This text is a critically-annotated selection from Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla. The translators, Magnusson and Palsson, provide a running commentary on Snorri’s text.
Snorri tells the story of one of the last “Viking” leaders, albeit a somewhat Christianized one. Our protagonist is Harold Siggurdson. To the degree that Snorri’s narrative can be trusted--and we have no way of honestly knowing that--Harold in many ways typified and recapitulated the late Viking ideal--a ferocious warrior, cunning leader, and Varangian mercenary who was slain in his last battle.
Snorri’s own telling of this story is mostly great. At the end his narrative tries to accomplish too much and the reader is left feeling overwhelmed. For the most part, though, it maintains the rugged beauty common to Norse stories. The editorial remarks by Magnusson and Palsson are superb. They routinely correct Snorri’s narrative when warranted. They also provide fascinating historical commentary. For example, I didn’t realize that the finest fighting army of the time were the English housecarls. They numbered about 3,000, were superbly disciplined, and were armed with Danish axes.
Evaluation:
Is Snorri telling the truth? Or, even assuming he is being honest, how reliable is the narrative? Ultimately, we can’t know for certain. I do think, however, that he is more reliable on this point than on other points in the Heimskringla. Harold Siggurdson is closer in time to Snorri than the other major Norse leaders (for example, the two Olafs--Tryggveson and Haraldsson) and Harald’s life seems to be a “real” life. Harold, for example, makes the kind of mistakes that regular, aggressive men make. When reading Harold’s life, especially his semi-tragic end, we see that the events “had to happen.”
As to the miraculous, especially the famous dream in which St. Olaf appeared to Harold and warned him not to attack England, we can’t answer those on historical grounds. We need to make several claims: it is true that many people reported miraculous happenings with St. Olaf (Sturluson, 61, 74, 76, 104, 139). We now move to the next claim: how reliable are they? Perhaps before answering that question we can raise--and answer--yet another: Does a Christian have warrant for seeing “the miraculous” today? While some branches of Christendom posit cessationism (supernatural gifts ceased after the apostles), such a view, whatever merits it may have exegetically, is simply at odds with Eastern and Western Christian history. This does not mean every miracle story is true. Ironically, even the Vatican looks with initial skepticism on the miracle stories of potential saints.
Granting that the miraculous is possible, how do we appropriate these Olaf-stories? Some of these stories do appear to represent the piety of the average Norwegian, even to the point of appearing “syncretistic” with earlier heathen practices. Snorri tells of the woman “who worshiped Olaf,” for example (104). Granted, the word “worship” has different connotations and does not necessarily connote intentional idolatry, but when one posits this episode with Harold Sigurdsson’s venerating St. Olaf’s relics, the conclusion isn’t hard to draw. Whatever arguments some Christian traditions have for venerating relics, this is a far cry from the worship Yahweh prescribed (which is perhaps a bit ironic, since many medieval kings saw themselves as modeled after King David).