Heimskringla. Vol. 3. Magnús Óláfsson to Magnús Erlingsson

316 Pages·2015·1.4 MB·English

by  Snorri Sturluson

SNORRI STURLUSON
HEIMSKRINGLA
VOLUME III
The printing of this book is made possible by a gift to the University of
Cambridge in memory of Dorothea Coke, Skjæret, 1951
Snorri SturluSon
HEiMSKrinGlA
VoluME iii
MAGnÚS ÓlÁFSSon to MAGnÚS
ErlinGSSon
translated by
AliSon FinlAY
and
AntHonY FAulKES
ViKinG SoCiEtY For nortHErn rESEArCH
uniVErSitY CollEGE lonDon
2015
© VIKING SOCIETY 2015
ISBN: 978-0-903521-93-2
The cover illustration is of a scene from the Battle of Stamford Bridge in the
Life of St Edward the Confessor in Cambridge University Library MS Ee.3.59
fol. 32v. Haraldr Sigurðarson is the central figure in a red tunic wielding a
large battle-axe.
Printed by Short Run Press Limited, Exeter
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................vii
Sources .............................................................................................xi
This Translation .............................................................................xiv
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ............................................xvi
HEIMSKRINGLA III ............................................................................1
Magnúss saga ins góða .....................................................................3
Haralds saga Sigurðarsonar ............................................................41
Óláfs saga kyrra ............................................................................123
Magnúss saga berfœtts ..................................................................127
Magnússona saga ..........................................................................145
Magnúss saga blinda ok Haralds gilla ..........................................170
Haraldssona saga ...........................................................................186
Hákonar saga herðibreiðs ..............................................................215
Magnúss saga Erlingssonar ...........................................................233
INDEX OF NAMES ...........................................................................263

Introduction
King Óláfr inn helgi (the Saint) casts a long shadow over the third and last
part of Heimskringla. It has been pointed out that in writing the Óláfs saga
helga that is the centrepiece of Heimskringla Snorri was amplifying the
version of the same narrative he had written earlier in the Separate Saga of
St Óláfr, whereas the process of constructing the sagas of subsequent kings
involved cutting down the earlier texts he was using as sources. Thus, ‘if
Snorri was indeed the author of the whole of Heimskringla, it . . . seems likely
that it was a matter of importance for him that Óláfs saga helga should be
large enough to dominate the other parts of his narrative’ (Ármann Jakobsson
2005, 397). It is in keeping with the planned dominance o f the saga of St
Óláfr that reference to the saint should continue throughout the sagas of his
successors that cover the historical period from Óláfr’s death in 1030 up to
1177. The groundwork was already laid by the inclusion in the Separate Saga
of stories of miracles attributed to the saint in the years after his death; these
are repeated in their chronological contexts in the sagas of his son Magnús
(Magnúss saga ins góða ch. 27) and half-brother Haraldr (Haralds saga
Sigurðarsonar chs 14, 55–57), and in the joint reign of the sons of Haraldr
gilli (Haraldssona saga chs 24–25). Alongside conventional hagiographical
accounts of miraculous cures, the saint’s interventions repeatedly testify
to his benevolent protection of his son: he appears to Magnús in a dream
before his significant battle against the Wends at Hlýrskógsheiðr—in which
Magnús carries his father’s axe, named Hel—and is explicitly said to have
ensured his victory. In a second dream Óláfr appears to Magnús to presage
his death (ch. 28), a scene clearly recalled by the saint’s later appearance to
Haraldr harðráði before his fall at Stamford Bridge in 1066 (Haralds saga
Sigurðarsonar ch. 82), where Haraldr’s predicted death in battle, not caused
by God, is set against his brother’s ‘holy fall’ (stanza 152). One effect of these
interventions is that Haraldr’s character and reign are directly contrasted,
not only with those of his predecessor (and, for a short time, joint ruler)
Magnús, but also with those of his sainted half-brother.
On a secular level, Haraldr is compared more positively with Óláfr in the
testimonial of Halldórr Brynjólfsson, who knew them both, and declares
that ‘I never came across two men more alike in character’. His assessment,
occupying its own chapter near the end of Haralds saga Sigurðarsonar, can
be seen as a specimen of the traditional mannjafnaðr ‘comparison of men’,
another example of which occurs in a later saga in the exchange between
the jointly ruling brothers Sigurðr Jórsalafari and Eysteinn (Magnússona
saga ch. 20). It has been noted that Heimskringla (following its main source,
Morkinskinna; see below) bases its account of Norwegian history on ‘two
viii heimskringla
contrastive sets of kings . . . the “foreign adventurer” type [Haraldr harðráði,
Magnús berfœttr, Sigurðr Jórsalafari] and the “builder and lawmaker” type
[Magnús góði, Óláfr kyrri, Eysteinn Magnússon]’ (Andersson 2012, 120; see
also Andersson 1993, 16–19; Bagge 1991, 139, 156; Lönnroth 1978, 53–80).
It is notable in this context that St Óláfr, in the stanza in which he predicts
his half-brother’s death in defeat, aligns himself with the stay-at-homes: ‘I
had, since at home I lingered, | a holy fall to earth’.1
As has been pointed out with reference to Morkinskinna, the literary
technique of comparison of kings was encouraged by the prevalence of joint
kingship in this period of Norwegian history: ‘A good deal of [the] narrative
deals with periods when there are two kings in Norway at the same time,
thus providing an opportunity for comparison’ (Ármann Jakobsson 2005,
396). This phenomenon resulted from the conditions under which a claim
to kingship could be made (Bagge 2010, 40–41):
In the case of Norway, the rules of succession—or perhaps the lack of such
rules—have often been regarded as a serious problem. All male descendants of
a king, at least the agnatic descendants, whether they were born in wedlock or
not, had an equal right to claim the throne and could in principle be recognised
by any local assembly . . . If two or more kings were recognised at the same
time, they had to make an arrangement between them or fight over the throne.
If a peaceful arrangement was made, as happened several times in the period
1045–1157, no territorial division took place. The king had no fixed residence
in this period, but travelled around the country, largely receiving his incomes
in the form of veizla, i.e. provisions for himself and his men in the local region.
When there were several kings, they usually travelled in different parts of the
country, probably according to some pre-arranged pattern, occasionally meeting
for eating, drinking, and discussion. It is clear that this arrangement implied
great risks for conflict. No rule forced the pretenders to agree to divide the
throne between them; a stronger candidate, or a candidate believing himself to
be the stronger, might easily try to fight his rival. Once an agreement was made,
plenty of situations might lead to conflicts between the co-rulers, such as the
sharing of common incomes, who was to preside over the common meetings,
and quarrels between their adherents. The sagas give many examples of such
conflicts. Division between the kings meant a division of wealth and power but
not necessarily of ambition.
Bagge’s remarks are made in the context of the so-called ‘civil wars’, the
term conventionally designating the turbulent period from the death of
Sigurðr Jórsalafari in 1130, to 1240. But even the ‘period of peace’ of the
preceding century begins with the uneasy collaboration of the young king
1 This contrastive theme is found only in the Heimskringla (and Fagrskinna)
text of the stanza, since Morkinskinna has a different version of these lines: ‘If you
stayed at home you would have had a holy fall to earth’.