Snorri's Background and Sources

Heimskringla represents the climax of Old Norse historiography in a double sense: it comes at the end of about half a century of extensive saga writing and includes material contained in most earlier works dealing with the Norwegian kings. It is also generally considered the best and most mature example of a kings' saga, both from a literary and a historiographical point of view. Its sources have been dealt with extensively by a number of scholars. There has also been considerable discussion on the origin of the saga literature.

The two historiographical traditions of contemporary Europe, the clerical and the aristocratic (see Brandt, 1966), have their parallels in Old Norse historiography. It is customary among students of language and literature to distinguish between the "learned" and the "popular" style (Halvorsen, 1962: 119 ff.), the former being influenced by Latin and usually the medium of clerics, whereas the latter corresponds to local traditions and is the medium of the laity and the classical saga literature. In historiography the learned works usually but not always

reflect religious and clerical points of view and generally bear close resemblance to European clerical historiography. The other tradition shows some similarity to European aristocratic historiography, but is more original. As its specifically aristocratic features are less prominent the term "secular" is more suitable than "aristocratic."

There is a solid tradition in scholarship for this distinction and for stressing the unique achievement of Icelandic saga writing in contrast to the learned and clerical culture of contemporary Europe, particularly within the so-called Germanistic school. In the last decades, however, there has been a tendency in the opposite direction, stressing the basic unity of medieval culture and attempting to interpret the sagas in terms of European, Christian philosophy and theology (e.g., Lönnroth, 1964, 1965, 1969; Pálsson, 1971, 1984, and 1986; Harris, 1986; Weber, 1987, see also Clover, 1985: 264 ff.). To some extent, this has been a healthy reaction against much obscure Germanic romanticism of the last century and has also been stimulating in attempting to link the North to the common European culture. Generally, however, I think this reaction has gone too far, not the least because it tends to minimize the difference that existed between the two cultures in Europe as a whole (cf. also von See, 1988: 13 ff. and passim ). I shall touch upon this problem repeatedly in the following pages and confine myself to a few remarks regarding Snorri's predecessors in this context.

The first historical works dealing with the Norwegian kings by the Icelanders Sæmundr and Ari, which date from the early twelfth century and are now lost, cannot be easily fitted in with either category. They were apparently short, dry summaries of events, their authors exerting themselves in establishing an exact absolute and relative chronology. This is the impression we get from Ari's Íslendingabók , which is now extant. His Konunga ævi (kings' lives) was most probably an appendix to Íslendingabók , which was removed later, though some scholars have maintained that it was a separate work (see Ellehøj, 1964: 43 ff. with ref.). These works lacked both the vivid narrative of the secular saga and the religious interpretation of the clerical one. The fact that both these authors were priests is of less relevance in this context, as Sæmundr certainly and Ari probably combined his priesthood with the position as a chieftain. This combination was quite usual in eleventh- and early twelfth-century Iceland. Sæmundr apparently wrote in Latin, whereas Ari wrote in the vernacular. Both must have influenced a number of later historians, but the extent of this influence is difficult to detect and hotly disputed.^[12]

The so-called Norwegian synoptics represent the next stage in the development, as far as extant works are concerned. The three works that can be classified under this heading, Theodoricus Monachus's Histo-

ria de antiquitate regum norwagiensium (c. 1180, in Latin), the anonymous Historia Norvegiae (before 1178, c. 1220, also in Latin), and Ágrip af Nóregs konunga sogum^[*] (c. 1190, anonymous, in Old Norse) are written from a distinctly clerical point of view. The milieu of Historia Norvegiae is unknown, whereas the two others show connection with the archiepiscopal see of Nidaros. The oldest history of St. Óláfr, Passio Olavi , written by Archbishop Eysteinn Erlendsson (1161-1188), also belongs to this milieu, but is better classified as a saint's legend than as historiography in the real sense. The clerical point of view of these three works is expressed both in their ideology, classifying the kings according to the Augustinian schema of the rex iustus and rex iniquus , their frequent appeals to God's intervention, and their concern with the moral aspect of human acts. As in many contemporary European clerical chronicles and in contrast to the classical saga, their narrative is mostly dry. Many of the dramatic episodes that occur in the later sagas are omitted, and those included are told in a short and undramatic way.^[13] Ágrip bears some resemblance to the classical sagas in that its author remains in the background and that it contains some vivid stories, told very much in the classical saga style. In the two Latin works, however, the author comes forward explicitly, commenting on the events. The chief interest of these authors is clearly in interpretation, not in narrative. They want to uncover the moral and religious significance of the events (Bagge, 1989a ). Characteristically, they reserve rhetorical embroidery to expository and interpretative passages.

The birth of secular historiography, the classical saga, must be roughly contemporary with "the Norwegian synoptics." The secular saga was once believed to have developed gradually from clerical historiography. The "intermediate forms," represented by works like the Oldest Saga of St. Óláfr, which is preserved only in fragments, and the Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar by Oddr Snorrason munkr, were considered evidence of this. Recent research having both questioned the connection between the Oldest Saga and hagiography and the early date of the work, no direct evidence remains that the "intermediate forms" represent an early stage in the development.^[14] Nor does this seem very likely on a priori grounds. The two forms are so different that it hardly seems a likely explanation that the latter should have developed from the former over a period of about twenty years.

It is very difficult to detect early forms of secular saga writing. Most works are difficult to date, and those that can be shown to be early with reasonable certainty, like the second and larger part of Sverris saga and Orkneyinga saga , both probably written shortly after 1200, represent saga art in its full development: the characteristic short, terse "saga style," the vivid narrative, the pre-dominance of relative as opposed to

absolute chronology, the secular attitude, and the use of speeches and dialogue for purposes of analysis and interpretation, while the author remains in the background. Concerning this latter point, however, some development may be detected, both in the various versions of Oddr munkr's Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar and in the difference between the first part of Sverris saga (Grýla ), which was probably written already in the 1180s, and the rest (Holm-Olsen, 1977: 58 ff.; 1987: 79 ff.). In the discussion of sources of the extant sagas, a number of earlier sagas, mostly separate sagas of individual kings, are thought to have existed before the extant ones. If this is the case, the origin of the secular saga is to be found some time back in the twelfth century. This is not very helpful, however, since nothing is known of the contents and style of most of these works. As a matter of fact, with a few exceptions, their very existence remains doubtful.

The most important exception to this is Hryggjarstykki , the existence of which is attested both by Morkinskinna and Heimskringla . This work was written by the Icelander Eiríkr Oddsson, probably in the 1160s, and covered either the whole or parts of the period 1130-1161. If the former hypothesis is correct and the detailed and very similar treatment of the wars between Haraldr gilli's descendants 1155-1161 in Morkinskinna, Fagrskinna , and Heimskringla stem from Hryggjarstykki , then we have evidence of the fully developed secular saga as early as the mid-twelfth century. The most recent scholar who has treated the matter, Bjarni Guðnason, denies this, however, and maintains that the work was a biography of the pretender Sigurðr slembir and only covered the years of his struggle for the throne, 1136-1139 (Guðnason, 1978). If this is correct, there may be some evidence for its dependence on a hagiographic tradition and thus for the idea of the secular saga developing from clerical historiography. Sigurðr was tortured to death by his enemies and bore his pains with the utmost tranquillity of mind, chanting psalms all the time. The description of this clearly resembles a story of a martyr. To what extent the story of Sigurðr can also be understood as a description of a secular hero, remains to be considered (see later discussion). It may be mentioned in the same context that Ludvig Holm-Olsen suggests a similar model for another saga, the earlier part of Sverris saga (1953:91 ff.). However, Guðnason also points to other influences behind the work, notably oral storytelling, as is described in the Sturlunga saga in connection with the wedding at Reykjahólar in Iceland in 1119 (Sturl . I: 18 ff.; see, e.g., Jónsson, 1923: 198 ff.).

Even if we accept the idea of influence from hagiography on the description of Sigurðr's death, it is difficult to see that this explains very much of the distinctive features of the classical saga. First, we cannot exclude the possibility that descriptions of men like Sigurðr and Sverrir

may equally well have been derived from stories of secular heroes. Second—and most important—most of the distinctive traits of the classical saga are conspicuously absent from saints' lives, namely the characteristic saga style, the retreat of the author, the speeches and dialogues used as interpretation and comment, and the description of the heroes. For instance, the vitae of the saints almost never describe their heroes' appearances, whereas the sagas usually do. The descriptions of character are also very different, both in style and content. The "hagiographic explanation" thus seems to be no explanation at all. It may possibly explain some features of individual works and even to some extent—though this is more doubtful—why they were written, but it is unable to account for the characteristic features of the classical saga. And this is after all the whole problem.

Thus, the question of the origin of the saga still lies in the dark. The problem is difficult, perhaps impossible to solve. But it must be pointed out that the sort of research that has been practiced hitherto is not very likely to lead to its solution. In accordance with the bookprose theory, which for a long time has been the prevailing orthodoxy in saga studies (see Clover, 1985: 241 f.), scholars have mainly been interested in tracing the origin of extant texts back to other, earlier texts, extant or not. This approach must sooner or later lead to a dead end. How can the earliest text be explained? In general, it is hardly possible to explain new developments in literature simply by comparing texts. Social and intellectual milieus must be taken into account, and this has not been done very much in scholarly research on saga origins.

Though it is outside the scope of the present work to discuss the question of saga origins and the milieus behind the first sagas in general, something must be said on the relative importance of the Norwegian royal court and the aristocratic milieus of Iceland. Most of the sagas of this early period seem to have been written by Icelanders. In contrast to the Icelandic family sagas, which are mostly later, they deal with matters outside Iceland, but by no means exclusively confined to Norway. There are sagas of the Orkney earls, of the chieftains of the Faroe Islands, the Danish kings, and the jómsvíkingar (the Vikings of Jom^[*] , i.e., the island of Wollin in the Baltic), and there are indications that there were also sagas of the earls of Lade and their kinsman Hákon Ívarsson. Thus, the kings' sagas were not necessarily the result of Norwegian royal patronage. There seems to have been a general interest in such stories within the Icelandic aristocracy, which in some cases, though by no means always, may have to do with kinship ties with the persons or families described in the sagas.

The sagas of Norwegian kings that belong to this period are Oddr Snorrason's and Gunnlaugr Leifsson's sagas of Óláfr Tryggvason, the

Oldest Saga and the Legendary Saga of St. Óláfr, and the earlier part of Sverris saga , the so-called Grýla . This latter work was written under the king's supervision by the Icelandic abbot Karl Jónsson, and is thus clearly an example of royal patronage.^[15] Whether the original initiative was Karl's own or Sverrir's is a debated question, as is the question of the initiative and milieu behind the latter—and larger—part of the saga, which was written after Sverrir's death in 1202.^[16] The two sagas of Óláfr Tryggvason are both composed by Icelanders but originally written in Latin. Oddr's is preserved in translation, whereas Gunnlaugr's is lost but can partly be reconstructed from Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar hin mesta , a compilation from around 1300. These works seem to represent an intermediate form between clerical and secular historiography, combining a distinctly clerical outlook with vivid narrative. Their particular interest in King Óláfr Tryggvason has been explained as an expression of the wish to emphasize the king who brought Christianity to Iceland against his more important namesake St. Óláfr (Lönnroth, 1963: 54 ff.). There may thus have been a specifically Icelandic reason for writing about this particular Norwegian king. By contrast, Norwegian interests are likely to have been more prominent in the case of the two sagas of St. Óláfr. St. Óláfr was prominent in the propaganda of both parties in the ideological warfare between King Sverrir on the one side and King Magnús Erlingsson and his descendants on the other, the latter for a long time receiving support from the Church. Though the works in question can hardly be regarded as direct propaganda for either party in this conflict, it is not unreasonable to see a connection between Óláfr's political importance at the time and historical interest in his life.^[17] Whether this also applies to the slighty later saga of St. Óláfr by the Icelander Styrmir Kárason, which is only preserved in fragments,^[18] or whether this is a product of an Icelandic milieu, is more difficult to tell.

The following period, approximately 1220-1235 is the period of the great compendia on the Norwegian kings and in general a period in which Norwegian matters dominate saga writing. These works are, in addition to Snorri's Separate Saga of St. Óláfr and Heimskringla , the anonymous Morkinskinna (c. 1220) and Fagrskinna (c. 1225). Of these sagas, Fagrskinna is clearly written in close connection with the Norwegian court, possibly also by a Norwegian,^[19] whereas the rest are commonly considered to have been written by Icelanders. Their connection with Norway and the Norwegian court remains doubtful. Are they a continuation of the Icelandic interest in heroes and chieftains of other countries in the North of the preceding period, or is some kind of Norwegian patronage behind them? Arguments in favor of the latter point of view are the undoubted interest in history and intellectual work in general at the contemporary Norwegian court as well as the fact that the

political links between the Norwegian king and the Icelandic chieftains became closer as the result of the attempts by the Norwegian king to bring Iceland under his dominion. As we have discussed, Snorri had close connections with the leading circles of Norway and became involved in these attempts. Norwegian influence behind the conception and execution of the work cannot therefore be excluded, but the matter must ultimately be decided by internal evidence. The question is more difficult to decide in the case of Morkinskinna , as we know nothing of its author, and there has been little research on the work. But we may note that it contains many more stories of Icelanders than the two other works.

Morkinskinna deals with the period from the death of St. (Óláfr till the death of King Eysteinn Haraldsson, that is, 1030-1157, but may possibly have extended till 1177 (the battle of Ré). It is more loosely structured than the two other works, often consisting of rather disconnected stories, and there are clear indications that it has been reworked and interpolated. Fagrskinna covers the period from Hálfdan svarti in the middle of the ninth century till the battle of Ré (1177). It is the shortest of the three and also the least saga-like. Despite its secular attitude, it resembles the clerical works in its short and often dry narrative and in omitting many dramatic stories, above all those dealing with internal strife, to some extent also in its rex iustus -ideology (see later discussion). Together with Heimskringla these two works represent the kings' saga writing in its full maturity. On most points, however, it is difficult to trace a development compared to the earlier works, though it can be done concerning scaldic poetry. The more frequent and conscious use of this clearly has to do with the fact that these works dealt with a remote period, from which few sources were available.^[20] Generally, Heimskringla clearly represents progress compared to its two immediate predecessors. This has been frequently pointed out by scholars and will be demonstrated in the following.

The relationship between these sagas mutually and with the earlier saga tradition has been the subject of considerable learned discussion, which need not detain us here. From our point of view the sources of Heimskringla are the most important aspect of the question. Snorri mentions some of his sources explicitly, such as Ari and Eiríkr Oddsson, but most of them must be reconstructed by comparison with other sources. There is general agreement that he used Morkinskinna , and most scholars also think that he used Fagrskinna for Heimskringla , though not for the Separate Saga . As for earlier sagas he has evidently used Oddr Snorrason's Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar . The question of the sources for his biography of St. Óláfr is more complex, but he used most

of the stories contained in the Legendary Saga , however it is unknown whether he knew this work directly or found the same material in a source which is now lost, such as Styrmir's history. Coming at the end of an extensive, if not particularly long tradition, Snorri thus seems to have borrowed from most of his predecessors.