). The question of whether it is advisable to serve the king is now

raised again, this time with respect to Kveld-Ulfr's other son Skalla

Gr?mr. Skalla-Grimr declines point-blank, noting that he is unlikely to have more luck than his more distinguished brother. That enables

Kveld-Ulfr to invert his refrain by approving Skalla-Grimr's action on

the grounds that he will incur only harm and no benefit from the

king. They take revenge for ?>?r?lfr's death by killing the two royal agents who had seized his ship. The break between Kveld-Ulfr's

family and King Haraldr is thus complete, and the author concludes

this section of the saga by stating that after Kveld-Ulfr's emigration the king not only seizes all their property but nurses a special hatred

against the whole clan and continues to retaliate (p. 77). This intran

sigence is reminiscent of his earlier ruthlessness against the petty

kings (p. 11). The tone and tenor of this story are clearly weighted in favor of

Kveld-Ulfr's family. He and Skalla-Grimr form an intelligent and ef

fective opposition to an expansionist king. The idyllic description of

their newly settled home in Iceland (p. 77) is calculated not only as a

favorable contrast to a Norway that has passed under the king's iron

grip, but also as a just reward for their political acumen. I>?r?lfr, for

all his brilliance, does not share their wisdom and dies at the hands of a king who is morally blind. There can be no doubt that Kveld-Ulfr's kin group holds the high ground in this confrontation.

The second stage in the conflict between the Myramenn and the

Norwegian monarchy is not only

more drawn out but also more com

plex and difficult to interpret. It pits Skalla-Grimr's sons ?>?r?lfr and

Egill against King Haraldr's son Eir?kr bl?o0x. ?>?r?lfr courts the fa vor of Prince Eir?kr with some success, but King Haraldr, now ad vanced in years, warns his son that the Myramenn

are all "ofsamenn

miklir" and that Eir?kr will live to regret his new friendship (p. 93). But Eir?kr persists and sends an ax to Iceland as a gift for Skalla

Grimr, who receives it in meditative silence. When ?>?r?lfr prepares to set sail once more, his father warns that he is not likely to return if he leaves now, and he sends the ax back with a dismissive stanza. I>?r ?lfr conceals the hostile gesture by throwing the ax overboard and



74 Andersson

giving Eir?kr a sail ostensibly as a reciprocal gift from Skalla-Grimr.

This system of silences speaks louder than words about the deep rift

between the two families. As it turns out, ?>?r?lfr does not fall victim to the feud, but suc

cumbs in battle in the service of King ^Ethelstan of England. It is left to his younger brother Egill to take up the family cudgel. Egill re

sponds to a magic attempt on his life by killing Eirikr's steward B?rOr

in a scene of drunken confusion (pp. 106?11). ?>?rir Hr?aldsson

notes his hereditary propensity to underestimate the king's wrath, and Eir?kr bursts out in a belated recognition of the truth in his fath

er's words and the realization that the Myramenn are not to be trusted

(p. 114). His wife Gunnhildr later specifies the threat by predicting that Skalla-Grimr's progeny will ultimately kill some of his close kin

(p. 123). It is at this juncture that the lead passes into the hands of Gunn

hildr, who becomes the most implacable enemy of the Myramenn, a

role justified in stanza 29 (p. 165). She instructs her brothers Eyvindr

skreyja and Alfr askma?r to waylay one or both of Skalla-Grimr's sons, but they succeed only in killing two of ?>?r?lfr's men (p. 125). In re

taliation Egill seizes Eyvindr's ships, though Eyvindr himself is able to

escape. At this point relations can presumably no longer be mended, and Egill is twice warned. King iTthelstan suggests that it would be

best for him to stay in England, and Arinbjprn warns him not to settle

in Norway as long as Gunnhildr holds sway. Prudence is not in Egill's nature, and he exacerbates the quarrel by

going to law with a certain Berg-Qnundr in order to recover an in

heritance to which he feels entitled. Unabashed, he appeals to King Eir?kr to give him the benefit of the law, and surprisingly Eir?kr does so (p. 152). Egill cites the case to the GulajDing, where Berg-Qnundr feels confident in the protection of king and queen, and where Gunn

hildr in fact breaks up the court when it seems about to find for Egill

(p. 157). With the peaceful remedies exhausted, Egill challenges Berg Qnundr to a duel but is overborne by Eir?kr. Egill then departs with a thunderous denunciation of the legal breaches. Eir?kr is determined to kill him at the first opportunity, but Egill turns the tables and kills one of the king's men before escaping. The king must content himself

with outlawing Egill the whole length of Norway (p. 164). That seems only to inspire Egill to greater outrages. He kills Berg

Qnundr in an ingeniously designed nocturnal ambush, then kills the

king's foster son Fr?Oi to boot. These killings are followed up by twelve more, which include the king's own son Rpgnvaldr, and Egill concludes his campaign by planting a scorn pole to spite and curse




Eir?kr and Gunnhildr. Ostensibly as a result they lose their foothold

in Norway and go to York, where Gunnhildr exercises her magic in

order to lure Egill from Iceland. He is now at the mercy of his arch

enemies, and despite Arinbjprn's eloquent pleas for his release, it seems hardly credible that Eir?kr does in fact allow him to return to

Iceland.

The story of Egill and Eir?kr is balanced on a sword's edge. It is no longer possible to conclude simply that the Norwegian king has

wronged the Icelander. At several junctures Eir?kr seems almost im

plausibly patient. At others Egill seems wantonly overreactive and li

tigious. There is always some justification for his action, but often no

necessity. He does not need to kill the steward B?rOr. He does not need to prosecute Berg-Qnundr in the teeth of such obvious, and not un

justified, royal disfavor. He certainly does not need to kill the king's foster son and son and plant a scorn pole. At some point Egill goes too far and vindicates the royal opinion that his family is congenitally

dangerous and not to be trusted.

On the other hand, Eir?kr is remarkably restrained in allowing Egill access to the courts, and spectacularly so in letting Egill out of his

clutches in York. There are also signs of a conscious authorial strategy to shift royal aggressiveness from Eir?kr to his notorious wife Gunn

hildr. To be sure, Haraldr h?rfagri was also subjected to malicious

advice in his dealings with I>?r?lfr, but the reader feels that he should

have penetrated the deception easily. In Eirikr's case there appears to

be no malice and a genuine instinct for leniency. How, then, are we to understand the clash between Egill and Ei

r?kr? Who bears the primary responsibility? Surely it is Egill. We are

left with the impression that a more moderate and circumspect Egill could have gotten all or most of what he wanted. It is only his uncom

promising and unreflective nature that stands in the way of his wishes.

But how does that recognition accord with the anti-royal rhetoric

aimed at Haraldr h?rfagri earlier in the saga? Is the author moder

ating his view of the Norwegian crown as he progresses, or is he illus

trating the idea from Morkinskinna that some kings are good and some

bad? Or is he serving notice that the circumstances of the original alienation of the nobles in the days of Haraldr h?rfagri are not dupli cated in every generation, and that the aggression is sometimes the

doing of the provincials?

Perhaps we must conclude that the saga does no more than state

that there has been (or once was), a long-standing feud between the

Myramenn and the house of Haraldr h?rfagri. Perhaps the thrust is

purely historical, and not political in the sense that it suggests an on



76 Andersson

going disaffection between Icelanders (represented by one clan) and the Norwegian throne (represented by Haraldr and his sons). The

idea that history is variable and that circumstances change may be

supported by Egill's experience with King H?kon Aoalsteinsf?stri.

Egill brings his inheritance case before the king, and H?kon, though mindful of the injury done his kin, allows him access to the law, just as Eir?kr had done. Not content with that, Egill presses for another

inheritance, which H?kon has already seized. Arinbjprn intercedes

for him yet again, but H?kon's patience is exhausted and nothing comes of his efforts. Once more Egill seems to have pressed his claims

beyond reason.

Egill's final contact with the Norwegian king comes about indirectly. H?kon decides to send a certain ?orsteinn Eir?ksson to V?rmland on

a perilous mission to collect overdue taxes. Egill assumes the task for

him and carries it out with legendary prowess. H?kon is reconciled

with Porsteinn, and Egill returns to Iceland. The author makes the

significant comment that there is no mention of further duels or slay

ings after Egill settled down in Iceland (p. 257). It is as if trouble is

confined to the Norwegian scene and vanishes in a more orderly and

less autocratic Icelandic environment.

There is, however, one final indication that autocracy is not re

stricted to Norway. In advanced old age Egill reappears one more

time in all his chieftainly authority to settle a quarrel between his son

f>orsteinn and a certain Steinarr Qnundarson. He settles it dictatori

ally, invoking historical privilege on the basis that all the land in the district was distributed in the form of gifts from his father Skalla

Grimr. In other words, the Myramenn retain a sort of moral title to

the land and the right to retract what they once bestowed. This is a

final, highly questionable example of Egill's propensity to give himself

every possible benefit of the law in support of his own claims. His

claim is comparable to the earlier ones in Norway, to the extent that

both are historical in nature. Egill severs his ties with Norway but is not deterred from pursuing his interests there. He will forego no

right because his rights are grounded in history. The Myramenn are

a historical entity, coeval with the centralized monarchy in Norway and therefore coentitled. In historical terms at least, the conflict be tween the Myramenn and the Norwegian crown is a confrontation of

equals. It is difficult to determine which side the author favors in this con

flict. Haraldr h?rfagri is, at the very least, flawed in his judgment, but

Eir?kr and H?kon are by no means portrayed negatively. It is there

fore not possible to align Egils saga with J?msv?kinga saga as anti




royalist, or with Orkneyinga saga as royalist. It must be sufficient to say that Egils saga, along with the other "political sagas," deals with the

issue of relations between kings and provincial chieftains.

CONCLUSION

How does the thrust of Egils saga conform to the tone of the kings' sagas in the period 1220?1230? Morkinskinna distinguished dramati

cally between kings in pursuit of foreign glory (Haraldr har?ra?i,

Magnus berfcettr, and Sigur?r J?rsalafari) and those devoted to do

mestic prosperity (Magnus go?i, ?l?fr kyrri, and Eysteinn Magnus son). At the same time, the prototype of the foreign adventurer type,

Haraldr har?ra?i, is burdened with a series of episodes in which he

does not quite measure up to individual Icelanders. The Icelandic

bias in Morkinskinna thus seems quite palpable. It patronizes with po litical advice and invidious comparisons. It suggests that good kings attend to the welfare of their countrymen but that bad kings covet

foreign lands.

That message does not coincide with Egils saga, in which the Nor

wegian kings are not embroiled in foreign adventures. On the other

hand, Haraldr h?rfagri is critically portrayed, and Eir?kr is embar

rassed by Egill to an even greater degree than Haraldr har?ra?i is

embarrassed by his Icelandic visitors. The collision between royal au

thority and Icelandic assertiveness is about equally pronounced in

both texts. Heimskringla, as we have seen, takes a rather different view

of the Norwegian monarchy. Haraldr h?rfagri is toned down in com

parison with Egils saga and is no longer quite so inexorable in his

campaign against the petty kings.19 In those portions of Heimskringla

dependent on Morkinskinna there is also a programmatic moderation

of the aggressive qualities proper to the foreign adventurer type in

Morkinskinna, as well as an elimination of the subversive p ttir that were so calculatedly compromising for Haraldr har?ra?i in the earlier

work. The practical question that confronts us here is whether Egils saga is more nearly associated with the stage of Icelandic literature

represented by Morkinskinna around 1220 or with the stage that

evolved a decade later in Heimskringla.20

19 Compare Splvi klofi's powerful speech against Haraldr in Egils saga (p. 8) with the

trimmed version in Hms i : 105. Haraldr's suppression of resistance in Egils saga (pp. 11 -

12) has no counterpart in Heimskringla (1 : 117-18).

20J?nas Kristj?nsson suggested a date as late as 1240 in "Egils saga og konunga

s?gur" in Sj?tiu ritger?ir helga?ar Jakobi Benediktssyni 20. j?l? 19JJ, vol. 2, ed. Einar G.



78 Andersson

Although the political sensibility in Egils saga by no means matches

the contrastive paradigm in Morkinskinna, it nonetheless betrays the same preoccupation with heavily charged relations between Norwe

gian kings and notable Icelanders. The author of Egils saga has the same

general perspective as the author of Morkinskinna, one that sub

sumes Norway and Iceland and is fixed on the interaction between

the two. Heimskringla simplifies that perspective and no longer impli cates Iceland in Norwegian affairs. It therefore seems more likely that

Egils saga belongs to the earlier literary stage around 1220 rather than

the later one around 1230.

This chronology remains no more than a plausibility among others.

There is no reason why Snorri, if he authored both Egils saga and

Heimskringla, could not have written politically contradictory books at

the same time around 1230, one conceivably for a

Norwegian audi

ence, the other for an Icelandic audience. Nor is it impossible that he

could have abandoned the political neutrality of Heimskringla in order to write a more problematical book on the Icelandic experience of

Norway some years later, perhaps

as late as 1240. But the best guess

might be that Egils saga was written in the heat generated by the Nor

wegian-Icelandic trade war of 1215-1220, about the same time as

Morkinskinna, and that it embodies a new sense of Icelandic identity and assertiveness engendered by recent history.

There is, as I suggested at the outset, a larger point to be made

here. Sverre Bagge, in his broad-ranging and compendious work on

Snorri, has tried to read Heimskringla as an autonomous work. He

attempts this reading in conscious opposition to the philological pre

occupation that has dominated the study of the kings' sagas for more

than a hundred years. His experiment deserves to be welcomed en

thusiastically. At the same time, we need to bear in mind that the

literary interaction between Heimskringla and other contemporary works provides a set of clues to the political attitudes prevalent at the

time of composition. The present essay has therefore attempted to

read Heimskringla in its literary and political context, not so much as

an isolated monument but rather as a rejoinder in an ongoing politi cal discussion.

P?tursson and Jonas Kristj?nsson (Reykjavik: Stofnun ?rna Magn?ssonar, 1977), 449

72. In a later paper he settled on a date around 1230, but still after Heimskringla: "Var

Snorri Sturluson upphafsma?ur Islendingasagna?" Andvari, 32 (1990), 85-105.



the politics of snorri sturluson

Documents