Gripla - 20.12.2009, Page 63

63
greatest magnates by insisting on his rights down to the smallest detail.25
Had Óláfr succeeded in reaching a settlement with Erlingr, he might pos­
sibly have turned the tables. However, a detail in Snorri’s account might
suggest that Óláfr would have been unlikely to achieve this. After Erlingr’s
surrender, Óláfr gives him a wound on his cheek, saying: “A mark he shall
bear, the betrayer of his king”.26 this remark may actually have provoked
Áslákr, Erlingr’s second cousin and enemy, to kill Óláfr; Áslákr would
hardly have dared if óláfr instead had embraced erlingr or in some other
ways expressed his wish for Erlingr’s friendship.
More importantly, Óláfr’s act shows that he would never have gained
Erlingr’s friendship which was what he needed to be able to remain in the
country. In the long run, óláfr needed erlingr more than erlingr needed
óláfr, despite the situation at the time. forcing erlingr to a similar agree­
ment as Hákon’s would hardly help Óláfr; his other enemies were too
strong and numerous. What Óláfr needed was Erlingr’s genuine friend­
ship, which would make him and his network Óláfr’s allies. In order to
achieve this, Óláfr had to show more generosity than marking Erlingr as a
traitor. It would therefore seem that Snorri, despite acquitting Óláfr of
Erlingr’s death, does use this scene as a contrast to the one between Óláfr
and Hákon and intends it as another example of óláfr’s political blunders
towards the end of his reign.
Icelandic and european narrative
Snorri’s combination of representation and argument thus shows a clear
difference from the dominating Latin­clerical culture of contemporary
Europe. On the other hand, we are not dealing with two diametrically
opposed traditions; there are individual variations within both as well as
similarities between the two, and influence from one tradition to the other.
Stylistically, there is a considerable difference between the two Norwegian
examples of historical narrative in Latin, theodoricus Monachus and
Historia Norwegie. While the narrative in the former is simple and direct,
the latter contains more rhetorical embroidery, particularly through a rich
25 Bagge, Society and Politics, 66–70.
26 “merkja skal dróttinsvikann” (Heimskringla II, 406; Hollander, 467).
noRDIC unIQueneSS In tHe MIDDLe AGeS?