Studia Islandica - 01.07.1966, Blaðsíða 65

63
In chapter 43 of Óláfs saga helga (ÓII 103—104, cf. iF
XXVII 72-73, XXVIII 204) Snorri describes the customs
and seating arrangements in the king’s court at Niðaróss.
His account is clearly based on an older one also preserved
in Morkinskinna and Fagrskinna,1 which was also prohably
used by the author of RauSúlfs þáttr in his account of Rauð-
úlfr’s feast. There are two details in which both Snorri and
Rauðúlfs þáttr depart from the Morkinskinna account: both
assign the seat next to the king to the household bishop, and
the seat opposite the king (the second high-seat) to the
king’s marshal. In Morkinskinna and Fagrskinna this seat is
assigned to the chief counsellor (ráSgjafi), while the places
of the bishop and marshal are not mentioned. These two
details Snorri probably borrowed from RauSúlfs þáttr. As
mentioned above, the high position given the bishop in the
þáttr (and so perhaps in Snorri’s Óláfs saga) may have been
suggested by the role of archbishop Turpin in Charlemagne
legend.
In the form in which it survives, even if chapter 155 of
Snorri’s Óláfs saga is taken to be part of it, RauSúlfs þáttr
can never have been an independent story. The reader is
expected to know the historical background of the story, and
to have considerable knowledge of the events of Öláfr’s reign.
There are many laconic references to the events of his
reign which would need explanation unless the þáittr is read
as a part of Óláfs saga.2 The characters in the þáttr who do
not appear elsewhere in Óláfs saga are introduced in the
usual saga style (Bjgrn the Steward, Rauðúlfr and his
family), but those already known from Óláfs saga are
brought into the story casually without any introduction
1 Morkinskinna, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Knbenhavn 1932), p. 289;
Fagrskinna, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Kobenhavn 1902—03), p. 306. These
accounts refer to the changes in these customs introduced by Óláfr kyrri
(1067—93).
2 See p. 10, note 1 above. The point of some of the boasts of the sons
of Árni would also be lost if the reader did not know about their subse-
quent behaviour, see p. 53 above.