VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCHTEXT SERIESGENERAL EDITORS

Anthony Faulkes and Richard Perkins

VOLUME XI
THEODORICUS MONACHUS
AN ACCOUNT OF
THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN KINGS

THEODORICUS MONACHUS

HISTORIA DE ANTIQUITATEREGUM NORWAGIENSIUM
AN ACCOUNT OF THE ANCIENT HISTORY
OF THE NORWEGIAN KINGS

TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED BYDAVID AND IAN M C DOUGALL
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

PETER FOOTE

VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
1998

© Viking Society for Northern Research 1998
Reprinted 2006 by Short Run Press Limited, Exeter
with corrections to the Notes and additional Bibliography
ISBN-10: 0-903521-40-7
ISBN-13: 978-0-903521-40-6

Cover illustration: Munkeliv Abbey (Bergen)
Head of King Eysteinn (c. 1125)© Bergen Museum
Photograph by Ann-Mari Olsen

CONTENTS
PREFACEINTRODUCTION
1. The author
2. The date of the Historia
3. The Historia and other sources
4. Þórir munkr: man, monk and historian
5. The text

vi
vii
ix
xi
xiii
xxiii
xxx

THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN KINGS

1

NOTES

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

116

MAPS OF NORWAY AND DENMARK136

INDEX OF NAMES

139

PREFACE
The translators and the writer of the introduction have worked
closely together, to their mutual benefit; it has been a pleasantcollaboration. We are then jointly and severally grateful to numerous
friends and colleagues for general advice, particular informationand careful reading, most of all to these: Michael Barnes (London),Oren Falk (Toronto), Peter Fisher (Cambridge), Walter Goffart(Toronto), Lars Boje Mortensen (Bergen), Richard Perkins (London),George Rigg (Toronto), Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir (London), Michael
Winterbottom (Oxford), Þorbjörg Helgadóttir (Copenhagen), andalso to our General Editor, Anthony Faulkes, whose skill andpatience have brought this book into print.

INTRODUCTIONTHE WORK translated in this volume is a Latin account of
the kings of Norway from Haraldr hárfagri, who became prime
ruler of the country about the middle of the ninth century, toSigurðr Magnússon, called the Jerusalem-farer, who died in 1130.
Descent in the male line from Haraldr hárfagri was counted thechief justification for a claim to the Norwegian throne, but conferment of the kingly title by assemblies of local men was alsoessential. King Sigurðr had long been dead before churchmen
succeeded in persuading the Norwegians that primogeniture andlegitimate birth had anything to do with right of succession to
the crown. Concubinage was commonplace—Haraldr hárfagri (diedc. 930), for example, is thought to have had sons by six different women, Magnús berfœttr (died 1103) by five. Shared kingship was sometimes the outcome, occasionally amicable, more
often leading to mistrust and strife. There was also a long spell,from about 965 to 995 and again from 1000 to 1015, when effective
rule was in the hands of the Hlaðajarlar, a dynasty based in Trøndelag and Norway north of there. They were related to Haraldr hárfagri
through female lines and never attempted to claim a kingly title.
During their time the country was under the suzerainty, more orless nominal, of the king of Denmark and partially of the kingof the Swedes; and for five years after the death of Óláfr Haraldssonin 1030 Norway was part of Knútr the Great’s empire, with firsta nephew of his and then a son as vice-regent.
The author tells us that he ends his history in 1130 because it
is better to be silent about the disgraceful misdeeds of the following years (34.11–32). Other sources tell us about the faction
fighting and virtual civil war of that period, when rival descendantsof the royal dynasty struggled to gain or keep the crown. Two
moments of particular importance need to be noticed. One wasthe creation in 1152 of the archdiocese of Niðaróss, whose large
province included the Norwegian sees and those of the Western
Isles, Orkney, Faroes, Iceland and Greenland. It gave an authoritative status to clergy willing to press for reform of church-state
relations. Their aim was freedom from secular interference inevery sphere and in the last resort they would assert the superi-

viii

Theodoricus Monachus

ority of the power derived from God and embodied in the papal
successors of St Peter over that of any mortal monarch. The otherwas the acceptance in 1161 of a boy of five, Magnús Erlingsson,
as king. In effect this put rule into the hands of his father, Erlingr
skakki, and his allies. It was also a break with tradition, for Magnús
was of royal descent only through his mother, a daughter of theKing Sigurðr with whom this history ends. Erlingr rapidly disposed of men who could be thought to have a closer claim andthen sought acknowledgment of the legitimacy of young Magnús’s
reign from the archbishop. This was Eysteinn Erlendsson, a manof great family and an energetic reformer, consecrated as thesecond metropolitan of Niðaróss in 1161. A concordat which gave
substantial concessions to the church resulted in the sanctification of Magnús’s reign by a coronation ceremony in 1164. His
kingship was thus doubly hedged about, but in the event secular and clerical powers combined could not prevent men who
claimed kingly descent in the male line from finding threatening support here and there in the country. One unsuccessful claimant
was Eysteinn meyla Eysteinsson, mentioned in this history (31.49).
The one who was notably successful is not mentioned. He was
Sverrir, who claimed to be a son of King Sigurðr munnr (died1155), son of King Haraldr gilli (34.1–9; died 1136). After Eysteinn
meyla’s death in 1177 Sverrir inherited command of the insurgent band called the Birkibeinar. In a battle against him in 1179
Erlingr skakki was killed, in another in 1184 King Magnús fell.
Sverrir, hated by the hierarchy, sat insecurely on the throne until his death in 1203 but was forefather of a dynasty which survived into the fourteenth century.
The tale of the kings of Norway is economically told in the
Historia, with more expansive accounts in particular of Óláfr
Tryggvason, the missionary king, who was lost in battle in 999/1000,
and of the martyr Óláfr Haraldsson, who completed the conversion of the country and fell at Stiklastaðir, fighting his own people,
in 1030. But the 270 years of the monarchy fill only half thebook. The narrative sequence is interspersed with digressions,calculated, the author says, to delight the mind of the reader.
These excurses, undoubtedly modelled on the practice of Paulthe Deacon in his Langobardic history (cf. 17.9–12; notes 153–155),

Introductionix

take us far afield, but they are often designed to guide our thoughts
on various issues. They are, however, issues whose significancecan only be gauged in the light of the history the author did notwrite, the history of Norway from 1130 on, the history of his
own times.
Extant twelfth-century writings by Icelanders and Norwegians
are vastly exceeded in volume by the conflicting comment ofmodern scholars on them. Few topics in Norse–Icelandic studies have roused more controversy than these early works, andthe substance of these introductory pages is more a rehearsal of
problems than a statement of conclusions. The probabilities canvassed are however generally in line with suggestions or findings made by previous commentators. The credit, or discredit,
for these views will be readily discovered by the reader who goes
deeper into the study of the Historia with the translators’ notes
and the appended bibliography as guides.
1. The author
The prologue and explicit of the work refer to the author as Theodoricus monachus (Prol. 1; p. 54). There is nothing specific in
the text itself to support the attribution but few scholars havedoubted its authenticity. It is generally believed that Theodoricus
is a latinisation of the name Þórir, and his Norwegian nationality is clear from numerous passages (e.g. Prol. 12; 1.6; 14.8,
19, 20; 15.17; 24.12–13; 31.39–40). In twelfth-century Norway
the designation monachus could hardly imply anything but membership of a Benedictine community. We might compare this Þórir
munkr with two of his Icelandic contemporaries, also known as
authors and usually referred to in early sources as Gunnlaugr
munkr (Leifsson) and Oddr munkr (Snorrason), who both belonged to the Benedictines of Þingeyrar. Since he dedicates his
book to Eysteinn Erlendsson, archbishop of Niðaróss 1161–1188,
it is generally assumed that Þórir munkr belonged to the Benedictines closest to his cathedral. Their abbey, founded (or refounded) about 1100, was on the islet called Niðarhólmr, justoff shore from the township itself. The alternative house would
be the St Michael monastery (often known as Munkalíf) in Bergen,

x

Theodoricus Monachus

founded by King Eysteinn Magnússon ten or fifteen years later
than Niðarhólmr. A pointer to the former might be that Þórir
munkr refers to the Niðaróss house as a ‘renowned’ monastery(31.32), but bestows no such accolade on the Bergen community (32.31–32). Unfortunately we are miserably ignorant of thestate of these monasteries in the time of Þórir munkr. Although
at some stage Niðarhólmr may have claimed to belong to the
Cluny congregation, it appears not to have escaped episcopal
jurisdiction, from which acknowledged Cluniac houses were exempt.
There is no reason to think that the Rule was not decently observed. In Eysteinn Erlendsson’s time the abbot was on the doorstep
and under the eye of a zealous reforming archbishop, who might
be trusted to keep him up to the mark.
Two members of the Norwegian hierarchy named Þórir havebeen suggested as the author of the Historia: Þórir, bishop of
Hamar 1189/90–1196, and Þórir Guðmundarson, archbishop ofNiðaróss 1206–1214. The grounds are entirely circumstantial:
both were canons of the famous Augustinian monastery of St
Victor in Paris and likely to be learned, and both can be counted
protégés of Archbishop Eysteinn, a staunch promoter of theAugustinian order. On the other hand, given their Augustinian
profession, there is no reason why either should ever have beenreferred to as Þórir munkr and not Þórir kanóki.
That Þórir munkr had been a pupil in a monastic or cathedral
school is sufficiently demonstrated by his latinity and the biblical, Sallustian and hagiographic echoes in his prose. We haveno idea whether he entered his order as an oblate, as a young
novice or later in life. It has been forcefully argued that he musthave studied abroad—that would be before he took his monastic vows—but he could just as well have become a competentlatinist at home, like other monks who never left the cloisters
that schooled them, and we simply do not know whether or not
the numerous authors he cites were available in one form or anotherin Niðaróss, some in the monastic and cathedral libraries, somein private clerical possession. Although Þórir munkr very occasionally phrases a remark in such a way as to suggest that hewas thinking of a reader who did not know Norway (e.g. Prol.
12; 4.36–37; 24.12–13), there is no doubt but that he had a Nor-Introductionxi

wegian audience preeminently in mind. That presupposes that
he knew a circle literate in Latin and likely to appreciate theform of his work and the learning with which he spiced his account of the kings. He does not say that his work was commissioned by a patron or was a task imposed on him by a superior.
In a prologue which can hardly be called fulsome he presents itto the archbishop, saluting him with the obedience he owed him
as a subject and trusting him to excise what is superfluous andapprove what is worthy (Prol. 6, 49–52). That obedience could
be said to be due from any inhabitant of the archdiocese, especially any cleric or religious, but it is possible that there wassome closer connection. Þórir munkr might have been plucked
out, by arrangement with his abbot, for some particular service
in the archbishop’s familia. This kind of special assignment was
not unknown. Some fifty years later, for instance, Rita-Bjo≈ r n,monk of Niðarhólmr (and abbot there from 1232), was sent to
Iceland as an emissary of Archbishop Pétr. Þórir munkr had certainly
not been confined to his carol: he knew the Niðaróss township,and Þjálfahellir and Agðanes at the entrance to Trondheimsfjord(10.4–6; 32.37–38), and he had been in Bergen (32.31–37).
2. The date of the HistoriaÞórir munkr completed his work in the time of Archbishop Eysteinn,
who was back from his consecration in Rome by November 1161
and who died in January 1188. The time-span can be narrowed.
He refers to the killing of Nikulás Sigurðarson in Niðaróss (31.49–
50); that happened in September 1176. The associated description of Eysteinn meyla, the leader of his attackers, as infelix tyrannus,
further suggests that this claimant to the throne was no longer
alive: he is reported to have been killed while trying to escapeafter defeat in the battle of Ré in January 1177. By the following year Sverrir had established himself in Trøndelag, and fromthe late summer or early autumn of 1178 to about midsummer
1180 the archbishop was in Bergen, active with King Magnús
and his father, Erlingr skakki, in combating the menace of Sverrir.
Erlingr skakki fell in Niðaróss in June 1179, his son, Magnús,
suffered a crushing defeat there in May 1180. Archbishop Eysteinn

xii

Theodoricus Monachus

then left the country and retired to England, where Henry II’s
exchequer supported his maintenance, chiefly in the abbot’s lodging
at Bury St Edmund’s and the bishop’s lodging in Lincoln (bothprelacies were vacant at the time). He returned to Norway inthe early summer of 1183. Soon after his return Sverrir defeatedthe forces of King Magnús and the archbishop in a battle in Bergen.
Eysteinn then made some sort of peace with Sverrir and returned
to his cathedral.
There is nothing positive in the Historia to suggest that Archbishop Eysteinn was not at home in his see when the book wasaddressed to him. It has, it is true, been argued that the use of
the verb mitto with reference to its presentation implies that hewas not in Niðaróss at the time and that might especially favour
the period 1178–1180 when he was in Bergen. But since librum
mittere can have the particular sense of ‘dedicate, present a book’(‘submit’ in the present translation, Prol. 48), the inference isfar from certain.
The years 1177 and the first half of 1178 and the time between
midsummer 1183 and December 1188 thus remain the most plausible
dates for the completion of the Historia. Whether it was put together
hastily or in fits and starts over a longer period cannot be told.
The need to collect and select material, to reflect on it and turnit all into a decent Latin composition might certainly suggest
some longer occupation. A vague limit for the inception of thework is suggested by the author’s apparent knowledge of a papal letter of December 1169, in which Alexander III told Archbishop Eysteinn that ordeal by hot iron as a means of proof wascontra sacros canones (cf. 34.7–8; n. 325). He probably knew
another such letter to the archbishop, dated not later than 1172,
in which papal belief in the baptism of Emperor Constantine byPope Sylvester is firmly stated (cf. n. 106). Þórir munkr did notignore this pronouncement but had good reasons of his own for
not accepting it as unequivocally authoritative (cf. 13.31–39).
In uncertain favour of the earlier period, 1177–1178, for completion and presentation of the Historia is the fact that the reference to the death of Nikulás Sigurðarson is a unique intervention on the author’s part. He is describing events that took place
three-quarters of a century earlier and names three of the lead-Introductionxiii

ing men who accompanied Magnús berfœttr on the campaign to
Ireland where the king was killed in 1103. He then goes out of
his way to say of one of them that his brother was the father of
Nikulás killed in Niðaróss by Eysteinn meyla (31.48–50). Þórir
munkr ends his account in 1130 because he is unwilling to describe the dismal events of the following period. Here he suddenly departs from his self-imposed limitation, following whatmust seem to us a rather remote association, and it might bethat this event of 1176 was a recent blow and particularly shocking;it had not been driven out of the author’s mind by Erlingr skakki’s
death in battle in 1179 or by King Magnús Erlingsson’s in 1184.
The description of Eysteinn meyla as infelix tyrannus in the same
passage might also be read as intentionally ambiguous. To Archbishop Eysteinn it undoubtedly meant ‘baleful tyrant’; it could
also be glossed more neutrally as ‘unfortunate monarch’ (cf. n.
307). But if it was a cautiously chosen phrase, it is not a certain
pointer. It could as well be appropriate to the years before 1184
when Sverrir and his enemies appeared to be still in equal contention as to the years between Sverrir’s triumph in 1184 andArchbishop Eysteinn’s death in 1188.
Whether such considerations are fully persuasive or not, thecompletion of the Historia can be dated to within the decade1177–1187, and there is some indication that 1177–1178 was thelikeliest time of its presentation to the archbishop. Before itsdelivery to him some longer period of preparation and composition may be assumed.
3. The Historia and other sources
In the prologue Þórir munkr says that his information had been
gained by ‘assiduous enquiry’ among Icelanders: they are acknowledged memorialists and have ancient poetry as their warranty (Prol. 9–13). This statement does not, of course, imply thatthe author approached knowledgeable Icelanders with a blankmind and uncharged memory, rather that his enquiries enabled
him to check and supplement his material. In ch. 1 he refers again
to Icelanders as his guides to ‘the count of years’, but says hecannot guarantee the absolute date given for the beginning ofxiv

Theodoricus Monachus

Haraldr hárfagri’s reign, or other points of chronology, when ‘written
authority’ is not to be had (1.4–14; cf. nn. 17, 21). This is taken
to mean that he understood such dates to be the result of calculation, not validated by contemporary record, whether native or
foreign in origin.
In his prologue and epilogue Þórir munkr also insists that heis retailing what he learnt from others, ‘things not seen but heard’(Prol. 44; 34.35), and this is often backed up in the narrative byremarks like ‘it is said’, ‘some say’, ‘as it is believed’. It is however
generally agreed that the phrase audita non visa, frequently profferedby medieval historians, by no means precludes the use of written sources (cf. n. 11). Þórir munkr once notes something fromsuch a source, a ‘register’ (catalogus) of Norwegian kings (20.53–54;
cf. n. 214). That would certainly have been a sequence of nameswith regnal years, like the twelfth-century Danish lists called
Series regum Danie and Catalogus regum Danie, but might also
have included brief comment and anecdote, like early thirteenthcentury lists from Västergötland, of lawmen, the Christian kingsof Sweden, and the bishops of Skara. Elsewhere Þórir munkr
declines to tell of the translation and early miracles of St Óláfr
because it is matter already recorded (20.35–45; cf. n. 213). His
failure to refer to written works relating to Norwegian history
is in contrast to his frequent, and sometimes mistaken, citationof foreign authors. Some of these, like Pliny and Lucan, he did
not know at first hand; others he seems certainly to have readfor himself, Paul the Deacon, for example, and other more recent writers only one or two generations older than himself, Sigebertof Gembloux (died 1111) and Hugh of St Victor (died 1141).
We see that Þórir munkr frequently muddled the material thatoriginally came from foreign writers, and even his biblical quotation is sometimes more like paraphrase than a literal repetition. He says, for instance, that he has read in the ‘History of
the Normans’ that Óláfr Haraldsson was baptized in Rouen, but
continues with some thoroughly confused remarks on Normanaffairs (13.18–27; cf. n. 103): the result of hasty reading or faulty
memory or jumbled notes, perhaps all three. Two other points
may be borne in mind in thinking of his treatment of sources.
One is that he aimed to be brief and this led him to simplify.

Introduction

xv

The other is that he had his own attitudes towards people andpolitics.
Compression is evident in many places, but may be illustrated
by a couple of examples. It is clear that various stories werecurrent about Einarr þambaskelmir and the hostility between him
and Haraldr harðráði. Þórir munkr encapsulates them in somewords in indirect speech by Haraldr, which sound thoroughly inkeeping with the character given to the king in other sources,
and an implausible response in direct speech by Einarr, followedby the bald statement that this led to the death of Einarr and his
son at the king’s hands (25.31–39). Later he tells that Magnúsberfœttr fled alone from a defeat in Götaland along with a solitary companion, ¯gmundr Skoptason (31.22–24). This too seems
an implausible reduction and ¯gmundr appears to be a relic ofsome more elaborate account. The author does not mention him
before or after this bare episode and presumably takes it for granted
that he will be well enough known to his readers.
The particular views of Þórir munkr can be detected at various levels, from the pleasure he takes in attributing the miserable end of the wicked Queen Gunnhildr to the credulity andlevity of females in general (6.15–17) to his implied admiration
for Eiríkr jarl Hákonarson who left Norway for England rather
than contend with an envious half-brother and co-regent, Sveinn(14.31–41). (Þórir munkr adds however that Eiríkr left his son
behind in his place, an unavoidable historical fact which hardly
lends convincing support to the overriding motive he imputes
to him.) In this last distortion—Eiríkr was certainly invited, perhaps
more likely summoned, by King Knútr to help consolidate his
conquest of England—the author can only be seen to be reminding
his readers of a better, more Christian, way of behaviour than
was common in his own time: enmity of half-brothers as coregents had led to the slaughter of Norwegian kings in 1136,
1155 and 1157; other kings had been victims of close kinsmen
in 1139 and 1161.
Þórir munkr believed his book was the first history of his country
ever written (Prol. 13–17, 40–41; 34.40–44). He obviously did
not count anything in the nature of a ‘register’ as a history. Presumably the works of the Icelanders, Sæmundr Sigfússon (diedxvi

Theodoricus Monachus

1133) and Ari Þorgilsson (died 1148), would have appeared tohim in the same light (cf. n. 21). It is uncontroversially acceptedthat they wrote on the reigns of the kings of Norway; their books
are lost but a notion of their content can be gained to some wavering
extent. Each established a chronology which has left traces insubsequent Icelandic writings. Sæmundr may have done little
more than work out a full regnal list. Ari was doubtless chiefly
interested in synchronising the reigns of Norwegian kings withhis other chronological coordinates, but we may conclude fromhis extant Íslendingabók that he probably found room for brief
narrative, especially when it helped to substantiate a date or otherstatement. There is every reason to suppose that their writings
would come promptly to Norway. Connections between the countries were close: family ties still existed, there was a thriving
commerce, Icelanders found places as warriors and poets in royalretinues, pilgrimage was fashionable, and clerical links were many,
especially after the metropolitan see was established in Niðaróss.
We lack the sources to give a detailed account but a few suggestive examples may be mentioned. An Icelander, Óttarr, wasbishop in Bergen in the 1130s. About 1150 Eiríkr Oddsson wasin Norway; he was the Icelandic author of an account of the strifetorn history of the contemporary kings. At the same time hiscountryman, Einarr Skúlason, priest and poet, was marshal in
the retinue of King Eysteinn Eysteinsson. In 1163 BrandrSæmundarson came from Iceland to be consecrated in Niðaróss
as bishop of Hólar and spent the following winter in Bergen. In
1164 Jón Loptsson, in his time the most prominent man in Iceland, was at the coronation of young King Magnús. Jón’s kinship with the royal house was then acknowledged. His motherwas an illegitimate daughter of Magnús berfœttr. His father’s
father was Sæmundr Sigfússon, the chronologist.
Þórir munkr could have known the works of Ari and Sæmundr
but if he did, he did not follow either slavishly. His account of
the discovery and settlement of Iceland in ch. 3 and of the acceptance of Christianity at the alþingi in ch. 12 bear marked
resemblance to known Icelandic writings of early twelfthcentury origin. Yet there remain numerous discrepancies which
need explanation (cf. notes ad loc.). Similarly, he refers to theIntroduction

xvii‘ancient poems’ of the Icelanders as a respected source, and it
has often been suggested that he made direct use of skaldic verse.
There were obviously twelfth-century Norwegians who understood and even practised the skaldic art, but Icelanders were lookedon as authoritative repositories. If old poetry had superior credentials it was because the makers of it were known or believed
to have been eyewitnesses or at least close contemporary memorialists of the events they made their matter. This in turn must
naturally imply that it would depend on the balance of interest
whether in any given circumstance such verse was transmitted
along with some shorter or longer explanatory narrative or whether
some such anecdotal context was reported with verse quoted to
substantiate it, as a flourish or on demand, or perhaps not quoted
at all. There are, in fact, a number of similarities between thereport of Þórir munkr and the matter found in verses in kings’
sagas, but not of a kind to demonstrate that Þórir munkr certainly knew and sifted them independently. After all, the elicited facts were available to anyone who knew the verse and its
setting. The Icelanders Þórir munkr says he consulted could havecited skaldic poetry either to corroborate what he already knew
or to support what they told him.
Similar considerations must apply when it is noticed that statements by Þórir munkr also show some similarity to the poem
Geisli, on St Óláfr and his miracles, composed about 1150, andRekstefja, an epigon poem on Óláfr Tryggvason of uncertain twelfthcentury date. Both were by Icelandic poets, the former specifically for a Norwegian audience. Both may well have existed in
written form from the start, and they could have been read byÞórir munkr. On the other hand, we should expect him or his
acquaintances to know that these were not ‘ancient poems’ but
exercises which gave form to a selection of what currently passed
for knowledge about the early Christian kings they celebrated.
What was known to the poets was known to others, so there may
be no essential need to postulate a literary connection between
the verse and the Historia. Einarr Skúlason, the poet of Geisli,undoubtedly depended on a written collection for his rehearsalof St Óláfr’s miracles.
In some cases use of a common source, now lost, may be pos-

xviii

Theodoricus Monachus

ited to account for similarity between a passage in the Historia
and a passage in known Icelandic recording. Otherwise we areleft with the bare choice: either Þórir munkr had read the Icelandic matter or he had been told it. Here we should perhaps
not forget the powerful part played by memorising in medieval
schooling. Ari and Sæmundr did not write their opuscula to amuse
but to instruct, and it was common enough in earlier times thatsuch books were learnt, not merely learnt from. Þórir munkr refers
to Hugh of St Victor’s Chronicon (20.25–29). This includes longlists of names and dates (cf. n. 210). It would make a handy
reference book but was in fact firmly intended for the classroom,
for at the outset the author gives practical instructions to pupils
on how best to get it all fixed in their minds. An educated twelfthcentury Icelander, who might well have the Psalter by heart aswell as a repertory of skaldic poetry, could conceivably havetold what Ari said about the conversion of Iceland pretty muchin Ari’s own words, just as he might repeat a verse by Hallfreðr
vandræðaskáld in reply to an enquiry about Óláfr Tryggvason’s
last battle.
When it is not evident that Þórir munkr was writing in compressed or tendentious fashion, we are reduced to conjecture inaccounting for discrepancies between his work and sources heis supposed to have known, whether directly or indirectly. On
occasion he may have misremembered what he had read or been
told, or he may have thought he knew better either by inference
or by following a source unknown to us. On occasion an informant
may equally well have done the same. That the author allots StÓláfr a year in Sweden on his way from Russia to his death in
Trøndelag may, for example, simply be because he, or someone, found the four months or so predicated by other accounts
an implausibly short time to journey from the east, gather troops
in Sweden, and move on into Norway. Even if we are probably
justified in picturing Þórir munkr jotting notes of a useful conversation on the wax of his tablets, we have still to think of him
subsequently transferring his information to a more permanent
slip of vellum, and later, perhaps much later, rewriting it in suitable
Latin as part of his whole composition. We cannot tell what oddities
might result from such a process. It might at least explain why

Introduction

xix

the notorious missionary priest, Þangbrandr, is given an otherwise unknown name, Theobrandus (cf. n. 65).
The sainthood of Óláfr Haraldsson was rapidly acknowledged
after his death. His dies natalis was 29 July; the feast of histranslation was celebrated on 3 August. (Hence the calculationof one year and five days between his death and his elevation,
20.38, was a given.) Material for liturgical use in Latin and forpreaching in the vernacular certainly came into being in the 130
years or so between the saint’s death and the monk’s vows ofÞórir. According to him, ‘several’ writers had left a record of
the saint’s first wonder-working and his translation (20.35–45),
and in due course a consolidated record of miracles was kept at
his shrine, as was the normal practice. Little of this early material relating to the cult can be identified, and what Latin breviary lections were once used were replaced by the eulogistic textof the Passio Olavi, composed by Eysteinn Erlendsson, Þórir
munkr’s archbishop. The Passio and the Historia show no decisive signs that either had influence on the other (cf. n. 188). It
has, on the other hand, been argued that the heightened panegyric language of the passage on the saint in ch. 19 indicatesthat Þórir munkr was borrowing from earlier composition in serviceof the cult. It is hardly a necessary assumption. We might expect a Benedictine to find a ‘humble’ style suitable for his secular
history, but it would come as no surprise if his experience ofhomiletic and hagiographic literature enabled him to adopt a ‘high’style, exclamatory and hortatory, in celebrating a sublime subject. There are flashes of the same style in his fulminations on
cupidity and ambition (18.5–11; 26.1–5).
This is not to say that he was uninfluenced by liturgy and legend
related to St Óláfr. The earliest sources to tell of the king’s
order before the battle of Stiklastaðir, that the alms he provides
should be spent for the good of his enemies’ souls, are the Historia(19.29–33) and the so-called ‘Oldest saga of St Óláfr’, here represented by the ‘Legendary saga’ (see p. xx below). Both writers bring home its saintly significance, though in very different
fashion. Þórir munkr quotes the command ‘Love your enemies’,and dilates wonderingly on this royal martyr’s imitatio Christi.
The vernacular author, in quite another style, quotes Óláfr’s

xx

Theodoricus Monachus

laconically confident reply to the man who questions his intention, assuring him that he means alms for the souls of his opponents and not for his own dead—‘my men and I shall all be saved.’
The anecdote is unlikely to be original in either text. It mostprobably came into being as a telling piece of hagiographic fiction introduced early in building up the saint’s legend, like thetale of the king’s dream before the battle which was already known
to Adam of Bremen a century before Þórir munkr wrote his book(cf. n. 192). The passage in the Historia ends with a second parallel,that of St Stephen (19.59–65). The analogy of the Protomartyr
and his words before his death, ‘Domine, ne statuas illis hoc
peccatum’, would have been reinforced by the close liturgicalbond between the two saints: Óláfr’s translation on 3 August fellon the feast of the Invention of Stephen. In the liturgy of theProtomartyr much is naturally made of forgiveness of enemies,
and his words just quoted recur in lection, response and antiphon, and this Christ-like merit is spelt out in prayer, ‘ . . . quia
ejus Inventionem celebramus, qui novit etiam pro persecutoribus
exorare . . . ’. The coincidence of the festivals might have helped
to prompt the anecdote about the alms-giving in the first place.
Þórir munkr may have been the first to make the connection but
it seems far more likely that he is drawing on earlier liturgy orlegend.
Scholars have brought three works in particular into the discussion of the Historia: the so-called Ágrip af Nóregskonungaso≈g um, the Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar by Oddr munkr Snorrason,and the so-called ‘Oldest saga of St Óláfr’. They are all believed
to have been in existence by about 1200 but their precise datesof origin are uncertain. The first is extant but incomplete in an
Icelandic manuscript probably written c. 1230; it covers the reignsof kings from Hálfdan, father of Haraldr hárfagri, down to about1140 and had probably continued to 1177. The second was firstcomposed in Latin but is now known in Icelandic in late thirteenthcentury manuscripts. The third is known in a few fragments written
about 1225 but is thought to be substantially preserved in theso-called ‘Legendary saga’, extant in a Norwegian manuscriptof c. 1240. All these show various resemblances to the Historiaof Þórir munkr. Unlike Þórir munkr himself, however, who sturdily

Introductionxxi

says that he will avoid contention except in matters of faith, modern
commentators have arrived at every permutation in their attempts
to explain the similarities: all drew on a common stock of oral
tradition; the Historia and this or that Icelandic–Norwegian text
go back to a common written source; the vernacular texts are
all in debt, directly or indirectly, to the Historia; Þórir munkr
knew and made use of all the others. Connections more convoluted could doubtless be conceived. The following brief appraisalof possibilities and probabilities offers no hallmarked solutions.
Some passages in Ágrip are so close to the text of the Historia
that it seems undeniable that one is a translation of the other.
The answer usually accepted is that the writer of Ágrip was following the work of Þórir munkr, but only sometimes preferring
it among several sources at his disposal. If we concluded thatÞórir munkr made use of Ágrip, we should first have to ignore
his stated belief that he was the first to write a history of theNorwegian kings (see p. xv above). Then, although we are awarethat he was capable of compression, we are faced with disabling
difficulty in finding plausible explanations of his large omissions and his divergences. But in historical circumstance there
is nothing in the way of associating the Historia and Ágrip: theauthor of the first was most likely a monk of Niðarhólmr, of thesecond probably a resident of Niðaróss or the surrounding countryside.
The other two works concern individual kings and thus do notaffect Þórir munkr’s claim to be the first to write a whole history.
The notion of a connection between Þórir munkr and Oddr
munkr is no more out of the way than connection between Þórir
and the writer of Ágrip. Oddr was certainly a member of theoldest Benedictine house in Iceland and Þórir is presumed tohave been a member of the oldest Benedictine house in Norway. We cannot document individual links but may remind ourselves that Karl Jónsson, abbot of Oddr’s monastery from 1169,
arrived in Norway in 1185 and soon found himself writing King
Sverrir’s biography under the king’s own guidance. How long
Abbot Karl stayed is uncertain, perhaps till 1189. King Sverrir
wintered in Niðaróss those years—it would be his only time for

xxii

Theodoricus Monachus

more leisurely dictation—and it is hardly conceivable that Abbot
Karl had no contact with his fellow-monks on Niðarhólmr, justa boat-ride from the city. It would have been by no means exceptional if he had lodged with them. No evidence can showthat Abbot Karl introduced the Historia to Oddr, or Oddr’s Latin
work on Óláfr Tryggvason to Þórir munkr. But his stay in Niðarósscertainly confirms the possibility of bookish traffic between thetwo monasteries.
The problem is bedevilled by the fact that we do not know
just how closely the Icelandic versions of Oddr’s vita correspondto his Latin. As it stands, however, a good deal of matter onÓláfr Tryggvason in the Historia reads like an abstract of a text
similar to that found in the Icelandic, but we have no straightforward philological means of deciding priority. Sometimes acommon source might be posited. It has been suggested, for instance,that Ari Þorgilsson could well have first written an account of
the death of Hákon jarl with just the detail given by Þórir munkr(10.25–34) and Oddr. On the other hand, the details are few andanybody who had read or heard that story more than once could
tell it in essentially the same way.
The closest resemblance between the Historia and the ‘Oldest saga of St Óláfr’ (here represented by the ‘Legendary saga’;
see p. xx above) is found in the passage on the king’s return to
Norway from England (15.12–41). They have the details that hesailed with two cargo-ships (cf. n. 122), that he had 120 men
notably well armed, and that he met Hákon jarl Eiríksson inSauðungssund. There is also some similarity, less striking, inthe Dagshríð episode at Stiklastaðir (19.76–84). The author ofthe ‘Oldest saga’ was knitting together a great many pieces of
information relating to King Óláfr Haraldsson, and he could havepillaged the Historia for these descriptions, while it may seemless likely that Þórir munkr would cull only these sparse items
from the much more elaborate narrative of the saga. On the other
hand, when he writes, ‘they are said to have numbered 120, allof them in coats of mail,’ he is evidently sticking to his last asa retailer of what others report. The writer of the ‘Oldest saga’
could have been one of them (that of course begs the questionof where he got his details from). In our ignorance we cannot

Introduction

xxiii

dismiss the possibility that both had the details from a common
written source. It should be noted that the passages in question
have some content in common with early skaldic strophes referring to the Sauðungssund affair and apparently mentioning the
Dagshríð. If the verse was accompanied by some narrative, as
we are bound to suppose it was, there may be less reason to thinkthat the combination of detail found in the Historia and the ‘Oldest
saga’ was peculiar to these texts alone and necessarily indicatesa literary connection between them. It is apparent, too, that Þórir
munkr is compressing, for though he sets the scene for Óláfr
Haraldsson’s ruse in capturing Hákon jarl Eiríksson, he does notdescribe its operation, as though he relied on the comprehensionof his readers. Perhaps he counted on their familiarity with the‘Oldest saga’. Perhaps he thought it was common knowledge.
In sum, we may say that Ágrip almost certainly derived material from the Historia. Direct connection between the Historia
and the ‘Oldest saga of St Óláfr’ need not necessarily be posited.
A fair case can be made for believing that Þórir munkr knew
the work of Oddr munkr Snorrason on Óláfr Tryggvason, presumably in its Latin form. This must then have come into his
hands before the 1177–1187 decade in which the Historia wascompleted. It would not be unreasonable to date Oddr’s composition to c. 1170–1175. (One Icelandic version—the other isdefective—refers to the 1170 translation of St Sunnifa’s relics
to Bergen, but we cannot be certain that this reference was in
Oddr’s Latin.) It was put into Icelandic within the next thirty
years or so, but we can only guess whether that happened sooner
or later in the period.
4. Þórir munkr: man, monk and historianIn the vernacular narratives of kings’ sagas and sagas of Icelanders the author’s ego is more or less rigorously suppressed.
Not so in the Historia of Þórir munkr. Prologue and epilogue
are thoroughly personal in expression, and throughout the work
the writer constantly lets the reader know that he is in commandwith interjections like ‘as I have said’, ‘as I mentioned just now’,‘as I said at the outset’. He occasionally permits himself a sighxxiv

Theodoricus Monachusof regretful dismay, ‘Alas!’ (5.20; 8.45; 14.4; 18.86; 26.110).
He adds a touch of concern in one or two not very profoundgeneralisations about the response of human nature in a given
predicament (10.12–13, 29–30; 19.41–42; 24.24–25), and shows
fellow-feeling even toward Chosroes, who deserved to die but
not cruelly at the hands of his own son (26.93–96), and the Irish
who killed Magnús berfœttr—they were prepared to die for theircountry (32.9). He inserts a disparaging comment on the ‘fickleness and inconstancy’ of the men of Trøndelag (15.49); andwhen a man he calls a pseudo-king is put forward as a claimant
to the throne, he mordantly remarks that this is a Norwegian habit(31.5–6). He is free with references to monuments of the past
which still exist in his own time: St Óláfr’s laws are upheld ‘tothis day’ (16.11) and his merits are ‘demonstrated daily’ (16.19–
21; cf. 19.54–59); his broken battle-axe is ‘now preserved in thecathedral of Niðaróss’ (24.35); his body now rests in the Holy
Trinity church built by Óláfr kyrri (29.14–17); St Mary’s church,
built by Haraldr harðráði, ‘may be seen to this day’ (29.17–19);and much the same is said of the monastery and palace built by
King Eysteinn Magnússon in Bergen (32.31–37).
There may be a conventional element in the author’s refusal
to guarantee dates and make decisions between conflicting reports, but since he is willing enough in general to make his voiceheard, the diffidence he expresses so frequently and personally
may impose itself as a genuine characteristic of the man or themonk. Clauses like ‘but since I do not know I neither affirm nor
deny the truth of the matter’ (3.6–7) and ‘who has written moretruthfully is “a matter still before the court” ’ (13.38–39) may
be counted typical; for others see 1.10–14; 14.15–16; 19.73–
75, 90–91; 20.4–6; 33.22–24.
Þórir munkr’s narrative sequence is for the most part tidy, though
not without minor repetition (e.g. 5.9–12 and 6.24–28) and instances where abrupt introduction appears to show that the writerpresumes a reader’s prior acquaintance with the person in question(e.g. 4.27–28; 31.10–11, 23–24). Chs 2 and 3 might have comereversed on chronological grounds, and mention of Haraldrharðráði’s exploits in the east before he returned to be king in
Norway come in retrospect after his reign and death have beenIntroduction

xxv

described (28.38–47). The chief divagation otherwise is in ch.
13 where the alleged baptism of the three-year-old Óláfr Haraldssonin the presence of Óláfr Tryggvason leads to a discussion of sources
and includes a comment on the age of the saint when he met his
death. This may be said to interrupt the history of the first Óláfr
and to forestall the account of the battle of Stiklastaðir. On theother hand, it allows Þórir munkr to stress the foreordained sanctityof the martyr king, which remains an enveloping theme. It may
be, too, that the author was willing to sustain some suspense at
this point before moving on to the death of Óláfr Tryggvason,
just as he introduces two digressions in his account of Óláfr
Haraldsson’s reign before moving on to his last battle.
The author makes a firm effort to give his work a sturdy backbone in the count of years. He offers only three absolute dates,
two with reservation, the third without: 858/862 for Haraldr
hárfagri’s accession (1.1; cf. n. 17), 1029 for the death of Óláfr
Haraldsson (19.89), 1066 for the death of Haraldr harðráði (28.34).
In between he notes the regnal years and is not much at odds
with accepted chronology (cf. the notes passim). His account ofeach ruler, very spare in the case of Haraldr hárfagri, most expansive in the case of the two Óláfrs, is chiefly concerned toindicate how far a king matched given ideals. Apart from thetwo Óláfrs, who can do no wrong, the most favoured are the popular
Hákon Aðalsteinsfóstri and Magnús the Good (chs 4 and 27),
and the peaceful and public-spirited Óláfr kyrri and Eysteinn
Magnússon (chs 29 and 32). Eiríkr Haraldsson, who killed his
brothers, and his queen, Gunnhildr, are rejected for their cruelty,
and the kingdom suffered under their son, Haraldr gráfeldr, who
followed the counsels of his bloodthirsty mother (chs 2 and 4).
Hákon Hlaðajarl is a wicked idolater (ch. 6). Grandfather andgrandson, Haraldr harðráði and Magnús berfœttr, are alike, theone grasping, the other restless, both aggressive and both killed
fighting on foreign soil (chs 28, 30–32). The personal engagement of Þórir munkr comes out most clearly in his portrait ofÓláfr kyrri: ‘And I would be at a loss to name another of theNorwegian kings, from the time of Haraldr Fair-hair down tothe present day, who enjoyed a happier reign than he’ (29.19–22).
The author does not refer to the religion of the kings before

xxvi

Theodoricus MonachusÓláfr Tryggvason, but Hákon Hlaðajarl, who was ousted and killedon Óláfr’s arrival, is an arch-pagan who met a suitably despicable end (6.20–22; 10.25–31). Hákon’s son, Eiríkr jarl, is said
to have vowed to become Christian if he was victorious in thebattle of Svo≈l ðr but made no attempt to impose the new faithduring his rule. Otherwise, pagans in confrontation with Christianity
are savage, barbarous, obdurate, whether Orcadians, Icelanders,
Saxons or Wends, and the author finds no fault with the harshmethods of conversion employed by Óláfr Tryggvason (ch. 9 and
11.4–15) and Charlemagne, the emperor who is held up as an
ardently admired example (30.44–53, 59–65). Those who defeatedand killed St Óláfr have the same adjectives applied to them as
the heathen. The root of their rebellion, however, lay in the briberyof Knútr the Great, whose greed Þórir munkr vehemently denounces (18.5–15) and who is finally dismissed by him with anote of disdain (20.51–52). In contrast, Ingi Steinkelsson, kingof the Swedes, is described as ‘an excellent man’: the author
seems to have thought so because of the peace Ingi contrived tomake with the bellicose Magnús berfœttr (31.24–28).
As we have seen, Þórir munkr protests more than once that hewishes to avoid contention and at various points will not commit himself to a decision between varying reports. In 19.75–76
he adds a further personal comment: ‘nor do I wish to soothe
the ears of others with an obliging lie’. This seems uncalled forin the context, but apparently gives us to understand that dispute was alive over the identity of those who inflicted wounds
on St Óláfr, the ‘Lord’s anointed’. Such dispute would be most
likely among the descendants of Óláfr Haraldsson’s chief opponents at Stiklastaðir, the kindred of the Arnmœðlingar and
Bjarkeyingar, for example, who were still great men in the kingdom
in the author’s day. Þórir munkr is not prepared to curry favour
by absolving anyone; on the other hand, if challenged by proponents of one side, he could perhaps absolve himself by saying
that, of course, his sly comment was not meant to refer to them.
He could similarly hedge on the relevance of his remark, noted
earlier, on the ‘fickleness and inconstancy’ of the men of Trøndelag.
He could argue that in its context it referred to their treatmentof St Óláfr, though it could also be read, and was very probably

Introduction

xxvii

intended to be read, as a comment on their current switch ofallegiance from Magnús Erlingsson to Sverrir (cf. n. 128).
A degree of contemporary caution may be seen in yet anotherremark, again not strictly necessary in its setting. King Sigurðr
allowed Haraldr gilli to undergo ordeal to prove he was a son of
Magnús berfœttr (34.3–9). Here Þórir munkr interposes, apparently with reference to the nature of the ordeal imposed, ‘moreharshly than fairly as it seemed to some’, and he concludes in
confirmatory fashion, ‘But assisted by God, as it is believed, heshowed himself unburnt.’ He evidently accepted the legitimacy
of a claim to the kingship by Haraldr gilli, notorious as a disastrous character but still in the male line from Haraldr hárfagri.
By implication he would also accept the claims by Haraldr gilli’s
own descendants, including Eysteinn meyla, his grandson, andSverrir too, if his own account of his parentage was believed.
Here and there Þórir munkr refers to ‘ancestral succession’ and‘hereditary right’ (18.14–15; 25.22). When he used the phrase
as part of Tostig’s persuasion of Haraldr harðráði to invade England(28.11–12), he was presumably unaware that heredity played nopart in the accession of Harold Godwineson, Tostig’s brother,to the English throne. But when Magnús the Good, his death
impending, restored the Danish throne to Sveinn Úlfsson becauseof the latter’s ‘hereditary right’ (27.41), he must have known
that Sveinn’s claim lay only through his mother, a king’s daughter.
This was precisely the same claim as Magnús Erlingsson had.
Þórir munkr might be thought to be reserving his position. Succession in the male line was the natural tradition to which heheld, but he did not deny that there were circumstances in which
descent from a king’s daughter could also confer a valid rightto rule.
The desirability of Christian peace is a main theme in the author’s view of the Norwegian past and is clearly intended as alesson for the Norwegian present. He repeatedly warns of thedangers of divided rule and the misery of civil war, the perilous
results of envy, greed and ambition. The digression in ch. 26 isa series of examples of kinsman’s cruelty to kinsman, dwelling
particularly on the bloodcurdling story of Chosroes and his son.
Other digressions lead a reader’s thoughts to another kind of

xxviii

Theodoricus Monachus

divided kingdom, also firmly indicative of the author’s stancein the face of contemporary problems. In speaking of Emperor
Otto’s pressure on Haraldr of Denmark to accept Christianity,Þórir munkr takes time to tell of the emperor’s error in giving
churchmen rule over lay lords: ‘You have poisoned the church’,
Otto was told in an angelic visitation. This led to opulence whichbred insolence—‘as can be seen to this very day’—and the truthof the utterance is proved daily by the perpetual discords between rulers and pontiffs (5.12–25). Þórir munkr muddles his
imperial history but his message is unequivocal: it is one thing
to put down wickedness ‘with the sword of secular might’, another to correct souls with ‘the rod of pastoral care’. The message is reinforced by the digression in ch. 23, which is promptedby notice of the treaty between Magnús Óláfsson and Ho≈r ðaknútr,
reminiscent of the pact made by Charlemagne and Carloman.
This allows Þórir munkr to go on to tell, again with a good many
mistaken details, of Charlemagne’s liberation of the pope from
Langobard tyranny. In such a case it was proper for the emperor
to obey the supreme pontiff, but when the rescue is complete
and Charlemagne asks what is to be done with the captive kingof the Langobards, the pope’s response (quoted in direct speech,
which Þórir munkr uses sparingly), uncompromisingly begins:‘I bear a spiritual sword, not a physical one’ (23.46). Þórir munkr
was clearly thinking of contention between the greatest men of
his own day, Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa,
Archbishop Thomas Becket and King Henry II—and perhaps Archbishop Eysteinn and King Sverrir. He appears to see the enrichment of the church and the involvement of churchmen in theexercise of secular authority as the tap-root of the trouble. Hisview may be counted that of a plain and principled Benedictine. That he points instead to the primitive ideal is no less innatural keeping with his monastic renunciation than his vivid
condemnation of greed and ambition for glory in this world elsewhere in his moralised history. It was not for him to criticise
the archbishop to whom he owed obedience as a subject, but hecould regret his embroilment in affairs of state and in armed conflictwithin the realm and bring to mind the better alternative.
Þórir munkr’s digressions do more than convey his personal

Introduction

xxix

attitude and lessons for his contemporaries. They broaden anddeepen the background and give the Norwegian past a place inuniversal history, the history of salvation and the history of imperial
Rome, whose conversion and continuation, personified in Charlemagne and Otto, led to the inclusion in Christendom of eventhe remotest peoples. The wonders of a Charybdis can be seenin the Pentland Firth (ch. 17). There is an implied analogy to be
drawn between Hákon the Evil and Julian the Apostate (ch. 8).
That Norwegian men of old were far bigger and stronger than
nowadays is proved by the cyclic cosmology of classical authors,by Jerome’s biblical exegesis and eyewitness report, and by recent Roman archaeology (ch. 18). Divine intervention was shown
when the Huns suddenly withdrew from Cologne (ch. 17). It was
shown no less when, against all odds, the violence of the heathen
was restrained at the Icelandic alþing (ch. 12) and Magnús Óláfsson
defeated the Wends (ch. 24). The dates offered with due caution
in the Historia are from the birth of our Lord but beyond thatare the years to be told since Creation, variously calculated by
the most eminent authorities (ch. 20). We are put in touch witha wider world of learning, reminded of the Gelasian decree andthe faults of Origen, and these are matched elsewhere by thequoted wisdom of classical poets, not always correctly attributed.
The material is derivative and the composition lopsided but thegenerously ambitious scope of the Historia reveals a mind whichin the twelfth-century Norwegian context as we know it mustseem of a distinctly original cast.
In the absence of other sources we would have been glad tohave the Historia, its chronology, character assessments andanecdotes. As it is, Þórir munkr adds little to our knowledge of
Norway’s early history, and the significance of what he adds mustremain dubious. As a commentator on the past, however, andby implication on the present too, he is revelatory. In his interest in times gone by, in his firm belief in a national Norwegianidentity and in his respect for kingship he is doubtless representative of his age. In his attitude to contemporary affairs heappears or skilfully contrives to appear non-partisan, and in thishe may well typify many who were weary of the atrocities ofcivil war and longed for a settled peace. His view of ideal church–

xxx

Theodoricus Monachus

state relations seems to be that of an honest individual and monkreflecting on gospel truth, historical precedent and social need.
Throughout we are aware of the author’s own voice. If his work
repays study it is in the end not because it introduces us to afactual history of dead Norwegian kings but because it introduces us to a live twelfth-century Norwegian historian who is aconsistent upholder of a moral order. For all the lingering questions we cannot answer, Þórir munkr imposes himself convincingly upon us, an author sophisticated in his way, even devious,
but vocal and sincere, with aims very different from those of
the more copious and conventionally self-effacing vernacular historians of the kings of Norway. He thus becomes a notable addition to our sparse portrait gallery of early medieval Scandinavians.
Any picture we may have of Norway in the latter part of thetwelfth-century must be complex enough to accommodate thisthoughtful monk.
5. The text
Early in the 1620s Jakob Kirchmann (1575–1643), schoolmasterand librarian in Lübeck, found in the city library there a codex,
of uncertain medieval date, containing four Latin works. Since
three of them were to do with Danish–Norwegian matters, it isthought that the volume, since lost, was most probably of Danish or Norwegian provenance. One of them was the Historia ofÞórir munkr. Kirchmann made efforts to interest Danish authorities in publishing an edition of this and he appears to have madeat least three transcripts of it. Of the known manuscripts thosewith the sigla A, B, M and S (see Bibliography, pp. 123–124
below), all written in the seventeenth century, and the editio princeps
of 1684, descend from copies by Kirchmann that are no longer
extant. The manuscript denoted L, however, is a transcript inKirchmann’s own hand and since its discovery in 1936 it has
been accorded some special status. Its existence does not solve
every problem, since due account must be taken of the fact that
Kirchmann himself apparently showed it no special preference;at least, it was a different copy which he left with annotation
and was finally published by his grandson in 1684. The L text

Introduction

xxxi

may thus contain readings or improvements which another perusal of the codex led him to reject.
The edition in MHN was prepared by Gustav Storm from thesources available to him, viz. A, B, S and the 1684 edition. Little
material is available from the manuscript M, which was not known
to Storm; it seems unlikely to have much independent value asa witness to the text of the Historia. Manuscript L is naturally
of greater interest. An inadequate collation of it with Storm’s
text was provided in Lehmann 1937 (120–122; rpt 1959–1962,
427–429), and more readings from L are cited in Lange 1989
(184 n. 21). The present translation follows Storm but adopts a
few significant readings from L (see nn. 17, 19, 104, 241, 277, 311).
There has been argument—perhaps there always will be—on
points of detail in the text of the Historia. Fortunately, a newedition, doubtless definitive as far as the materials permit, is inpreparation by Professor Egil Kraggerud of Oslo, as part of a
project launched under the joint auspices of the classics departments of the Norwegian universities and signalled in Symbolae
Osloenses 72 (1997), 195. In general, however, the style andstructure of the work are coherent enough to persuade us that,whatever imperfections may be demonstrated, there are no serious grounds for thinking it was much altered in its transmission
from its origin in the late twelfth century to the copies made byKirchmann in the 1620s.

H

ERE BEGINS THE PROLOGUE OF THE MONK
Theodoricus to his account of the ancient historyof the Norwegian kings 1

3

To his lord and father, the most reverend Eysteinn, archbishop of Niðaróss,2 the humble sinner Theodoricus pledges
the obedience owed by a subject, and the support of prayers. 6
I have deemed it worthwhile, noble sir, to write down inbrief these few details concerning the ancient history of theNorwegian kings, as I have been able to learn by assidu- 9
ous inquiry from the people among whom in particular theremembrance of these matters is believed to thrive—namely
those whom we call Icelanders,3 who preserve them as much 12
celebrated themes in their ancient poems. 4 And because
almost no people is so rude and uncivilized that it has notpassed on some monuments of its predecessors to later 15
generations,5 I have thought it proper to record for posterity
these relics of our forefathers, few though they are. Because
it is clear that no established succession of the royal line 18
existed in this land before the time of Haraldr Fair-hair, 6 I
have begun with him; and I have not done this because I
doubted that before his day there were in this land men 21
who, by the standards of the present age, were distinguishedby their prowess, since certainly, as Boethius says, ‘reputation without authors has effaced those men who were very 24
famous in their own times’. 7 To prove this, I shall summon suitable witnesses. Hugh of blessed memory, canonof Saint Victor in Paris, a man most skilled in every branch 27
of learning, 8 made mention of our people in his chronicle
as follows: ‘The Northmen,’ he says, ‘departed from Nether
Scythia’ (by which he doubtless means Upper Scythia, which 30
we call Sweden), ‘and sailed in their fleet to Gaul, andentering the country by the river Seine, they laid everything waste with iron and flame.’ 9 Sigebert the monk of 33

2

Theodoricus Monachus

Gembloux likewise writes as follows in his chronicle: ‘The
Northmen,’ he says, ‘a most horrible Nordic people, sailed
36 to Gaul in their longships, entered the river Loire and penetrated as far as Tours, devastating everything.’10 It is therefore
clear from these accounts, O best of men, that before the
39 days of Haraldr there were in this land men mighty in war,
but that, as I have said, a dearth of writers has effaced any
remembrance of them. However, the degree of pure truth
42 in my present narrative must be placed entirely at the doorof those by whose report I have written these things down,because I have recorded things not seen but heard.11 Moreover,
45 in the manner of ancient chroniclers, I have added digressions in appropriate places which, in my opinion, are notwithout value 12 in serving to delight the mind of the reader.
48 I have therefore submitted the little document 13 before you
to your excellency for examination, since I know that you
lack neither the very sound 14 understanding to cut away
51 what is superfluous, nor the good will to approve of what
has been set forth correctly.
May almighty God long keep safe your holiness for His
54 holy Church. Fare well.
Here ends the prologue

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

3

Here begin the chapter headings of the work which
follows
1. On Haraldr Fair-hair.
2. On his son Eiríkr.
3. On the discoverers of Iceland.
4. On Hákon and Haraldr gráfeldr.
5. On Hákon the evil.
6. On the murder of Gunnhildr through the treachery of
Hákon.
7. On the same man’s deceitful scheming against Óláfr
Tryggvason.
8. How on returning to his native land Óláfr brought withhim a certain bishop and other churchmen to preach theword of God to the Norwegians.
9. How at his instance the earl of Orkney became a Christian along with all his people.
10. How the plots and deceptions of Hákon were revealed
to Óláfr.
11. On his steadfastness in the word of God.
12. How Iceland received the Christian faith through his
instigation.
13. What some people say about the baptism of the blessedÓláfr.
14. On the death of Óláfr Tryggvason.
15. On the return of the blessed Óláfr from England to Norway.
16. On the flight of the blessed Óláfr to Russia.
17. On the nature of Charybdis and concerning the Langobards 15 and the Huns.
18. How the blessed Óláfr returned to his country; and on
the decrease in size of the bodies of men.
19. How the blessed Óláfr died a martyr in battle.
20. On the lack of agreement in calculating the number ofyears from the beginning of the world.

4

Theodoricus Monachus

21. On Magnús, son of the blessed Óláfr.
22. On the peace treaty between Magnús and the king ofDenmark.
23. On the pact which was made between Charles the Greatand his brother.
24. How the same Magnús, made king of the Danes, waged
war against the Wends.
25. On the return of Haraldr harðráði from Greece.
26. The author’s diatribe against the ambitious, and how
Chosroes ended his life.
27. How King Magnús shared the throne of Norway withhis paternal uncle; and on Magnús’s death.
28. How King Haraldr led an expedition against England,
was defeated in battle and died.
29. On his son Óláfr.
30. On Magnús berfœttr, 16 and a brief account of the portents which preceded the death of Charles.
31. On the deeds of Magnús berfœttr.
32. On the death of the same Magnús, and on his sons.
33. On King Sigurðr and his deeds.
34. On Haraldr of Ireland.
Here end the chapter headings

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

5

Here begins Theodoricus’s account of the ancient historyof the Norwegian kings
Chapter 1. On Haraldr Fair-hair
In the year 86217 after the birth of our Lord, Haraldr Fair-hair,son of Halfdan the Black, became king. He first drove out
all the petty kings, and alone ruled all Norway for seventy 3
years 18 before he died. In this book19 I have set down the
count of years which I ascertained by making the most diligent
inquiries I could among those whom we in our language 6call Icelanders. It is well known that they without doubt
have always been more knowledgeable and more inquisitive 20 in matters of this kind than all the other northern 9peoples, but because it is exceedingly difficult to arrive at
the pure truth in such matters, especially where no written authority 21 provides assistance, I by no means wish to 12
pronounce in favour of this date rather than a more certain one, if one can be found, since I keep in mind thewords of the apostle to Timothy: ‘Shun genealogies and 15
endless questions’; 22 and elsewhere: ‘If any man seem tobe contentious, we have no such custom.’ 23
Chapter 2. On his son Eiríkr
Haraldr was succeeded by his son whose name was Eiríkr.
Because he killed his brothers, Eiríkr earned the nickname‘brothers’ bane’. 24 The aforementioned Haraldr had, however, sent one of his sons, whose name was Hákon, toÆthelstan the king of the English, to be fostered there andto learn the customs of the people. On account of the cruelty of his brother and especially of his wife Gunnhildr,
the Norwegians recalled Hákon and made him their king.
As for Eiríkr, he sailed to England, where he was received

3

6

9

6

Theodoricus Monachuswith honour by the king; and he lived there until the dayof his death. 25 He ruled Norway for three years—two years
12 on his own, and the third jointly with his brother. 26
Chapter 3. On the discoverers of Iceland
In the ninth or, as some believe, the tenth year 27 of Haraldr’s
reign, certain traders sailed to the islands which we call3 the Faroes, where they were caught in a storm and suffered a long and hard ordeal at sea. Finally they were driven
to an exceedingly remote land, which some believe was
6 the island of Thule; but since I do not know I neither affirm nor deny the truth of the matter. They accordingly
disembarked and explored round about and even scaled some
9 mountains, but found no trace at all of human habitation.
So they returned to Norway and told of the land which they
had found; and by praising it greatly they emboldened many
12 others to go in search of it. 28 Prominent among these wasa man of noble blood by the name of Ingólfr, from the province
which is called Ho≈ r ðaland. He made ready a ship and had
15 with him his brother-in-law, 29 Hjo≈ r leifr, along with manyothers. He set out in search of the aforementioned land,
found it, and in about the tenth year of Haraldr’s reign he
18 and his people began to settle it. 30 And it was then thatthat land which we now call Iceland began to be settled
for the first time, save that a very few people from the island
21 of Ireland, that is Lesser Britain, 31 are believed to havebeen there in ancient times because of certain pieces ofevidence—namely books and several utensils of theirs which
24 have been found. 32 However, the aforesaid Ingólfr certainly
had two predecessors in such an enterprise. The first ofthese was called Garðarr and the land was at first known
27 as Garðarshólmr after him. The second was called Flóki. 33
But that will do concerning this subject.

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

7

Chapter 4. On Hákon and Haraldr gráfeldr
Hákon, fosterson of Æthelstan 34 and son of Haraldr, ruled
for twenty-five years. 35 He was handsome in appearance,
vigorous in bodily strength, pre-eminent in fortitude of heart 3
and mind, and greatly in favour with all the people. He
ruled in peace for nineteen years. After that the sons of
his brother rose up against him, in the words of Lucan: 6‘That is a fight for a poor kingdom,’ 36 and as the sameauthor says in another passage: ‘All power will be impatient of a consort.’ 37 That war between them lasted five 9
years. But in the end they fought a battle at the place called
Fitjar on an island which is named Storð. Here Hákon gained
the upper hand in the first encounter, but as he pursued 12
his enemies he was unexpectedly struck by an arrow; andsome impute this to the evil-doing 38 of Gunnhildr, who had
been the wife of his brother Eiríkr.
15
Once Hákon had met his death in this way, Haraldr gráfeldr
succeeded to the throne together with his brothers. He followed
the counsels of his bloodthirsty mother, and for twelve years39 18
was a severe affliction to the people of Norway. After that,
he was killed in Denmark by a certain Haraldr 40 who was
the nephew of the king of Denmark. That king had the same 21
name, Haraldr, and he was son of Gormr. 41 He later became a Christian, the first of all the kings of Denmark.
Haraldr gráfeldr was, in fact, killed as part of a plot of the 24
Danish king who had fostered him. The king was incited
to do this, and Haraldr likewise betrayed, by Hákon jarlSigurðarson, who was nicknamed ‘the evil’.42 After the slaying 27
of Tryggvi, father of Óláfr, Haraldr gráfeldr along with hismother and brothers had done many injuries to Hákon, andforced him to search for the infant Óláfr. 43 After the death 30of his father Tryggvi, Óláfr could scarcely find a safe
hiding-place on account of the traps set for him by Gunn-

8

Theodoricus Monachus

hildr, who feared that he would succeed to the kingdom inplace of her sons. For his father Tryggvi was of royal lineage—
he was the son of Óláfr, son of Haraldr Fair-hair—and he
36 had ruled over the inland province which the Norwegians
call Upplo≈ n d. 44
33

Chapter 5. On Hákon the evil
Because Hákon, of whom I spoke earlier, received help
from the above-mentioned King Haraldr of Denmark, they
3 made a pact between them that every year twenty falcons
were to be paid to Haraldr; 45 and that Hákon with his army
should immediately come to his aid should any exigency
6 of war ever assail the Danish king. Hákon then returned
to Norway with a powerful force, and put to flight Guðrøðr,the son of Gunnhildr. He ruled Norway alone for thirty
9 years, 46 but without the title of king. 47 At that time King
Haraldr of Denmark greatly feared the most Christian emperor Otto, whose plan it was to place on him the gentle
12 yoke of Christ—which, in fact, he did. 48 It was that same
Otto, a most upright man, pre-eminent even among the mostillustrious, who conferred more honours and almost more
15 riches on the Church and all the clergy than was expedient, making dukes and earls subject to the Church as hervassals. 49 For after that, opulence gave birth to insolence,
18 as can be seen to this very day. For that reason, as one
discovers in the Roman History, an angel said to him: ‘You
have given poison to the Church.’ 50 Alas, the perpetual
21 discords between rulers and pontiffs offer daily proofs of
the truth of that pronouncement. For it is one thing to keep
at bay the wickedness of evil men with the sword of secu24 lar might, another to correct souls with the rod of pastoralcare. That Otto, nicknamed Rufus, was the son of the Otto
who was called ‘the pious’. 51 From the very best of par-

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

9

ents came an almost better offspring. But let me return to 27
my subject.
Chapter 6. On the murder of Gunnhildr through thetreachery of Hákon
After Hákon returned to Norway, he and Gunnhildr became
embroiled in various conflicts and plots against each other,for neither of them was short of cunning malice. She al- 3
ways appeared to yield by feigning flight; he followed inpursuit. In the meanwhile the country was laid waste andmany hardships were inflicted upon the whole population. 6
Finally Hákon devised the following scheme. He sent 52 a
message to the king of Denmark (who at that time was stilla pagan, and so on very friendly terms with him), and asked 9
him to send a letter to Gunnhildr in secret, asking for her
hand in marriage. He was to say that Denmark would be
fortunate to have such a queen, and that while she had no 12
intention of seeking young men to marry, he was getting
on in years himself, and they might well make a good match.
Thus, the woman received the king’s letter; and transported 15
with joy, and with the credulity that is characteristic offemale caprice, she hastened to Denmark. The king had
her seized forthwith and drowned in a bog. 53 And that was 18
the end of the crimes and evil deeds of Gunnhildr. 54
Once secure in his control of the kingdom, Hákon soon
became pre-eminent as a slave of demons and constantly 21
made sacrifices to call upon them for help. Ten years after
this he cancelled the treaty which he had made with King
Haraldr. 55 As an excuse for this breach, he seized upon the 24
fact that the most Christian emperor Otto was exerting strongpressure on the king of the Danes to make him and his
entire country submit to Christ—an objective which, with 27
the help of that same Saviour, he fully achieved. 56

10Theodoricus Monachus

Chapter 7. On the same man’s deceitful scheming
against Óláfr Tryggvason
In the twenty-ninth year of his reign Hákon learned thatÓláfr Tryggvason was in England. He was a promising youth,
3 who on his return from Russia, where he had been fostered and assisted by King Valdemar, 57 engaged in a viking
expedition in Denmark. But after leaving his ships, his enemies
6 cut him off to keep him from returning to them. Forced inthis predicament to call upon divine aid, he vowed that hewould become a Christian if he were rescued from his present
9 danger. Accordingly, he was set free by divine intervention, 58 and having regained his ships, he left for Ireland.
He proceeded from there to the Scilly Isles, which are situated
12 beside Greater Britain, 59 and there he and all his men werebaptized by a venerable man, the abbot Bernard. 60 From
there he moved into England, where he remained for several
15 years. He changed his name, however, and called himself
Ole, because he did not wish it to be known who he was. 61
Now when Hákon learned that he was definitely staying
18 there, he racked his brain to find some way of depriving
him of life, because he feared him as almost the sole threat
to himself and his heirs. And since he was altogether de21 ceitful he brooded long and hard over what he should do.
In the end, he summoned before him Óláfr’s own uncles,
Jósteinn and Karlsho≈fuð, the brothers of his mother Ástríðr,24 and threatened them with death unless they obeyed his
commands.62 So he sent them to England along with a certain
inveterate traitor named Þórir klakka, 63 who had formerly
27 kept company with Óláfr for a time. Not daring to oppose
his authority, they promised that they would go, but only
on the condition that they might reveal the earl’s treacher30 ous plan, though not until Óláfr had come beyond Agðanes
to the place called Þjálfahellir. 63a This was of little con-

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

11

cern to Hákon, who trusted that his usual stratagems would
succeed and that he would as good as have Óláfr in his 33
hands, if he once ventured as far as that, still ignorant of
any treachery. And since he was perfectly aware that Óláfr
would believe no one but them, he granted them what they 36
asked. So Hákon ordered them to announce to Óláfr that
he was dead, that the whole country anxiously awaited Óláfr’s
return, and that he ought to make haste, lest any unfore- 39
seen development should pose an obstacle.
Chapter 8. How on returning to his native land Óláfr
brought with him a certain bishop and other churchmen
to preach the word of God to the Norwegians
When Óláfr heard what these messengers had to say, hebelieved them, since they were his own uncles. He hastened
to make ready his ships and took with him churchmen— 3
Bishop Sigeweard,64 who was ordained for the specific purposeof preaching the word of God to the heathen, and several
others whom he was able to have with him—Theobrand, a 6
priest from Flanders, 65 and another priest named Thermo; 66
and he also brought some deacons. For that virtuous man
had resolved in advance to strive in every way to make 9that land subject to Christ, or else not to rule a people utterly
heathen. In this he followed the example of the very wise
Jovian.67 When the Roman army at war against the Per- 12
sians found itself in great peril, he was besought by thesoldiers to assume the imperial title, but replied without
hesitation that in no circumstances did he wish to rule over 15
heathens. 68 By contrast, Julian, that renegade from Christ
who from a subdeacon and Christian became a most heinous apostate and persecutor of the Christian name, in the 18
course of the same campaign against the Parthians, according
to the testimony of the blessed Jerome, vomited forth six

12

Theodoricus Monachus

books against Christ. 69 This Julian was led astray by evil
spirits, who promised him certain victory in that battle;
and to these he sacrificed almost daily not only dumb ani24 mals, but also that which is much more agreeable to them—his own body and soul. He had ordered all the ships inwhich he had sailed there to be burnt in order to incite the27 hearts of his soldiers to battle, now that hope of withdrawal
was removed. But the Lord returned the wickedness of the
blasphemer upon his own head, 70 for by divine interven30 tion he was pierced through in that same battle, it is notknown by whom; and he placed his hand under the woundas the blood gushed forth and made it spurt into the air
33 with this blasphemous cry: ‘Thou hast conquered, Galilean’(for this is what he was in the habit of calling our Lord).
And with that blasphemous utterance he crossed from tem36 poral death to death eternal. 71 Therefore, the Roman army,
as I have said, left in an utterly dire predicament, elevatedto the emperorship the aforementioned Jovian, a most Chris39 tian man and adorned with the noblest virtues, and vowedwith one voice that they would become Christians. For Julian
had turned many away from the true faith. Once he had
42 assumed power, Jovian managed by dint of the utmost
assiduity to lead his army to safety after concluding sucha treaty with the Persians as he could in so desperate a
45 situation. He himself, alas, died far too premature a death,for he was not emperor for half a year. But let me return
to my subject.
21

Chapter 9. How at his instance the earl of Orkney
became a Christian along with all his people72

3

Now when Óláfr left England he set a straight course for
the Orkney islands, and because they are subject to theNorwegian king, he urged Sigurðr jarl, who governed thoseThe Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

13

islands at that time, to become a Christian. And when heprevaricated and voiced objections, Óláfr pressed him still
harder. Sigurðr even vowed that he would submit to him 6
as king, if he would not force him to adopt the Christianfaith. When he continued to resist for some time, it is said
that Óláfr abducted his son, a small boy of three named 9Þorfinnr, 73 from the place where he was being fostered.
He swore that he would slay him in his father’s sight, andthreatened Sigurðr moreover with eternal enmity, if he would 12
not give in. Just as it is written: ‘Fill their faces with shame,
and they will seek thy name, O Lord,’ 74 so the earl fearedboth the righteous wrath of Óláfr and that his son would 15
die. So by believing or, rather, by consenting, he was baptized along with all the people who were subject to him.
And once he had been confirmed in the faith, he remained 18
from then on a faithful Christian, as were all his successors.
Chapter 10. How the plots and deceptions of Hákon
were revealed to Óláfr
From here Óláfr hastened on his journey to Norway, andput in first at the island which is called Mostr. 75 He later
built a church there, the first of all those erected in Nor- 3
way. 76 After this, when he had come beyond Agðanes tothe place called Þjálfahellir, he stayed there for one night,
although there is almost no harbour there. As yet he knew 6
nothing of the deception and plots of Hákon. But that verynight, his uncles came to him and laid bare Hákon’s treachery,since they were now freed from the oath which they had 9sworn to Hákon. They implored him to look without delay
to his own good and theirs, and indeed to the good of thewhole country. He was troubled, as one usually is in such 12
a plight, but committed his whole cause to almighty God,
that with His help he might have the strength to carry out

14

Theodoricus Monachus

what God had already inspired him to undertake. Then thatinveterate traitor Þórir klakka, who had gone to England
to ensnare him, was put to death there. And the very next
18 day, with the help of God, Óláfr proceeded to the placecalled Niðaróss. At that time there were only a few huts
belonging to various traders there, though now it is the
21 capital of the entire realm 77—a city gloriously distinguished
not only by its metropolitan seat, but also by the relics ofthe most blessed martyr Óláfr. There a multitude of peo24 ple flocked to him. 78 He was then proclaimed king, and atonce set out against Hákon. Hákon, meanwhile, had beenabandoned by his own men and, setting hope on flight alone,
27 came to a small farmstead named Rimull. 79 There his concubine Þóra hid him and his only remaining slave, whosename was Karkr, 80 in a pigsty. When, as often happens to
30 one sad at heart, sleep had stolen upon him, he was stabbed
in the throat by that same servant, and died. Afterwards,
however, when the slave brought the head of his lord to33 Óláfr, the king ordered him to be hanged as a reward forthe crime he had perpetrated against his lord. 81
15Chapter 11. On his steadfastness in the word of God

3

6

9

After this, the king set his mind, with all his strength andthe help of heaven, to the task of driving idolatry anddemon-worship from the entire country. He was a tirelesshusbandman in the vineyard of his Lord.82 He pressed hiscause with prayers and sermons, reinforcing these at times
with threats and intimidation. For he saw that the heartsof the heathens were savage, and that only a strong hand
could free them from the age-old, ingrained filth of faithlessness and the more or less inborn devil-worship which
they had practically imbibed with their mother’s milk. And
since they were little moved, he often reinforced words

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings15

with blows,83 following the example of his Lord, who poured 12
oil and wine into the wounds of the injured man, 84 andfollowing too those words of the Gospel: ‘Force them tocome in, that my house may be filled.’85
15
There is a place in the diocese of Niðaróss which is calledMærin. There, it is said, oracular responses were utteredby demons; and Hákon had brought together there a mul- 18
titude of idols. Therefore, when the king came there, hecalled before him all those who had been ensnared evenmore tightly in the fetter of the devil’s falsehoods and who 21
in the vernacular are called seiðmenn. 86 And because hesaw that they were past curing, and lest they do harm to
his new plantation, he ordered that they be gathered into 24
the building dedicated to demons and burnt together with
the images. 87 And people say that they numbered eighty
altogether, both men and women.
27
Chapter 12. How Iceland received the Christian faiththrough his instigation
When a year had passed,88 the king sent the priest Theobrandto Iceland to preach the word of God. I mentioned abovethat Iceland is thought by some to be the island of Thule, 3because of certain similarities between the two places, inparticular since daylight is continuous there around thesummer solstice, as is night around the winter solstice. 89 6
When he arrived there, he began to preach Christ to them,and although he was assiduous in his efforts, in the spaceof almost two years90 he was able to make only a tiny number 9of converts, on account of the innate obduracy and savage
natures of the inhabitants. Foremost, however, among those
who accepted the yoke of Christ, were the following:91 Hallr 12
of Síða and all his household, and Gizurr of Skálaholt (hewas the father of Bishop Ísleifr, who was the first to estab-

16

Theodoricus Monachus

15 lish an episcopal seat in that country, in the church which

he himself built and consecrated to the blessed apostle Peter,
bestowing on it his entire patrimony);92 the third was Hjalti
18 from Þjórsárdalr; and the fourth Þorgils of ¯lfus. 93 Two ofthese men, namely Gizurr and Hjalti, accompanied Theobrandwhen he returned to the king. But when Theobrand came
21 before the king, he was rebuked by him for having failed
to complete his task. The following summer, therefore, theking sent the priest Thermo, whom they called Þormóðr
24 in their mother tongue. The two men already mentioned
also went with him,94 and promised the king that they would
work together for the gospel of Christ with all their strength.
27 The grace of the Holy Spirit attended the preaching of thispriest to such good effect that in a short time he converted
all that barbarous nation to Christ. For they arrived in the
30 country at the time when the public gathering which theycall the Alþing was being held there. And when the hostof heathens became aware of their arrival, the whole populace
33 ran to arms, because they were of one mind in wishing totake their lives. However, by divine intervention they were
so restrained that although it was only a tiny band of Chris36 tians who opposed them, they neither could nor dared dothem any harm. 95 But let what has now been said about
these things suffice.
Chapter 13. What some people say about the baptism of
the blessed Óláfr

3

6

That he might the more easily make the whole country submit
to Christ, King Óláfr therefore married his three sisters tomen of high standing. 96 He married one, whose name wasÁstríðr, to Erlingr Skjálgsson; the second to Þorgeirr, apowerful man from the Vík who later burnt Guðrøðr Gunnhildarson to death in a house because he intended to seize

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

17

control of the kingdom from Óláfr;97 the third to Hyrningr,
the brother of Þorgeirr. And when he had made all of them
accept baptism, he made his way inland, to Upplo≈nd.98 There 9
he came upon Óláfr, who was then a little boy of three,
but who later became a faithful martyr of Christ. He wasstaying with his mother Ásta, for his father Haraldr was 12then already dead. (Haraldr was the son of Guðrøðr sýr, 99
whose father was Bjo≈ r n, who was nicknamed ‘the trader’
and was the son of Haraldr Fair-hair.) That Óláfr was the 15
future propitious hope and glory of the Norwegian people. According to some, the king had him and his motherbaptized then and there;100 others maintain that he was baptized 18
in England. 101 But I, for my part, have read in the ‘Historyof the Normans’ that he was baptized in Normandy by Robert,
archbishop of Rouen. 102 For it is certain that Duke William 21
of Normandy took him with him to help him in his fightagainst King Robert of France, whose by-name was Capet(he was the son of the most noble duke Hugh Capet), when 24
together with the count of Flanders Robert was preparing
to wage war against Duke William. In fact, he was trying
to drive William out of Normandy, because his ancestors 27
had wrested that province from the king of France by force.103
But whether Óláfr was baptized in Rouen or in England,
it is clear that he was rather advanced in age when he was 30
crowned with martyrdom, as those whom one should trust
most in matters of this sort maintain.104 Nor is it any wonder that this could have happened with regard to Óláfr in 33
that land where there has never been a chronicler of ancient events, 105 when the blessed Jerome writes the samething concerning Constantine the Great, son of Constantius 36
and Helena. He notes that some say that he was baptizedin Bithynia in advanced old age, others at Constantinople,
some at Rome by the blessed pope Sylvester. 106 Who has 39
written more truthfully is ‘a matter still before the court’.107

18

Theodoricus Monachus

Chapter 14. On the death of Óláfr Tryggvason
In the fifth year of Óláfr Tryggvason’s reign, which was
also his last, King Sveinn of Denmark, King Óláfr of Sweden,
3 and Eiríkr the son of Hákon ‘the evil’ went to war against
him, and caught him, alas, too unprepared. For it is said
that with only eleven ships he engaged in battle against
6 seventy. 108 In the end, because the enemy could constantly
relieve one another and put in fresh men for those who
were wounded,109 our king’s army was not so much defeated
9 as worn away.110 His opponents, however, by no means carried
off an unbloody victory, for every one of their doughtiest
warriors had either fallen in the battle or come away se12 verely wounded. 111 Some say that the king then escapedfrom there in a skiff, and made his way to foreign parts toseek salvation for his soul. Some, on the other hand, say
15 that he plunged headlong into the sea in full armour. I dare
not say which of these accounts is the truer. I like to believe only this: that he now enjoys perpetual peace with
18 Christ. 112 This battle was fought beside the island whichis called Svo≈ l dr; and it lies near Slavia, which we in ourmother tongue call Vindland. 113 In the same battle, Eiríkr
21 swore that he would become a Christian if he obtained victory. 114 And he fulfilled his vow.
Now a pact had been made between the kings and Eiríkr
24 to the effect that, if they were able to take the kingdom
from Óláfr, each would get a third. Eiríkr accordingly received two-thirds of the kingdom (though, like his father
27 before him, he dispensed with the title of king), because
King Sveinn of Denmark conceded his share to Eiríkr forthe sake of his daughter, whom he had promised to him in
30 marriage. King Óláfr of Sweden gave his share in fief toEiríkr’s brother Sveinn. Then, after a few years had passed,
Sveinn began to envy his brother, because Eiríkr had two33 thirds of Norway, while he had but one, and that only as a

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

19

fief. Eiríkr, however, was determined to be just towards
his brother, and had no desire to pollute his kingdom witha fratricide. And he reflected at the same time that Sveinn 36
would scarcely be guided by brotherly love in dealing with
him in other matters either, as those verses of Lucan put it:
There is no faith between sharers in sovereignty;
and all power will be impatient of a consort. 115

39

So he departed from his homeland and sailed to England,leaving behind his son Hákon as successor to his realm. 42
Eiríkr ruled with his brother Sveinn for fifteen years. He
neither diminished nor extended Christianity, but allowed
each man, at least in this respect, to live according to the 45
creed he preferred. He ended his life when he arranged tohave his uvula 116 removed by surgery, and died as a resultof excessive loss of blood. After he left his homeland, his 48
brother and son ruled for two years.
Chapter 15. On the return of the blessed Óláfr fromEngland to Norway
At that time Óláfr Haraldsson, later to become a martyrof Christ, was in England; and there he reconciled Æthelredwith his brothers, and achieved his elevation to the throne.117 3King Knútr of Denmark, who was called ‘the mighty’, 118
afterwards deprived the same Æthelred of his kingdom andforced him to live in perpetual exile. 119
6
It is said that while in England Óláfr visited a certain
hermit, 120 a man of great holiness, who foretold him manythings—that the Lord would lavish on him the abundance 9of His grace, and also by what sort of death he would passfrom the light of this world to Christ.
In the following year 121 Óláfr prepared to make his way 12
to Norway, with two cargo-ships122 and well-armed followers—they are said to have numbered 120, all of them in

20

Theodoricus Monachus

coats of mail. Having made a favourable voyage across theocean, as a kind of divine omen he put in first at an island
which in our mother tongue is called Sæla, and which rendered
18 into Latin is felicitas, ‘happiness’, 123 without doubt a portent of the king’s future sanctity, and a sign that throughthe good omen of his coming, he brought the hope of eter21 nal happiness to his whole country. From here he sailed toa place which is called Sauðungssund,124 where he remained
for a few days. A report then reached him there that Hákon
24 Eiríksson was approaching with two ships, one a small vesselof the type we call skúta, the other a longship, 125 of thetype the ancients called ‘a Liburnian’; whence Horace says:
15

27

You will go, my friend, in Liburnian galleys
amid ships like towering fortresses. 126

On hearing this news, Óláfr devised the following trap.
Since he was at a very narrow point in the sound, he had
his ships stationed one on either side, and ropes stretchedbetween them in such a way that they would be covered
33 by water and the enemy would not detect the stratagem.
In this way, the earl and his men could be ensnared there
when they least expected it, and might be taken prisoner
36 unharmed and, if possible, without bloodshed. And thatis how it turned out. When Hákon arrived, he did not suspect that they were anything other than merchants, and39 was immediately taken prisoner by the king. 127 He renounced then and there his claim to all that part of Norway
over which he had had control; and then he went to England.
42
When Sveinn, Hákon’s uncle, heard of the arrival of theblessed Óláfr, he gathered an army and soon set out against
him. But King Óláfr—he had, in fact, already received this45 title from his men, in the manner of the ancient Romans,
for among them it was also customary for the army to create the commander-in-chief and bestow the regal title—
30

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings21

did not count on help from the men of Þrándheimr, for he 48
knew their fickleness and inconstancy, 128 so he withdrew
to Upplo≈ n d, 129 and spent the winter there with his stepfather Sigurðr and his mother Ásta. 130 When spring came, 51
they both set out for the Vík, and there gathered an armyand hastened to confront Sveinn. At the same time, Sveinn
moved quickly to attack them; and they joined in a naval 54
battle at the place called Nesjar. 131 When Sveinn was vanquished, he disdained flight and resolved to fall with hismen. And he would have done so, had he not been pre- 57
vented and his ship withdrawn from battle against his willby one of his chieftains, a kinsman by marriage—Einarrþambaskelmir, 132 a man of immense vigour, who had mar- 60
ried Sveinn’s sister Bergljót. 133 He advised him to flee andmore or less forced him 134 to make his way to Russia, 135
63
where he lived until his death.
Chapter 16. On the flight of the blessed Óláfr to Russia
During the time of Eiríkr’s reign, many Christians had turned
aside from the true faith. King Óláfr strove by all the meansat his disposal to lead these people back to the right path 3
and to show them the way of salvation, to establish churches
in those places where there were none, and to endow thosewhich were established. 136 In this he strove to appear as 6
the collaborator of that best of men, Óláfr Tryggvason, sothat he, as one taught by the spirit of God, might prudently
water what his predecessor had gloriously planted. He had 9laws replete with justice and equity committed to writingin the native language; and to this day these are upheld
and venerated by all good men. 137 Dogged in his pursuit 12of justice for all, he persecuted no one, oppressed no one,condemned no one except, to be sure, those whose own
wickedness and persistence in evil had already condemned 15

22

Theodoricus Monachus

them. In short, in ruling over mortal men his sole aim wasto lead them, insofar as it was in his power, to the glory
18 of everlasting life. This was both manifestly confirmed thenby the outcome of events, and is no less amply demonstrated daily by the blessings of almighty God which, we
21 believe, are bestowed for the sake of his merits.
The king then married Ástríðr, the daughter of King Óláfr
of Sweden. He had formerly been betrothed to the Swed24 ish king’s eldest daughter, but when her father’s anger became
an obstacle, neither of them was able to enjoy the marriage they had hoped for. 138 By Ástríðr Óláfr had a daugh27 ter named Úlfhildr, whom he later gave in marriage to Duke
Otto of Saxony. 139
After this, Knútr, king of Denmark and England, a man
30 who hungered after the possessions of others, called to mind
that his father Sveinn had possessed a third of Norway,
and at the same time took note that his sister’s son Hákon,33 who was then staying with him, had been driven out of
his own country. 140 So he began to incite the chieftains of
Norway against the king, and to bribe them in secret. 141
36 Among these were Erlingr Skjálgsson of Sóli, Kálfr Árnason,Þórir hundr and numerous others; 142 and because Erlingr
was the foremost man among them, he assembled an army
39 and closed with King Óláfr in a naval battle, in which hehimself fell. And this happened in a place which is called
Tunga. 143 Erlingr was killed there, though not at the king’s
42 will, by one of his own kinsmen, Áslákr fitjaskalli. 144
Afterwards, when the king learned that King Knútr wasat hand with an immense force (indeed, his fleet is said to
45 have numbered 1200 ships), 145 realizing that he was notequal to such an encounter, he abandoned his ships andwithdrew to the court of his father-in-law, 146 King Óláfr
48 of Sweden. From there he travelled to Russia, to King
Jaroslav. 147 He had married Ingigerðr, to whom Óláfr had

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

23

been betrothed but whom he was unable to wed, as I mentioned just now. He remained there for one year, and was 51
treated with honour and the utmost courtesy by King Jaroslav.
Óláfr committed to his care his son Magnús, a boy of five,54
born to him by a concubine.
Meanwhile, King Knútr lured to himself all the chieftains of Norway by giving many gifts and promising more
if they would be loyal to his nephew Hákon, whom he had 57
brought with him. And after he had taken hostages fromthose he thought less trustworthy, 148 he returned to England. Then, a year later, Hákon proceeded to England to 60
fetch his wife; but on his way back he was caught in astorm and driven into the mouth of Charybdis in that partof the sea which is called Petlandsfjo≈ r ðr, 149 off the Ork- 63
ney Isles. And there he and all his people were sucked down
into that bottomless whirlpool. 150
Chapter 17. On the nature of Charybdis and concerning
the Langobards and the Huns
Since I have had cause to mention Charybdis, ancient authors give the following account of its nature. Pliny the
Elder (the author of the Natural History and a sage and 3
most learned man), the philosopher Chrysippus, and manyothers say that the place is a passage-way to the mother-abyss
from which the entire torrent of the seas is thought to flow, 6
and therefore no bottom is to be found in it. 151 Concerning
this abyss it is written in Genesis: ‘And all the fountainsof the great abyss burst forth.’ 152 Likewise, Paul the Dea- 9
con, a monk of the community of Monte Cassino, who wrote
a brilliant history of the province of Pannonia in which hemade many useful and no less delightful digressions, gives 12
almost the same explanation of the nature of Charybdis.153
The same author, as a matter of fact, informs us that it

24

Theodoricus Monachus

was from out of Pannonia that that savage and ungodly
people who invaded Italy with the permission of the patrician Narses spread forth. 154 At that time they were called
18 ‘Longobarbs’, from longa barba ‘long beard’, but now theirname has been corrupted to ‘Langobards’, through substitution of the letter d for b. 155 Pannonia, however, has been
21 called Hungary since the time when the Huns wrested it,
more or less by force, from the emperor of Constantinople. In order to induce them to cease their pillaging and
24 ravaging of his realm, he gave them the province, though
unwillingly, once the previous inhabitants had been moved
elsewhere. 156 Those Huns, as Jornandes writes in his his27 tory, 157 burst forth from the Maeotic swamps, 158 where
Alexander the Great, son of Philip, is said to have confined them. 159 They were a half-bestial and utterly godless
30 race, and extremely repulsive in appearance, for in theirheads instead of eyes they had, as it were, two holes which
seemed to have been filled with the blackest pitch. While
33 still very small children, their cheeks were cut so that evenwhile drinking their mother’s milk they might learn to endure
wounds. 160 When they found an opening in their place of
36 confinement, where a stag had passed through,161 they spread
like locusts across the face of the entire earth, 162 led bytheir king Attila. Overrunning every Gaulish province, they
39 filled everywhere they went with pillaging, burning andatrocities, desecrating holy places and laying them waste.
It was they who butchered the blessed Nicasius, archbishop
42 of Rheims, and his sister the blessed virgin Eutropia, 163
and put the city of Rheims to the torch. Later, when theylaid siege to Agrippina, which is now called Cologne, the45 blessed Ursula, daughter of the king of the Britons, suffered martyrdom at their hands, along with all her companions—an almost unbelievable number of both men and48 women. 164 After they had perpetrated this crime, through15

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

25

divine intervention they were immediately put to flight andthe city was liberated through the merits of those most blessedvirgins. And the words of Scripture were fulfilled in them: 51‘The impious man flees though none pursue him;’ 165 andlikewise in what the Psalmist says: ‘There fell those who
did evil’ (that is, in their hearts); ‘they were driven out 54
and could not stand.’ 166
Chapter 18. How the blessed Óláfr returned to his country; and on the decrease in size of the bodies of men
Thus, when Knútr, king of England, learned of the deathof his nephew Hákon, he immediately sent his son Sveinn
to govern the kingdom of Norway 167 and at the same time 3
to oppose Óláfr should he decide to return to his homeland. O, the calamitous and insatiable greed of mortal men!
O, the very wretched human soul! The more it has dissi- 6
pated itself on visible things and spreads over ‘the figure ofthis world which will pass away’, 168 the more difficult it isfor it to be made whole again after this life; and it becomes 9
all the more estranged from God, who is the true sufficiency.169 This is abundantly, even overabundantly, clear in thecase of Knútr who, although he possessed two kingdoms, 12
still strove to wrest yet a third from the most just king Óláfr,
one moreover to which Óláfr was entitled by ancestral
succession.
15
And when, as it is reported, Óláfr was urged in dreams
that it behoved him to return to Norway, 170 he bade farewell to Jaroslav and Ingigerðr, and left his own son Magnús 18
there with them. 171 He then returned to his father-in-law
King Óláfr in Sweden; and he remained there over that year.172
When spring came, with the help of his father-in-law he 21
assembled an army made up in great part of heathens, andhe led it through the northern regions into Norway. When

26

Theodoricus Monachus

the king pressed the heathens to accept baptism and theyrefused to take on the yoke of our Lord, Óláfr said that hehad no need of heathens and godless men, especially when
27 fighting against Christians, and that for him any victorywon with the help of evil men would be base. The heathens answered that they were ready to engage in battle
30 and to do anything else which the king might command,but that they would not set this new doctrine above theirancient custom, and would sooner return home. When the
33 king heard this, he allowed them all to depart. 173 After this,Óláfr’s kinsmen flocked to his support, and with them his
brother Haraldr, who was then a youth of fifteen years, as
36 well as certain other noblemen. Among these were Hringr
Dagsson, with his son Dagr, and Finnr jarl Árnason, thebrother of Kálfr, who was one of the king’s leading adver39 saries. The king was also followed in every danger by his
inseparable companion, Ro≈ g nvaldr Brúsason. 174 His father
Brúsi was the son of Sigurðr, whom I mentioned earlier, 175
42 the first of all the earls of the Orkney Islands to become
Christian.
These were men of vigour and strength, much more
45 powerful in body and spirit than people are in these wretched
times, although they were still greatly inferior to their predecessors. Pliny the Elder offers the following explana48 tion of this general decline in his Natural History. I cite
his own words. ‘On the whole,’ he says, ‘it is more or lessplain to see that the entire human race is becoming smaller
51 daily, and that few people are taller than their fathers, asseminal fertility is becoming exhausted by conflagration,
the fate to which the age now inclines.’ 176 Thus Pliny; and54 this was certainly not unknown to philosophers, for they
were aware that earlier there had been a flood and that thepresent world would end in a conflagration. Lucan, too,
57 no less a philosopher than a poet, says this in addressing
24The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

27

Julius Caesar because he forbade the cremation of the deadin war:If, Caesar, fire should not consume these multitudes now, 60
It will consume them with the earth, and burn them withthe waters of the deep;
There remains for the world a common funeral pyre,
63
Which will mix stars with mortal bones. 177

For all things on earth are generated through heat andmoisture. Those things in which there is an abundance of 66
heat tend to be frailer, thinner and more delicate; and those
things in which moisture prevails are thicker, taller and more
fleshy. Plato draws attention to this alternation of periods 69
of fire and flood; for he says that at the end of every fifteen thousand years alternately one or the other of thesetakes place, and that all mankind dies save for a tiny few 72
who escape by some chance, through whom the human raceis afterwards restored. This has always been the case andalways will be. 178 Plato did not, however, mean to suggest 75
that the world is coeval with God; but just as the footprint
comes from the foot, not the foot from the footprint, soboth the foot and the footprint come from the same source. 78
Likewise the world, through eimarmene 179 (that is the unbroken sequence of time), may indeed imitate eternity, but
it can never attain it. Indeed, God is the most absolute eternity, 81
infinite in form, who looks upon everything as present,
whereas the world is made varied by alternations and times.
That worthy commentator on the holy scriptures, Origen, 84
fell into this error regarding the alternations of the ages.
This is, alas, readily apparent in that book which he entitled peri Ÿ aj r cw~ n (that is, ‘Concerning the first things’), 180 87
in which he intermingled many worthless passages fromthe books of the philosophers which conflict with sound90
doctrine.
Saint Jerome, also speaking of the decrease in size of

28

93

96

Theodoricus Monachus

the human body, makes mention of the twelve stones which
the sons of Israel carried up out of the bed of the river
Jordan, when they crossed it dry-shod, just as they had crossed
the Red Sea before 181—whence the Psalmist sings:
What ailed thee, O thou sea, that thou didst flee:
and thou, O Jordan, that thou wast turned back? 182

For the Lord bade that one man from each of the tribes
should carry up onto the river-bank a stone which he could
easily lift, as testimony of so great a miracle. And Saint
Jerome attests that he had seen these same stones himself,
102 and that one of them was broken by some accident andthen bound together again with iron. He says that each ofthem was of such size that it could scarcely be carried by two
105 men, not because the stones had grown bigger, but because
men had grown smaller.183 And indeed it is now almost eight
hundred years since the blessed Jerome passed over into
108 the kingdom of heaven. 184
About seventy years ago, the body of Pallas, son of Evander,whom Turnus killed, was discovered at Rome.185 The blessed
111 Augustine says that when Pallas died an image of Apollo
wept, through the astonishing cunning of that demon, as
if it lamented the fall of this most excellent man. 186 A sil114 ver vessel was also discovered, placed upon his chest, inwhich there was a very costly mixture of myrrh and balm.
Protruding from this vessel were two golden reeds, the ends
117 of which were fixed into the nostrils of the corpse so that,by virtue of this ointment, the body would remain undecayedno less inside than out. Two engraved lines of verse were
120 also found:99

Pallas, son of Evander, whom the spear of Turnus
the warrior killed, lies here in accordance with his wish.187
123

When the body was afterwards raised up, with the hugewound under the chest exposed, its height almost equalledthat of the city walls. The corpse stood there until, after

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings29

the balm had been washed away by the rains, it caved inand the bones were committed once again to the earth.

126

Chapter 19. How the blessed Óláfr died a martyr in battle
And so, after he had assembled what force he could muster in Upplo≈ n d, Óláfr turned toward Þrándheimr, for he
had heard that Sveinn Knútsson lay in wait for him in the 3
Vík with a powerful army, and for that reason Óláfr gave
him a wide berth. But when the people of Þrándheimr had
heard of the king’s approach, they assembled in the city 6
of Niðaróss as one man against the Lord and against his
anointed, young together with old in one wretched faction,that they might attack God’s saint. 188 Among them were 9
the leaders who mounted the greatest opposition against
the king, Þórir hundr and Kálfr Árnason. 189 When the kingheard that a great host was assembled against him, he sent 12
to meet them Finnr, the brother of Kálfr, whom I mentioned
earlier.190 He was to offer the people peace, and make known
that the king’s mind was favourably disposed and that, for- 15
getful of past offences, he was ready to forgive each person
for whatever he had hitherto done unlawfully. He abhorred
the shedding of human blood, especially in civil wars, and 18
by no means wished to engage them in battle, if they would
acquiesce to his sound admonitions. But the savage temperament of those barbarous men unanimously rejected peace; 21
and rather by far than accept his salutary admonitions, thewretches chose to attack God’s saint in hostility. They all
therefore hastened to oppose the king and advanced with 24
all speed to the place which is called Stiklastaðir. 191 Finnr
the king’s messenger preceded them, however, and informed
the king that they were obstinate in their evil intent.
27
Then the blessed Óláfr, warned by a divine revelation,
had a presentiment of his death, 192 and it is said that, sum-

30

Theodoricus Monachus

moning his steward to him, 193 he ordered special alms to
be faithfully distributed out of the royal treasury for all
those who should fall while bearing arms against him in
33 this battle. For Óláfr was not unmindful of his Lord’s commandment:
30

Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you. 194

Here one may behold with wonder the spirit of our martyr. The fury of his persecutors raged and, struck with adeplorable blindness, they railed against God’s saint with
39 savage invective; 195 yet he remained unmoved and firmly
rooted in Christ, and took pains to provide for the salvation of his persecutors—and this when so hard pressed that
42 anyone might have forgotten even those most dear to him.
People throughout the world, I beg you, hear what I haveto say. This man, born in almost the remotest parts of the
45 North, among barbarians and savages, see how he shone
forth like a star, how humble he was and how sublime,
and this not in a slave’s condition, but in the exalted rank
48 of king. Consider in what frame of mind he made readyfor war, to what he directed his thoughts. His purpose wasmanifest beyond all doubt and free from any uncertainty—
51 to keep wicked men and criminals from persecuting those who
were good; to confirm the things which had been ordainedby Christ and, if it could be done, ‘of the hardest stones to
54 raise up children to Abraham’.196 That this was most certainly the case is demonstrated by the daily benefactions andthe miracles, as frequent as they are extraordinary, which
57 almighty God deigns to perform for the sake of his merits, not only in our part of the world, but wherever anyone
faithfully prays for the help of the blessed martyr. Indeed,
60 one can see how devoutly and diligently this blessed man
followed in the footsteps of that first standard-bearer of
our Saviour, namely the most blessed protomartyr Stephen.
63 Stephen, amid a hail of cascading stones, prayed for those36

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

31

who stoned him; 197 Óláfr ordered that alms be distributedon behalf of his own murderers. But in all these things He
is to be acknowledged, He praised, He glorified, who at 66
the first calling gave faith, and at the last steadfastness.
When the troops were drawn up, a bold man by the nameof Bjo≈ rn bore the standard before the king.198 He was killed 69
at once in the first engagement by Þórir hundr, who led
the van against the king. 199 This was followed immediatelyby the fall of the king who, it is said, had received a great 72
wound. Who struck him down, or whether he received one
wound or more, I will not be so bold as to affirm, sincedifferent reports are given by different people;200 nor do I 75
wish to soothe the ears of others with an obliging lie. But
when Dagr, one of the king’s captains and his kinsman,
saw that the standard had fallen with the king, he manfully 78
raised the banner up, exhorting and entreating his comrades
not to let the king’s death go unavenged,201 lest their enemies
should have dual cause for jubilation—both the slaying of 81
the king and a bloodless victory. Thereupon they all rushed
headlong into the fray, breaking two or three times throughthe enemy line and cutting down a great many men. The 84
battle dragged on until evening, when night separated thecombatants. 202 At last both sides withdrew, not so much
vanquished as exhausted and crippled by wounds. 203
87
The blessed Óláfr went to his rest on the twenty-ninth
day of July, which was then a Wednesday, in the year 1029
after the birth of our Lord, as far as I have been able to ascer- 90
tain with some degree of certainty. 204
Chapter 20. On the lack of agreement in calculating thenumber of years from the beginning of the world
It should be understood that in books nothing is as garbled as the calculation of numbers, especially through the

32

Theodoricus Monachus

fault of scribes, but also through lack of diligence on thepart of those doing the reckoning. Therefore, as I stated at
the outset, I do not wish to present this count of years as
6 preferable to one which may be more certain. For always
and everywhere I seek to avoid strife, especially in suchmatters as are not at odds with faith. But I should like to9 relate a few details from the books of ancient authors andtheir own opinions about the reckoning of years from the
beginning of the world until the advent of Christ, and to
12 set forth the diverse calculations of diverse writers.
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, the first of all those whose
writings have come down to us, deduced from the Hebrew
15 verity 205 that the time from the beginning of the world until
the birth of our Saviour was 3971 years. Because, however, the same Eusebius was unwilling to disregard alto18 gether the authority of the Septuagint translators (if indeed
this was their calculation), he observed that according tothem the same period spanned 5199 years.206 Bishop Isidore
21 of Seville posits a figure of 5154 years. 207 Bede follows
the Hebrew verity, but reckons 19 years fewer than Eusebius,that is, 3952 years. 208 Bishop Remigius of Auxerre, a man
24 of profound book-learning, follows Bede, and does not
disagree with him by so much as one year. 209 Hugh, canonof Paris, however, in everyone’s opinion and without any
27 contradiction a most careful commentator, follows in thefootsteps of Saint Jerome (as is abundantly apparent in his
chronicle) and prefers in all respects the Hebrew verity.
30 According to Jerome, therefore, and the verity which Hughgleaned with the utmost diligence from Hebrew sources,
the number of years from Adam to Christ was 3952. 210 But
33 let these remarks concerning the range of opinion among
time-reckoners suffice.
It has been related by several how almighty God soon
36 made known the merits of his martyr Óláfr, by restoring
3

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

33

sight to the blind and bestowing manifold comforts on theinfirm;211 and how, after a year and five days, Bishop Grímkell(who was the nephew of Bishop Sigeweard, whom Óláfr 39
Tryggvason had brought with him from England 212) hadÓláfr’s body exhumed and laid in a fitly adorned place inthe metropolitan city of Niðaróss, where it had been con- 42
veyed immediately after the battle was finished. But because
all these things have been recorded by several,213 I regard it
as unnecessary to dwell on matters which are already known. 45
The blessed Óláfr reigned for fifteen years, for thirteenof which he had sole possession of the realm. For during
the first year of his reign he warred against Sveinn, son of 48
Hákon the Evil, and drove him out of the country, as I
recounted earlier; and during the last year he endured a
revolt led by Sveinn, son of Knútr king of both England 51
and Denmark (about whom enough has been said), and the
kingdom was in turmoil. But in the register of Norwegiankings, five years of rule are ascribed to this same Knútr 54
and his son Sveinn and his nephew Hákon. 214
Chapter 21. On Magnús, son of the blessed Óláfr
Scarcely had three years passed after this215 when the Norwegians, moved by belated repentance of the crime which
they had committed against the blessed Óláfr, and at the 3same time unable to bear the tyranny of Sveinn’s mother,Álfífa,216 decided to send for the blessed Óláfr’s son Magnús,
then a boy of ten—seeking at least to restore to the son 6
what they had brutally snatched away from the father. For
this mission they chose four men: Ro≈ g nvaldr jarl (who, as
I mentioned earlier, was a very close friend of the blessed 9Óláfr), Einarr þambaskelmir, 217 Sveinn bryggjufótr, 218 andKálfr Árnason, who had formerly committed acts of great
enmity against Óláfr, but then, moved to repentance, strove 12

34

Theodoricus Monachus

in every way to restore the king’s son to the throne. 219 And
when these men had come to the court of Jaroslav and15 Ingigerðr in Russia, where the boy was being fostered, they
made known to the king the decision which they and everyone in Norway had made. Queen Ingigerðr was unwilling,
18 and declared that she would by no means give up the boy
unless they promised on oath that he would be made king.
For she had greatly loved the blessed Óláfr and for that
21 reason had fostered his son most conscientiously. They inturn promised everything demanded of them and more andmade ready to depart. And when they returned to Norway
24 they were received with great joy by the entire country;
and the boy Magnús was immediately made king with theapproval of the whole population.
Chapter 22. On the peace treaty between Magnús andthe king of Denmark
And so, when Sveinn Knútsson heard of the people’s devotion to King Magnús, uneasy about his own position,
3 he returned to Denmark and in the same year ended thispresent life. 220 And his father Knútr, king of England, also
departed from the affairs of this world in that same year.
6 Not much time had passed after this when King Magnús,
mindful of the wrongs which the Danes had perpetrated
against the kings of Norway, assembled a fleet and sailed
9 for Denmark. He reached the islands which we call
Brenneyjar, 221 where he was confronted by Ho≈ r ðaknútr, 222
the son of Knútr and brother of Sveinn. Whereupon the
12 leading men, seeing that the two kings, still immature, could
easily be swayed in any direction, and that they themselves
would more likely bear the blame for anything the kings
15 might do amiss, fell back on the more sensible plan ofnegotiating peace. They entered into a pact in which theThe Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

35

following condition was stipulated: that whichever of thekings should first depart from this world without an obvi- 18
ous heir (that is, a child of his own body) the one remaining should gain both kingdoms without any opposition. And
thus they parted from one another not only in agreement, 21
but actually as the best of friends. 223
Chapter 23. On the pact which was made between
Charles the Great and his brother
This treaty was not unlike that concluded by Charles (whoon account of his glorious victories and exemplary character was afterwards called ‘the Great’) with his elder brother 3
Carloman. Two years later, however, this Carloman put off
his mortal form, leaving behind his two sons, and his widow
took them and with female inconstancy fled to King 6
Liutprand 224 of Italy—which greatly displeased Charles.
This king of the Langobards did great harm to the Roman
Church, going so far as to besiege our lord the pope, con- 9
fining him in Pavia. Placed in such a desperate situation,
our lord the pope sent a written appeal to Charles, the kingof Francia, for he had heard that he was a youth of noble 12
disposition. He appealed to the king to come to the aid of
the Church in its hour of need, and wrote that one could
have no greater obligation than to support one’s mother 15
when she was in distress; that it behoved him as a Christian king to obey the supreme pontiff who, placed in thegreatest danger, awaited his coming day and night; and that 18
he should attend to the matter with all haste, for their storesof food would soon be exhausted. Although Charles had
at that time been planning an expedition against Saxony 21(which was then still devoted to idolatry), on receiving thisletter, he assembled an army with astonishing speed, forall his nobles were threatened with a grisly penalty should 24
anyone stay behind after the king’s departure. 225

36

Theodoricus Monachus

With unbelievable and unexpected speed he crossed the
27 Alps—so that that line of Lucan’s might very fittingly apply
to him:Now with rapid course had Caesar crossed the Alps. 226

He appeared without warning; no report at all of his approach had preceded him; and with his troops in battle arrayhe encircled the king of the Langobards, so that by a strange
33 and extraordinary turn of events, no escape route was left
open to the very man who had previously confined others.
When this became known in the city, it was filled with the
36 greatest rejoicing; the gates were thrown open and the citizens
boldly attacked their enemies. With Charles hemming theenemy in from without while the townspeople attacked from39 within, the entire army of the Langobards was overcome
and subjugated. The king himself was led in chains before
the feet of our lord the pope. He was handed over not to a
42 tribunal but, as he had so often deserved, to the vilification of the mob.
King Charles asked of our lord the pope what he com45 manded to be done with the prisoner. The pope answered
simply: ‘I bear a spiritual sword, not a physical one; 227 itis enough for me if the Church is given back her authority
48 and patronal rights, and those things which are Saint Peter’s
are restored to him. It is up to you’, he continued, ‘mymost dear son, to decide whether the title of “king” should
51 continue to exist in Italy; for Constantine the son of Helenarenounced that title in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ andbestowed it as a perpetual right on Saint Peter and the Roman
54 pontiff.’ 228 And so King Charles deposed the king of theLangobards, and banished him to Vienne—restoring to him,
however, his wife and children and an adequate amount
57 of money, and treating him mercifully and with kindness.
And so from that time on the Roman Church was freed
from the tyranny of the Langobards through the persever30

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

37

ance and assistance of the most Christian king, Charles, 60
some three hundred years after the Langobards first invaded
Italy. 229 But let us return to Norway.
Chapter 24. How the same Magnús, made king of theDanes, waged war against the Wends 230
Not long after the agreement mentioned above had beenconcluded between the two kings, Magnús and Knútr, thissame Knútr died without an heir. 231 When he learned of 3
this, King Magnús assembled a fleet and sailed to Denmark. There he was received with honour by the leading
men of the kingdom, who had been party to the aforemen- 6
tioned treaty; and he was raised to the throne. When newsof this reached the ears of Sveinn, the son of Úlfr and Ástríðr
(the sister of King Knútr of England), 232 he gathered an 9army and met Magnús in a naval battle. 233 But he was soon
defeated by Magnús and fled.
While these events were taking place, the Wends, whom 12
we in our mother tongue call Vindir, descended upon Denmark in unbelievable numbers, 234 covering the face of theearth like locusts. 235 That race is pagan and hostile to God, 15
savage men of the wild who live by pillage. Indeed, they
made it their custom to harry Denmark constantly with plundering raids; but on this occasion they met with an espe- 18
cially good opportunity for attack, because there was unrest in the realm. When King Magnús learned of this he
was alarmed, for he neither had time to assemble an army 21
nor thought it safe to contend with a few men against sucha multitude. Yet it seemed intolerable that the country shouldbe ravaged under his very nose. While the king was in this 24
anguished state of mind, it is said that the blessed Óláfr,
his father, appeared to him the following night and told
him to put his faith in God, for it was as easy for Him to 27

38

Theodoricus Monachus

give a victory to few as to many. He said that Magnús should
go into battle the next day, and that victory, through God’s
30 mercy, would not be denied. 236 And so, strengthened bythis vision, the following day King Magnús proceeded bravely
into combat. He marched under the standard which had
33 been his father’s, and carried in his hand Óláfr’s double-bladed
battle-axe, which was broken in the fight which followed,
and is now preserved in the cathedral of Niðaróss.237 And
36 so, all the mightier, he fell upon the enemy and laid mostof them low. The rest, with the help of God, he put shamefully to flight. This battle was fought in the place called
39 Hlýrskógsheiðr. 238
After this, there were various clashes between Sveinn and
Magnús, and they fought several battles in different places,
42 of which these were the greatest: one at Helganes, 239 another at Áróss, 240 and there were a good many 241 besides,
but since it is tedious to dwell on each of these in turn, let
45 us move on to other matters.
Chapter 25. On the return of Haraldr harðráði 242
from Greece
Realizing that he could not stand up to Magnús’s forces,
Sveinn withdrew from the country. But the king pursued
3 him with his fleet, and put in at the place called the Eyrarsund. 243 One day while they were waiting there, they saw
a ship approaching, more beautifully fitted out than is usual,
6 for the entire sail was of gleaming purple.244 The king, amazedat this unusual sight, immediately sent messengers to ask
who they were and where they were coming from. The king’s
9 messengers received the reply that this was Haraldr, brotherof King Óláfr of Norway, on his way from Greece. Haraldr’screw, in turn, asked who was the commander of the fleet
12 which they saw in the harbour. They answered that he was

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings39

the blessed Óláfr’s son Magnús, king of Denmark and Norway.
When Haraldr heard this, he went immediately to visit his
nephew, by whom he was received with honour, as was 15
fitting; and he stayed there for some days.
But when Magnús asked Haraldr whether he would help
him to bring the kingdom of Denmark under his rule, to 18
which he was entitled on just grounds, Haraldr is said tohave answered that he would rather ask Magnús to sharewith him the kingdom of Norway, to which he was entitled 21
by hereditary right. When King Magnús had given him anamicable reply (for he had a peaceable and good-natured
disposition), one of the king’s counsellors, Einarr þamba- 24
skelmir,245 thinking to himself that the words of each party
did not issue from a wellspring of equal goodwill, remarked
that it seemed just that, if King Magnús were to grant half 27
of Norway to Haraldr, then he should likewise share with
Magnús the money which he had brought back from Greece;
for Magnús was in dire need of money, having spent huge 30
sums on his continual military campaigns. Haraldr took
this answer badly and retorted that he had not exposed himself
to perils in foreign lands to amass wealth in order to en- 33
rich the retainers of his nephew Magnús. Einarr answered
him, ‘You should know, then, that wherever I can, I shallstand in the way of your gaining the throne.’ This remark, 36
as the outcome of events proved, caused the death in thisworld of Einarr and his son, for both were afterwards killed
by Haraldr.
39
Enraged by this answer, Haraldr left the king and set out
for Norway.246 When the reason for Haraldr’s departure from
Magnús became known to Sveinn, he immediately followed 42
after him, promising him half of Denmark if they could
get Magnús out of the way.

40

Theodoricus Monachus

Chapter 26. The author’s diatribe against the ambitious,and how Chosroes ended his life
O truly wretched longing for glory! O pitiable and pitiful
and, as it is described by the philosophers, truly blind
3 ambition, which tramples things divine and human, which
dishonours nature and renders devoid of self-control anyone whose mind it has once invaded. It was this which armed
6 Absalom for the murder of his father, that he might obtainthe kingdom through parricide. 247 And, to mention a pagan
example, it was ambition which drove Pharnaces, son of
9 King Mithridates of Pontus (who for forty years had waged
war against the Romans) to besiege his own father, confined in a city. 248 When Mithridates had addressed his son
12 for a long while from the highest wall of the city, desiring
to move him to mercy, and he saw that Pharnaces was inexorable, he is said to have cried out: ‘O ancestral gods,
15 if you exist at all, grant that Pharnaces too may implore
his own sons with the same entreaty as I have made, andnot be heard.’ After this he descended from the battlement
18 and gave poison to all his concubines and sons and daughters.
Then he also swallowed poison; but its force had no effectupon him, because of the countless potions with which he
21 had frequently strengthened his internal organs against thesame contagion, as a safeguard against murder at anyone’s
hands. In the end, when the wall was broken down, he
24 stretched out his neck to his executioner. 249 As Lucan saysof this:. . . scarcely ended by barbarous poison. 250

Pliny the Elder writes about this king in these words:‘Mithridates,’ he says, ‘king of Pontus, was a very powerful and rich man. He went on waging war against us for
30 forty years with varying results. He was king over twenty-two
nations, and gave judicial decisions in as many languages,
27

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

41

addressing each group in turn at its assembly without theaid of an interpreter.’ 251
33
This same wretched ambition armed Syrois to murder his
father Chosroes. And since I have made mention of thisking, I pray that it will not seem burdensome to the reader 36
if a few selections from the Roman History 252 are added
here as they are found in the work which is called ‘On theexaltation of the Holy Cross’,253 a book in which many streaks 39
of falsehood appear among some true details and which,for that reason, is not accepted by the holy Roman Church.
For Pope Gelasius, a man of great learning and authority 42
in God’s Church, distinguishes in a brief sermon the apocryphal writings from the sacred canon,254 saying that God’s
Church has no need of support from falsehood, for it is 45
founded by God, who is truth itself. The blessed Augustine corroborates this in several places with the same sentiment and in almost the same words.255 This same Gelasius 48
includes among the apocrypha the passions of the apostles (except that of Andrew alone), the book of the infancy
of Jesus, the book about the birth of the blessed Mary, the 51
itinerary of Clement, the gospel according to Thomas, thegospel according to Bartholomew, and many other texts
which it would take a long time to enumerate. 256
54
But now let us see how this treatise, ‘On the exaltationof the Holy Cross’, accords with the truth of the RomanHistory.257 Heraclius (son of Heraclius, the governor of Africa), 57
a very bold military man, was elected as Roman emperor
by his soldiers. For six years in succession he marauded
through all Persia, and razed to the ground countless cities, 60
and even the most venerable buildings of the ancient kings.
He fought a Persian giant on a bridge in single combat,
defeated him and hurled him into the river below. And he 63
forced Chosroes himself to flee to the remotest hiding-placesin his kingdom. When he had surrendered to complete despair,42

Theodoricus Monachus

Chosroes named his son Mardasa king. On learning of this,Syrois, Chosroes’ first-born son, bore it exceedingly ill thathe should be rejected, since he was entitled to the throne
69 by order of birth; and having won over the military commander Gundabunda, he brought the entire army over tohis side. At once he set out in pursuit of his father Chosroes,
72 caught him and, after fettering his feet and neck with massive chains, shut him up in an underground chamber which
the king himself had built in a well-concealed spot as a
75 hiding-place for his treasure. Then Syrois gave his commands and said: ‘Let him eat gold and silver, for which heimpiously slaughtered many and laid waste all the world.’258
78 And then Syrois committed a crime unparalleled throughout all time, but so it was ordained by divine judgment.
For he summoned the viceroys who he knew particularly
81 hated his father, and handed Chosroes over to them for fivedays, to be maltreated and spat upon and subjected to various
outrages. And then at last he ordered the king to be shot
84 to death with arrows, but not before five of his sons were
put to death before their father’s own eyes. So this was
the end of that impious man, the violator of the temple of
87 the Lord and proud beyond human limits. For he had answered Heraclius’s envoys, who had come to him to sue
for peace, with great pride, saying that either the Chris90 tians should relinquish their own religion and join him inworshipping the sun, or else their kingdom would be completely destroyed. 259 But God let this arrogance recoil upon
93 the blasphemer’s own head. And yet, although Chosroes
paid a fitting penalty for his crimes, it was neverthelessabominable before both God and men that what he suf96 fered was at the hands of a child of his own body.
And did not this same wretched ambition drive Domitian,a thoroughly wicked man and practically another Nero, to
99 plot against the life of his brother Titus? This Titus, be66

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

43

cause of his benign character and innate goodness, was called
the delight of the human race. One day, when it was drawing toward evening, he recalled that on that day he had 102
done no one a service, for no one had asked anything ofhim; and he is reported to have said to his comrades: ‘Today I have squandered a day, for I have done no one a 105
service.’ 260 Titus tried to mollify his brother Domitian withkind words, begging him not to defile himself with the bloodof his own brother, for in a short time the supreme rule 108
would be his, and it was not fitting that he should obtainit through such a crime. But these words were, alas, too
true, for Titus survived on the throne for only two years, 111
and Domitian succeeded him. And the latter also added
this to his crimes, that he instigated the next persecutionof Christians after Nero. But let us now pursue our own 114
subject. 261
Chapter 27. How King Magnús shared the throne of
Norway with his father’s brother; and on Magnús’s death
When King Magnús heard that Haraldr his uncle and Sveinn
had left for Norway and had entered into an alliance against
him, he at once set out after them. But when they heard that 3
the king was on his way, they were afraid to confront him
and turned back to Denmark. And so King Magnús, decidingthat he could scarcely defend both kingdoms against their 6
aggression, sent a legation to recall his uncle Haraldr. Magnús
yielded one half of the kingdom of Norway to him, demanding
nothing in return, save that Haraldr should be obliged to 9
join him in defending both kingdoms, while Magnús should
nevertheless have sole rule over the kingdom of Denmark.
This agreement between nephew and uncle was settled 12
by a lake in Upplo≈ nd 262 in the presence of Bishop Grímkell,
Einarr þambaskelmir 263 and many other leading men, who

44

Theodoricus Monachus

declared absolutely that they were on no condition willingto serve under two kings unless they were bound together
by a treaty of peace. They knew perfectly well that any
18 kingdom divided within itself would go to ruin;264 and therefore they made a firm agreement among themselves that whoever would not abide by the peace treaty should be put to
21 death. Concerning this sort of insane dissension Virgil exclaims:
15

24

27

That rulers have for long enough defiled the honourable
bonds of peace,
Wretches whom a hideous longing for power has held
prisoner—
This I confess I have written of.
It is enough to remember such evils! 265

Lucan, likewise, says of the same subject:
30

The frenzy of arms hangs over us; and the power of the sword
will overturn all justice by force;And execrable crime shall have the name of valour;
And this madness will take many years to pass away. 266

And so, when this peace was settled between uncle andnephew, King Magnús sailed to Denmark and drove out
Sveinn, who in the meantime had now subjugated the en36 tire country to his rule. Magnús lived on for only one year
after the expulsion of Sveinn. 267 And when he sensed thatthe day of his death was at hand, Magnús sent to Sveinn a
39 man named Þórir, Magnús’s half-brother on his mother’sside, and restored the throne of Denmark to Sveinn because
he was entitled to it by hereditary right. 268
42This Magnús, son of the blessed martyr Óláfr, was a man
distinguished by goodness, endowed with gentleness,
vigorous in warfare, and marvellously skilful in the con45 duct of public affairs. For these reasons he almost always
emerged the victor in any contest; and because of his pleasant nature and generosity he was very popular with all
48 his subjects. Magnús reigned for eleven years, for five of
which he ruled over both kingdoms.
33

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

45

Chapter 28. How King Haraldr led an expedition against
England, was defeated in battle and died
After him Haraldr, the brother of the blessed Óláfr, reigned
for twenty years. He ruled nineteen years on his own, andone year with his nephew Magnús. Haraldr was a vigor- 3
ous man, far-sighted in his decision-making, quick to takeup arms, jealous of what was his and covetous of what wasanother’s; and so he waged many wars against Sveinn, in 6
the hope of wresting from him the kingdom of Denmark. 269
But when this met with little success, he prepared an expedition against England, urged on by Tostig, the brother 9of King Harold of England.270 Tostig promised Haraldr half
the kingdom if he drove out his brother, for by hereditary
right Tostig was no less entitled to the throne. 271
12
When Haraldr arrived in England together with the aforementioned Tostig, they made the territory of Northumbria
subject to their rule. King Harold of England had at that 15
time gone to Normandy; 272 but when he heard of the arrival of enemies, he made a speedy return to England,
assembled a huge army and took the invaders unawares. 18
When Harold drew near, most of the Norwegian forces,
laden with booty, made for their ships. The remainder, thoughfew, with steadfast courage prepared for battle. ‘But what 21
can a few brave men do against so many thousands?’ 273
And as King Haraldr himself, mounted on horseback, endeavoured to draw up his battle line, his horse stumbled 24
and he was thrown to the ground; whereupon he is reported
to have said: ‘Seldom is a sign of this sort an omen of
victory.’ 274 Nor was he mistaken in this unlucky omen, for 30
he fell in that same battle. Tostig, the brother of King Haroldof England, who had lured Haraldr there, was also killed,
and almost all their army was annihilated. This battle took 33
place in the year 1066 after the birth of Christ. For several
days a comet appeared with a glowing red tail; and this

46

Theodoricus Monachus

prefigured the defeat of the English, which followed immediately afterwards.275
This Haraldr had performed many bold deeds in his youth,
39 overthrowing many heathen cities and carrying off greatriches in Russia and in Ethiopia (which we call Bláland
in our mother tongue). 276 From there he travelled to Jeru42 salem and was everywhere greatly renowned and victorious. After he had travelled through Sicily and taken much
wealth by force there, 277 he came to Constantinople. And
45 there he was arraigned before the emperor; but he inflicted
an amply shameful disgrace upon that same emperor and,making an unexpected escape, he slipped away. 278
36

Chapter 29. On his son Óláfr
After Haraldr was killed in England, his son Óláfr returned
to Norway with the remains of his army. This Óláfr had a
3 brother by the name of Magnús, who ruled alone for one
year, while his brother was away on the expedition against
England which I have just described. After that, Magnús
6 lived on for only a few years, and left after him one son
whose name was Hákon, whom a worthy man named SteigarÞórir, born to high station among his own people, under9 took to foster. 279
After this, Óláfr reigned for twenty-seven years. He wasa man dear to both God and men, who made every effort
12 to achieve a state of peace and concord. 280 He allowed
everyone to enjoy what was his own, but restrained thebase behaviour of wicked men by authority alone. He built
15 a basilica in honour of the Holy Trinity in the metropolitan city of Niðaróss, where the body of the blessed martyrÓláfr now rests, just as in the same city his father Haraldr
18 had built a church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary,
which may be seen to this day. 281 And I would be at a loss

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings47

to name another of the Norwegian kings, from the time of
Haraldr Fair-hair down to the present day, who enjoyed a 21
happier reign than he.282 He died in the Vík, but is said tohave been buried in the aforementioned church of Niðarósswhich he himself had built. 283
24
Chapter 30. On Magnús berfœttr, and a brief account of
the portents which preceded the death of CharlesÓláfr was succeeded by Magnús, his son by a concubine.
His nickname was ‘barefoot’. 284 He reigned for ten years,
one of them together with his uncle’s son, Hákon. This Hákon 3
was a promising youth; and he is praised for having removed the taxes hitherto unjustly laid upon the necks ofthe people of his part of the country. 285 When he was sub- 6
sequently removed from the light of this world by an untimely death,286 Hákon left the throne to his cousin Magnús,
who ruled after that for nine years. This Magnús was very 9
unlike his father in character, and resembled more his grandfather, Haraldr. 287
And since I mentioned a little earlier that this same Haraldr 12
had tumbled from his horse and that his death was prefigured in that fall, I should like to recount briefly the portents which preceded the death of the most victorious and 15
most outstanding of all exceptional men, Charles the Great.288
The first portent involved the bridge over the Rhine at Mainz,
constructed over a period of eight years, 289 and so firmly 18
built that it was thought it would last for ever. But on thevery day that it was completed, a cloud gathered over thebridge and a thunderbolt suddenly fell and burnt up the 21
whole structure, so that not so much as a splinter was left
standing above the water. The second portent involved themassive portico in Aachen, between the basilica and the 24
palace. One Sunday when the emperor himself wanted to

48

Theodoricus Monachus

enter the upper church, the entire structure fell to the ground
27 before his feet. 290 The third portent involved the ruler’s own
name, written along the top of a wall in golden letters solarge that anyone standing on the floor below could read
30 them with great ease. In the last year of his life, however,this inscription was so effaced that it could not be read atall. The fourth sign which prefigured his death was that
33 while he was riding on a calm day, carrying his lance inhis hand, a thunderbolt fell right in front of his horse’s
feet, throwing it down and the king with it. His lance was
36 also knocked from his hand and thrown a long way off andthe saddle-girths were torn apart, but the emperor himself
remained uninjured. This happened during Charles’s last
39 campaign, which he waged against King Hemming ofDenmark. 291 Hemming had spoken disdainfully against his
imperial majesty, and crossed through the middle of Saxony,
42 a region which after thirty years of continual rebellion Charles
had barely, by dint of much sweat and untiring persistence,
managed to bend to the gentle yoke of Christ. For the Saxons
45 had on three occasions cruelly put to death the bishops
and priests who had been sent to them. So finally, the most
merciful emperor, disgusted by their wicked behaviour, sent
48 and had killed all parents, both men and women, who weretaller than his sword. 292 And when there were only boys
remaining, he had bishops and priests ordained for them,
51 who were to teach them the way of eternal salvation, since‘a jar will long keep the scent of what it was once steeped
in when new’. 293 But when Hemming heard that the em54 peror was approaching, he went humbly to meet him andreceived forgiveness.
And although Charles most certainly knew that these signs
57 in some way foretold his death, nevertheless he dismissed
them all with manly steadfastness and strength of mind.
For the mark of indomitable virtue shone in him, and with

The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

49

that superiority of spirit he disdained both good fortune 60
and bad. And lest any trace of virtue be omitted from thisdescription of his most perfect character, let me add thatin making and maintaining friendships he surpassed almost 63
all mortal men; for he made friends readily and took theutmost pains to nurture their friendship. But let us returnto our own affairs.
66
Chapter 31. On the deeds of Magnús berfœttr
And so, after Hákon, the son of Óláfr’s brother Magnús,
had died, Steigar-Þórir, who had fostered Hákon, was disgruntled that the entire kingdom of Norway should be under 3
the rule of Magnús; so he set up a certain Sveinn Haraldsson
as a pseudo-king in opposition to Magnús 294—as is common practice among the Norwegians. When Magnús learned 6of this, he immediately set off in pursuit of the fugitiveÞórir, and captured him on a small island in the provinceof Hálogaland. The name of the island was Vambarhólmr295 9
and there Magnús hanged him together with another chieftainby the name of Egill, an upright and very eloquent man. 296
12
But the Sveinn just mentioned escaped.
After this, Magnús prepared an expedition against Gautland, where he wished to re-take three territories, the namesof which are Dalr, Ho≈ fuð, and Véar. 297 He said that these 15
territories had anciently belonged to the kings of Norway,
but had been seized by violence by the kings of the Gautar;and so he wanted to reclaim them by force of arms if no 18
alternative was offered. As Lucan says:. . . to the man bearing weapons he grants everything. 298

And yet Magnús accomplished little in this first campaign. 21
In the second, he did in fact engage in battle; but he wasbeaten and fled alone, accompanied only by his companion,¯gmundr Skoptason. 299 Peace was, however, negotiated 24

50

Theodoricus Monachus

through the good offices of the king of the Gautar Ingi Steinkelsson,300 a most excellent man, who also gave his daugh27 ter Margareta to Magnús in marriage, and made the aforementioned territories over to him, calling them a dowry.301
At that time there were many noble men in Magnús’s army,
30 among whom Sigurðr ullstrengr 302 was the foremost no lessfor his prowess than for his nobility. He afterwards built arenowned cloister in honour of both the blessed Benedict
33 and the most precious and invincible martyr of Christ,
Laurence, on a tiny island which lies off the metropolitan
city of Niðaróss. 303
After that, Magnús went to the Orkney Islands, which36
were part of his kingdom. Magnús was a restless man who
coveted the property of others and set little value on his
39 own. He harried Scotland and Cornwall (which we call
Bretland ) with pillaging and carried out viking raids. In
the latter place he killed Earl Hugh of Cornwall (whose
42 nickname was ‘the stout’) when he offered resistance. 304
With the king at that time was Erlendr, earl of Orkney,along with his most excellent son Magnús, a promising
45 youth of eighteen. Frequent miracles bear witness to thegreatness of his merit in the eyes of God. 305 There werealso many others: Dagr, the father of Gregorius, Viðkunnr306
48 Jóansson, Úlfr Hranason (the brother of Sigurðr, who was
the father of Nikulás whom the baleful tyrant Eysteinn killedin the city of Niðaróss), 307 and many more.
Chapter 32. On the death of the same Magnús and his son308

3

With his ships laden with much booty, King Magnús returned to Norway. Then after an interval of a few years,
he again made ready a fleet, and with his usual restlessness of spirit returned to Ireland in the hope of conquering the whole island. However, after winning control overThe Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

51

part of the island, hoping that the rest might be conquered 6
with ease, he began to lead his army with less caution, andfell into the same trap as his grandfather Haraldr in England. For when the Irish, prepared to die for their country, 9
had gathered a whole host, they cut off any avenue of retreat to the ships, attacked the enemy fiercely, and brought
down King Magnús. 309 Part of his army fell there with him; 12
the rest made their way back to the ships as best they could.
Magnús left three sons—Eysteinn, Sigurðr and Óláfr. 310
On his way to Ireland, he had brought Sigurðr with him 311 15
to the Orkneys. After his father died he returned to Norway and was elevated to the throne along with his brothers. Óláfr, cut off by a premature death, was removed from 18
the light of this world in the third year after the death of
his father. 312 And all Norway mourned him, because he had
been well liked by all on account of his gracious manners 21
and agreeable speech. After his death, his two brothers divided
the kingdom between them. After he had ruled the kingdom for twenty years, however, Eysteinn departed from 24
human affairs; 313 and his brother Sigurðr alone ruled all
Norway for seven years.
Eysteinn was a paragon of honesty who governed him- 27
self no less than his subjects with moderation and wisdom.
He was a king who loved peace, an assiduous manager ofpublic affairs, and above all a fosterer of the Christian religion. 30
For this reason he built a monastery in honour of SaintMichael the Archangel beside the city of Bergen, as one
can still see to this day. 314 In fact, he built buildings which 33
were of great benefit to the kingdom in very many places—
for example, the palace at Bergen, which was a beautiful
piece of craftsmanship, though made of wood, and which 36
has now almost collapsed from excessive age. He also built
the port at Agðanes, to the great benefit of sailors; 315 andin this he imitated Augustus Caesar, 316 who built the port 39

52

Theodoricus Monachusof Brundisium, which was destined to benefit almost thewhole world. Likewise, the same Augustus ordered public
42 roads to be laid out at vast expense for the benefit of theentire empire, through places which had previously been
impassable and full of swamps. On that public highway
45 he wished there to be such general peace in honour of theemperor, that if any thief, murderer, or sorcerer were caught
on it, he should suffer no injury whatsoever, so long as he48 remained there. 317 That this was an established practice isamply corroborated by the writings of the ancients.
Chapter 33. On King Sigurðr and his deeds
Among the many outstanding deeds which King Sigurðr
performed, one thing in particular is remembered with words
3 of praise: that he voyaged to Jerusalem with his fleet in
the seventh year after that city had been freed from thetyranny of the Persians by the grace of God.318 He is praised
6 for having razed to the ground many cities of the heathenson that expedition. Among these, he even took from theheathens Sidon, the most renowned city of the province
9 of Phoenicia, and restored it to the Christians. 319 He also
captured, through cunning no less than force, a mountainside cave which was full of robbers who plagued the en12 tire region, and so freed the country from their depredations. 320 He performed many bold deeds, and was honoured
by King Baldwin 321 with numerous gifts, the foremost of
15 which, and the one rightly to be placed before all the rest,
was a piece of wood from the Lord’s cross.322 And so Sigurðr
returned home with great glory from this expedition, while
18 his brother Eysteinn was still alive.
At that time Sigurðr was deservedly counted among thebest of rulers, but later only among those who were middling.
21 Some say that his mind became deranged because he drankThe Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings

53

some poisonous concoction. 323 But let those who maintainthis answer for their own words. I, for my part, leave it anopen question.
24
Chapter 34. On Haraldr of Ireland
At this time a certain Haraldr came to King Sigurðr from
Scotland, 324 and said that he was his brother, that is to say
the son of King Magnús nicknamed ‘barefoot’. And he was 3
stubborn in requesting that he be permitted, according to
the laws of the land, to prove what he said. So King Sigurðr
ordered him (more harshly than fairly as it seemed to some) 6
to walk over nine red-hot ploughshares, contrary to ecclesiastical decision. 325 But assisted by God, as it is believed,
he showed himself unburnt.
9
A few years after that, King Sigurðr put off his humanform. 326 And here I too shall end this little document ofmine, since I deem it utterly unfitting to record for poster- 12
ity the crimes, killings, perjuries, parricides, desecrationsof holy places, the contempt for God, the plundering no lessof the clergy than of the whole people, the abductions of 15
women, and other abominations which it would take longto enumerate. All these things so flooded in, as if in one cesspit, after the death of King Sigurðr that the satirist may seem 18
to have alluded to our nation in particular when he said:
Straightway, all evil burst forth into this age of baser vein;
Modesty and truth and faith fled the earth,21
And in their place came tricks and plots and snares,
Violence and cursed love of gain. 327

Indeed, Lucan advises that one should conceal the crimes 24
of one’s own people, when he says:
Turn away, my mind, from this phase of the war
and leave it to the shades;27
Let no age learn from me in my poetry of evils such as these,
nor of the full licence of civil war. 328

5430

Theodoricus Monachus

and elsewhere:
Rome, about what you did in this battle,
I shall be silent. 329

I have touched upon these few details concerning our forefathers to the best of my ability, though with an inexpert pen,and treated not what I have seen, but what I have heard. 330
36 For this reason, if anyone should condescend to read this,and should perhaps be displeased that I have arranged thisaccount as I have, I beg that he should not accuse me of
39 falsehood, because I have learned what I have written fromthe report of others. And let him know that I would assuredly have rather seen someone other than myself act as
42 the chronicler of these events, but since to date this has
not happened, I preferred that it should be me rather thanno one. 331
33

Here ends Theodoricus the monk’s account of theancient history of the Norwegian kings

NOTES
1. in historiam de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium: Cf. DMLBS,
s.v. antiquitas, d., ‘ancient history’; OED, s.v. antiquity, 6: ‘(Nowpl. or collect., formerly often sing.). Matters, customs, precedents, or events of earlier times; ancient records.’—The title
here in B and S, historia de antiquitate . . . , agrees with the
opening sentence of the Prologue and the incipit before ch. 1
below. AKL, however, begin here with Incipit prologus . . . inecclesiasticam historiam Norwagiensium.
2. Eysteinn Erlendsson, archbishop of Niðaróss 1161–1188.
3. Cf. Theodoricus’s further remarks on his Icelandic informantsin ch. 1. Sven Aggesen (Brevis Historia Regum Dacie i, 1917–
1922, I, 96; Christiansen 1992, 49) and Saxo Grammaticus (Gesta
Danorum, praef. i.4; Fisher–Davidson 1979–1980, I, 5) likewise acknowledge their debt to Icelanders for information about
early Scandinavian history. On Theodoricus’s possible or probableuse of written as well as oral Icelandic sources, see Introd.
pp. xiii–xviii, xx–xxiii; Bjarni Guðnason 1977; Lange 1989,
97 ff. Theodoricus’s remark, ‘those whom we call Icelanders’,
was meant to be pointed. It contrasts with the usage of somelearned men, the author of Hist. Norw. and Saxo Grammaticus,
for example, who called Icelanders Tilenses, implying the identification of Iceland with the Thule of the ancients, an identification of which Theodoricus is not convinced: see ch. 3.
4. Cf. remarks on poetical sources by Saxo (Gesta Danorum,
praef. i.3; Fisher–Davidson 1979–1980, I, 5), and Snorri(Hkr[prologus]). For discussion of cases where Theodoricus
may have drawn on scaldic poetry as source material, see Lange
1989, 55–97; cf. Introd. pp. xvii–xviii.
5. A similarly nationalistic motive for writing history is expressedby, for example, Saxo (Gesta Danorum praef. i.1; Fisher–Davidson
1979–1980, I, 4) and William of Malmesbury (Gesta regumii. prol.; 1998, 150; cf. Richter 1938, 57). See Hanssen 1949, 74.
6. Haraldi pulchre-comati: on Haraldr’s by-name, hárfagri, see
Lind 1920–1921, 136; Fidjestøl 1997a, 9–12. We have translated into English all Norse nicknames which Theodoricus renders
into Latin. Cf., for example, chs 30, 34, where Theodoricus’s

56

Theodoricus Monachus

rendering of berfœttr (‘bare-leg’) as nudipes is translated ‘barefoot’. Where Theodoricus introduces a vernacular term, we haveretained the standard Old West Norse form of the word in ourtranslation. Thus, for example, in the heading to ch. 30, De
Magno berfort, the Norse nickname berfœttr is retained. Cf.
nn. 16 and 284 below.
7. Cf. Boethius, Cons. Phil. II, pr. 7, 13 (scriptorum inops . . .
obliuio for Theodoricus’s scriptorum inops . . . opinio).
8. Hugh of St Victor (†1141). Hanssen (1949, 123) notes thatthe phrase vir undecunque doctissimus was originally applied
to Varro in a verse by the grammarian Terentianus Maurus (Demetris 2846: Vir doctissimus undecumque Varro). Augustine’s
quotation of the verse in De civitate Dei VI.ii ensured the popularity of the formula.
9. Storm (1880, ad 3.21) identifies a parallel passage in thesynopsis of world history included in the Liber exceptionum,
a compilation formerly thought to be the work of Hugh of St
Victor (printed by Migne under the title Exceptiones priores, PL 177, 191–284), but now attributed to Richard of St
Victor (†1173; see Chatillon 1948; Goy 1976, 492–493 and n.
25). Cf. Liber exceptionum I.x.10 ‘De gente Normannorum’, 1–8.
10. Cf. Sigebert of Gembloux († 1112), Chronica, s.a. 853 (1844,
340).
11. non visa sed audita: cf. the same phrase at 34.35 (Storm 1880,
68.2). Hanssen (1945, 172–173, and 1949, 75–76) cites examples of this formula from hagiographic texts, and comparesin particular Gregory the Great’s invocation of the exampleof the evangelists Mark and Luke to justify his use of secondary informants in writing of past events (Dialogi I. prol. 10):‘quia Marcus et Lucas euangelium quod scripserunt, non uisu
sed auditu didicerunt.’ The opposition of ‘things seen’ and ‘things
heard’ was a commonplace of medieval historiography which
distinguished between chronicling the events of one’s own timeas an eyewitness, and writing history based on information
gathered from secondary (written or oral) sources. A clear senseof the greater authority of history recorded by an eyewitness
is reflected in Isidore’s derivation of the word historia (Etym.
I.xli.1): ‘Dicta autem Graece historia aj p o; tou ¥ i{storei¥n, id est

Notes57

a videre vel cognoscere. Apud veteres enim nemo conscribebat
historiam, nisi is qui interfuisset, et ea quae conscribenda essent
vidisset.’ For further examples and discussion, see Schulz 1909,
17–20, 28–31; Momigliano 1961–1962; Guenée 1980, 77–78;
Goffart 1988, 118–119; Lange 1989, 35, 43–47, 102–105, and refs.
12. non inutiles: Hanssen (1949, 176) suggests that the phrase
has a contextual sense, ‘not uninteresting’.
13. Theodoricus’s use of the deprecatory schedula (originally‘a loose leaf’) to refer to his history both here and in ch. 34(Storm 1880, 67.7) is a conventional ‘modesty formula’ (seeHanssen 1949, 76–78; Lange 1989, 34 and refs).
14. certissimae: or perhaps for certissime (adv.): ‘since I know
for a certainty that you lack neither the understanding . . . nor
the good will . . .’ Cf. Skard 1941, 268; Hanssen 1949, 71.
15. de Longobardis: translated ‘Langobards’, rather than ‘Lombards’, to allow for Theodoricus’s remarks on the derivationof the name in ch. 17.
16. De Magno berfort : for berfotr, i.e. berfœttr. Cf. nn. 6 and 284.
17. Storm prints 858, the reading in S, and points out that thesame year is given for the beginning of Haraldr’s reign in Annales
regii (ed. Storm 1888, 98; cf. Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1964, 184–
191). Suhm (1783, 314 n.) suggested that the 1052 date in A,
M, and K was an error for 852 (cf. Ellehøj 1965, 183, n. 35;
Skånland 1966; Salvesen 1969, 51 and 89, n. 4). Lange argues in favour of the L reading, 862 (Lehmann 1937, 121; rpt
1959–1962, 428 [6.3]), which agrees with the date given for
Haraldr’s accession in Annales Reseniani (ed. Storm 1888, 13).
It is a date for which a comparative reckoning in Íslendingabók
makes Ari a not improbable source (cf. Lange 1989, 115–118;
Stefán Karlsson 1977, 694). But behind the 858/862 difficulty
there presumably lies the fact that at some stage ‘lviii’ (58)
was read as ‘lxii’ (62), or ‘lxii’ was read as ‘lviii’. We haveno way of deciding which stood in the manuscript from which
Kirchmann took his copies.
18. Ari, Íslendingabók, prologus and ch. 1, offers a close but
not precise verbal parallel: ‘[Haraldr enn hárfagri] es fyrstrvarð þess kyns einn konungr at o ≈ l lum Norvegi . . . En svá essagt at Haraldr væri sjau tegu vetra konungr ok yrði áttrœðr.’58

Theodoricus Monachus(Cf. Andersson 1979, 16.) Ágrip, ch. 4 fin., likewise gives 70
years as the length of Haraldr’s reign. Other sources recordthat Haraldr ruled for 73 years (Nóregs konunga tal st. 9 [Skjd.
A I, 580], Hist. Norw. 104.4, Fsk ch. 5, Ólhelg[Sep] ch. 1,‘Konungatal i Noregi’, Flat. I, 583), probably on the assumption that the two years Haraldr lived after transferring power
to Eiríkr blóðøx were a period of joint rule between father andson. Cf. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 31–32; idem 1941–1951,
I, lxxi–lxxvi; Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1964, 177; Ellehøj 1965, 69–70,
248 and 252–253; Lange 1989, 216–217, n. 386.
19. L has in hoc libro (see Lange 1989, 184, n. 21). Cf. Storm
1880, 6.8: in hoc loco.
20. curiosiores: or perhaps ‘more careful’.
21. This need not imply that Theodoricus was unfamiliar withwritten sources of information about the reign of Haraldr Fairhair, only that sources such as the historical writings of Sæmundr
or Ari were too recent to be regarded as auctoritates (cf. BjarniGuðnason 1977, 109; Lange 1989, 105 and n. 313; Introd. pp.
xv–xvi). Lange (1989, 105) suggests that Theodoricus may simply
mean that he has been forced to work out the year of Haraldr’s
accession himself, by relative chronology from other dates given
in a written source, and that the year as such was not specified in any history or chronicle known to him. Andersson (1979,
12–13) argues that, while Theodoricus probably made gooduse of Icelandic written sources, in this passage he expresses
his awareness that there are uncertainties when such sources
are ultimately based on oral tradition. Cf. Introd. p. xiv.
22. Cf. 1 Tim. 1:4 [vet. lat.]. Lehmann 1937 (1959–1962, 384)
suggests that the citation is coloured by a reminiscence of Titus
3:9. Old Latin (vet. lat.) readings are from Sabatier 1743–1749.
23. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:16.
24. Storm (1880, ad loc.) and Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson (1941–1951,I, 119, n.1) suggest that fratrum interfector may be substitutedfor Eiríkr’s more familiar vernacular by-name blóðøx (renderedsanguinea securis in Hist. Norw. 105.4–5). Cf. Ágrip ch. 5:‘Hann réð Óláf digrbein bróður sinn ok Bjo≈ r n ok fleiri brœðr
sína; því var hann kallaðr blóðøx, at maðrinn var ofstopamaðr
ok greypr.’ Beyschlag (1950, 136) and Lange (1989, 56–57)

Notes59

suggest that Theodoricus may recall the epithet brœðra søkkvi
(‘sinker/destroyer of brothers’) applied to Eiríkr in a verse by
Egill Skallagrímsson (lausavísa 20, Skjd. A I, 53; Turville-Petre
1976, 22–23). According to Fsk ch. 8, Eiríkr earned the blóðøx
nickname for his viking raids um o ≈ l l Vestrlo ≈ n d.
25. According to the D and E versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
Eiríkr was accepted as king of Northumbria in 948, but was
driven out the same year. He returned in 952 and was expelledagain in 954 (ASC 1892–1899, I, 112–113; EHD I, 223–224).
A later English tradition recorded by Roger of Wendover has
it that Eiríkr ‘was treacherously killed by Earl Maccus in acertain lonely place which is called Stainmore’ (in Westmorland;
Flores Historiarum I, 402–403; EHD I, 284; copied in Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora I, 458; cf. Steenstrup, III, 88–
89). According to Ágrip ch. 7 and Hist. Norw. 106.4–6, Eiríkr
died on a viking expedition in Spain after being forced out of
Northumbria (a detail which Finnur Jónsson, 1920–1924, II,614, n. 2, suggests may be due to a confusion of Stan- with
Span-). Fsk ch. 8 and Hkr(Hákgóð) ch. 4 say that he and fiveother kings died together in battle in an unnamed place in England;see Seeberg 1978–1981.
26. Cf. Nóregs konunga tal, st. 11 (Skjd. A I, 580): ‘var vigfímr /vetr at landi / eírekr allz / einn ok fíora’, i.e. five years in all(probably including three years of joint rule with Haraldr; cf.
Fsk ch. 5, Hkr(Hhárf ) ch. 42; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–
1951, I, lxxv, n. 3). The author of Ágrip (ch. 5) likewise saysthat Eiríkr’s reign in Norway lasted five years, but counts only
two years of joint rule with Haraldr. Hist. Norw. (105.10) and‘Konungatal í Noregi’ (Flat. I, 583) say that Eiríkr ruled Norway for only one year.
27. Anno Haraldi nono vel . . . decimo: AKSL have regno Haraldi
nono, etc.
28. With this account of the discovery of Iceland cf. Landnámabók(Sturlubók redaction), ch. 3.
29. The term socer here probably renders Old West Norse mágrin the sense ‘brother-in-law’. Hjo≈ rleifr was married to Ingólfr’ssister Helga (cf. Landnámabók [Sturlubók redaction] ch. 6).
30. See n. 17 on the different dates given for the beginning of

60

Theodoricus Monachus

Haraldr’s reign. According to the Sturlubók redaction ofLandnámabók (ch. 8), Ingólfr set out for Iceland in the summer of 874, when ‘Haraldr hárfagri had been twelve years kingof Norway’.
31. Britannia minor: usually ‘Brittany’ rather than Ireland (cf.
Grässe–Benedict–Plechl 1972, I, 336, s.v.). At 7.12 Theodoricus
uses the term Britannia major to refer to Wales/Cornwall (seebelow, n. 59).
32. Cf. Íslendingabók, ch. 1; Landnámabók (Sturlubók redaction),ch. 1, on the books, bells, and croziers said to have been leftin Iceland by Irish anchorites.
33. Cf. Landnámabók (Sturlubók redaction), chs 4–5, on the voyages
of Garðarr Svávarsson and Flóki Vilgerðarson. On the likelihood that Theodoricus drew his information about the discovery of Iceland from written Icelandic sources, see Sveinbjörn
Rafnsson 1976, 221–229; Lange 1989, 110–111.
34. nutricius Halstani: cf. his vernacular sobriquet Aðalsteinsfóstri.
On the Scandinavian tradition that Hákon was the foster-sonof Æthelstan of Wessex (924–939) see Page 1981, 113–115.
35. I.e. one year together with Eiríkr, and twenty-four years assole ruler (in peace for nineteen years, and for five years at
war with his nephews). Nóregs konunga tal (st. 14, Skjd. A I,581), Fsk (ch.13), and ‘Konungatal i Noregi’ (Flat. I, 583) recordthat Hákon’s reign lasted twenty-six years. Snorri (Hkr[Hákgóð]ch. 28) says that Hákon ruled for twenty-six years after theflight of Eiríkr, and gives the full length of his reign as twentyseven years in Ólhelg(Sep), ch. 10. Hist. Norw. (106.17–18)
has the same count of years. The years of Hákon’s reign givenin Ágrip add up to 24. Cf. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 1941–1951,
I, lxxv; Ellehøj 1965, 249 and 253.
36. recte Statius, Thebaid, i.151 (= Walther 1969, no. 22839).
Sven Aggesen cites Thebaid, i.154–155 in Brevis Historia Regum
Dacie xiii, 1917–1922, I, 130; Christiansen 1992, 68 and 131,n. 152.
37. Lucan, Bell. civ., i.92–93 (= Walther 1969, no. 20262a), cited
again below at 14.39–40. The lines are often quoted as a familiar
adage; cf., for example, Sven Aggesen, Brevis Historia Regum
Dacie xiii, 1917–1922, I, 130; Christiansen 1992, 68 and 131,

Notes61

n. 151; Magnúss saga lengri ch. 22; Vaughan 1958, 128; Foote
1988, 199.
38. One is tempted to translate malitia as ‘sorcery’ here. Cf. Du
Cange 1883–1887, s.v., 3: ‘maleficium, incantatio, veneficium’.
The author of Ágrip (ch. 6) says that a ‘cook’ (matsveinn) managed
to wound Hákon with a missile ‘through the witchcraft ofGunnhildr’ (með gørningum Gunnhildar). Hist. Norw. (107.9–
12), by contrast, treats the same episode as an act of divine
vengeance for Hákon’s apostasy (cf. Ágrip ch. 5, Fsk ch. 9,
Hkr[Hákgóð] chs 17–18). The strikingly similar account of
the death of Julian the Apostate in ch. 8 may make Theodoricus’s
discreet silence on this subject all the more surprising. No mention
is made of Gunnhildr’s sorcery in the accounts of Hákon’s
wounding in Nóregs konunga tal stt. 15–16 (Skjd. A I, 581),
and Hkr(Hákgóð) ch. 31.
39. The same count of years is found in ‘Konungatal i Noregi’(Flat. I, 583), although Ellehøj (1965, 250–251 and 253) suggests that the number ‘xii’ in that text is an error for ‘xv’ (thenumber of years which Snorri, citing Ari as his authority, says
separated the death of Haraldr from that of Hákon Aðalsteinsfóstri,
Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 14). An erasure has obliterated the last partof the figure given for the length of Haraldr’s reign in Ágrip
(ch. 9: ‘x..’, perhaps for ‘xii’, perhaps ‘xv’; cf. Storm 1880,
n. ad 107.17; Bjarni Einarsson, 1984, 13, n. 2; Driscoll 1995,
91, n. 33). Hist. Norw. (107.16–17) says that Haraldr and his
brothers ruled for fourteen years. Nóregs konunga tal st. 18(Skjd. A I, 581) says that Haraldr’s reign lasted only nine years,
apparently assigning to Hákon jarl Sigurðarson the six years
during which, according to Ari (Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 14), Hákon
and the sons of Gunnhildr struggled for power in Norway. SeeÓlafia Einarsdóttir 1964, 177–179.
40. Gull-Haraldr, son of Knútr Gormsson. Cf. Nóregs konunga
tal st. 19 (Skjd. A I, 581), and the accounts of the battle of
Háls on Limfjord in Ágrip ch. 10, Jómsvíkinga saga 1969, 81–
82, Fsk ch. 16 and Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 14.
41. Haraldr bláto≈ n n († c. 986).
42. Hákon’s Machiavellian manipulation of Haraldr Gormssonand Gull-Haraldr is described in dramatic detail in Jómsvíkinga

62

Theodoricus Monachus

saga 1969, 77–84, Fsk chs 15–16 and Hkr(ÓlTrygg) chs 9–15.
It has been suggested that the story was derived from the putative *Hlaðajarla saga (see Andersson 1985, 215 and refs).
43. See Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 4. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson(1941–1951, I, 227, n. 1) notes that the Hákon, ‘friend of Gunnhildr’, sent in pursuit of Óláfr in Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 3, is ‘akind of double’ of Hákon jarl Sigurðarson.
44. superior provincia is a calque on Upplo≈nd (cf. ch. 15, n. 129).
Cf. the use of ad superiora in the sense ‘inland’ in ch. 13 (seebelow, n. 98), and Fritzner s.vv. uppi 4: ‘inde i Landet’, uppland:‘Landskab som ligger inde i Landet, fjernt fra Søen’.
45. Cf. Jómsvíkinga saga 1969, 84, where it is stated that Hákon
jarl sent Haraldr bláto≈nn as homage sixty hawks, which he electedto pay ‘in one year rather than each year’. Gjessing (1873–
1876, II, 64; 1877, xiii) observes that this passage, taken together with Theodoricus’s account, indicates that the stipulated
payment of hawks was to be twenty a year for three years.
46. Only Theodoricus has this calculation of the length of Hákon’s
reign. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 25 (16), cites both Sæmundr
inn fróði and Ari Þorgilsson as his authorities for the information that Hákon ruled Norway for thirty-three years after
the death of Haraldr gráfeldr. Nóregs konunga tal st. 20 (Skjd.
A I, 581) and Hist. Norw. 115.13 give the same figure. According
to ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 104, however, thirty-three years was
the length, not of his rule of Norway, but of the whole period
for which he was jarl, from the death of his father Sigurðr.
‘Konungatal i Noregi’ (Flat. I, 583) likewise records that Hákon
ruled Norway for twenty years, but was jarl in Þrándheimr
for thirteen years before that. Cf. Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 14, where
Ari is credited with the same calculation of Hákon’s time asjarl before the death of Haraldr, and Ágrip ch. 12, where thelength of his rule after the fall of Haraldr is given as twenty
years. Cf. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, I, lxxv and n. 3;Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1964, 178–180, 195; Ellehøj 1965, 72–
73, 251–253.
47. Cf. Ágrip ch. 11, Hist. Norw. 111.13–14, and the aetiological tale of Hersir’s suicide in Ágrip ch. 15, explaining the originof the use of the title jarl by the Hlaðajarlar.

Notes63

48. Otto II of Germany (973–983) in fact invaded Denmark in
974 in reprisal for Danish raids on Holstein. (Haraldr had been
converted to Christianity at least a decade before this.) Norwegian and Icelandic accounts of the battle appear to have been
influenced by Adam of Bremen’s erroneous claim (Gest. Hamm.
ii.3) that Haraldr was forced to accept Christianity after aninvasion by Otto I (936–973). Elsewhere Adam maintains thatthe work of converting Haraldr to Christianity was begun byUnni, archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen (918–936), after Henrythe Fowler’s victory over the Danes in 934 (Gest. Hamm. i.59[61]). Widukind, Res Gestae Saxonicae iii.65, records that Haraldr
was baptized by the German missionary Poppo (c. 965). Cf.
Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 15, Fsk ch. 17, Hkr(ÓlTrygg)
chs 24–28; Weibull 1911, 37–44; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–
1951, I, 259, n.2; Abrams 1995, 225.
49. pheodatos: Cf. Niermeyer 1976, s.v. feodatus subst., ‘feudatary’;
OED, s.v. feudatory, B. sb. 1: ‘One who holds his lands by
feudal tenure; a feudal vassal.’
50. venenum abdidisti ecclesiæ: Hanssen (1949, 104, n. 3) regards Storm’s emendation of the reading abdidisti found in
AKS and L (Lehmann 1937, 121; rpt 1959–1962, 428 [12.3])
to addidisti as unnecessary. Cf. Prinz–Schneider 1967–, s.v.
abdo, and Hanssen’s own translation (1949, 105), followed here.
The story recorded by Theodoricus is not to be found in any
printed version of the work by Landulf Sagax identified by
Lehmann (1937, 72–75; rpt 1959–1962, 384–387) as the Romana
Historia cited in ch. 26 (see n. 252 below). The story is elsewhere told, not of Otto II, but of the emperor Constantine, who
is said to have received the same angelic rebuke after making
his notorious ‘donation’ to Pope Sylvester (cf. n. 228 below;
on the fable, see Döllinger 1863, 100–101; 1871, 167–170;
Laehr 1926, 172–178; Tubach 1969, no. 1217). For a full discussion of the passage, see Hanssen 1949, 104–115.
51. Cf. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 15: ‘Otta keisari. hann er
callaðr Otta hinn rauði’; cf. ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 65. Hanssen(1949, 114, n. 1) notes that the epithet pius is applied to Otto
I by Bruno of Querfurt (see Bagemihl 1913, 67; for parallels
to Theodoricus’s characterization of Otto II, see ibid., 25–26).

64

Theodoricus Monachus

52. mittit: literally ‘sends’. We have not tried to reproduce Theodoricus’s periodic vacillations between past and present tenses.
53. The manner of Gunnhildr’s execution is in keeping with her
reputation as a witch (cf. Ström 1942, 178–188). On N. M.
Petersen’s fanciful identification of the body removed from apeat bog at Haraldskjær south of Jelling in 1835 as that ofGunnhildr, and the refutation of this claim by J. J. Worsaae,
see Petersen 1938, 85; Glob 1969, 55–58 and 134.
54. Cf. Ágrip ch. 11, Jómsvíkinga saga (1969, 83–84) and esp.
Flat. I, 152–153 (cf. Ólafur Halldórsson 1958–1961, I, 170–171) where much of the phrasing of this passage is followed
closely (see Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 75–76; Lange 1989,
134–135 and refs). Nordal (1941, 141–144) emphasizes thehistorical unreliability of this account of Gunnhildr’s death.
While Old Icelandic sources consistently identify Gunnhildr’s
father as a certain ¯zurr toti (or ‘lafskegg’) of Hálogaland,Hist. Norw. 105.5–7 records that she was the daughter of Gormr
inn gamli and Þyri, and therefore the sister of Haraldr bláto≈n n.
Cf. Driscoll 1995, 87, n. 15; 91, n. 39.
55. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 18 (12), records that Hákon
stopped paying tribute in the thirteenth year of his reign, after
assisting Haraldr in his failed defence of Denmark against Otto
II (i.e. in 974; cf. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, I, cviii–cix;Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1964, 192–198). Both Theodoricus and Oddr,
therefore, calculate that Hákon ceased to pay tribute twenty
years before his death (cf. above, n. 46, on different calculations of the length of Hákon’s reign). According to Snorri(Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 23), Hákon was forgiven all payment oftribute to Haraldr from the moment he came to power in Norway, in return for his help in overcoming the sons of Gunnhildr.
56. Theodoricus assumes that the rift between Hákon and Haraldr
preceded rather than followed Otto’s invasion of Denmark.
57. Vladimir the Great, prince of Kiev 980–1015. Cf. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg chs 6 (5)–8; Hkr(ÓlTrygg) chs 7–8, 21; Rekstefja
st. 2 (Skjd. A I, 544: ‘fostr i gπrðum . . . visa’; see BjarniAðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, I, ci and n. 2; on the still unsolved
problem of this poem’s date and authorship, see Lange 1989,
202, n. 100).

Notes65

58. Cf. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 12 (8).
59. I.e. Wales/Cornwall (cf. ch. 3, n. 31 Britannia minor). Hist.
Norw. (114.6) notes that the island visited by Óláfr was ‘near
Wales’ (penes Britanniam). Oddr Snorrason (ÓlTrygg ch. 14[10]) notes that the Scilly Isles are situated ‘a short distancefrom Ireland’ (scamt fra Irlandi).
60. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 14 (10), has a full account of
this episode, although in his version the abbot is unnamed.
Most other sources (Hist. Norw. 114.5–115.7, Ágrip ch. 19,
Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 31) have instead the story of Óláfr’s testingof an anchorite and subsequent baptism by him (cf. BjarniAðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, I, civ–cv; Strömbäck 1975, 102–
104). ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 78–79 combines the two versions,telling first of Óláfr’s encounter with the anchorite, then having him proceed to a neighbouring monastery on the islands
to be baptized. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (C, D,
E, and F versions), Óláfr was confirmed at Andover in 994,with Æthelred as his sponsor (ASC 1892–1899, I, 129; EHDI, 235). He had obviously been baptized before that.
61. For Óláfr’s use of the assumed name ‘Óli’ or ‘Áli’, see Oddr
Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [A] chs 14–15; ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 70,
80, 93–94; Hkr(ÓlTrygg) chs 32, 46–47; cf. Andersson 1979,
6, 8, 10.
62. With Theodoricus’s account of Hákon’s scheme, cf. Oddr
Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 19 (13).
63. The nickname is cognate with Old West Norse klakkr ‘lump,
clump’. See Lind 1920–1921, 201–202.
63a. The location of Þjálfahellir is uncertain. Schøning (1910,
I, 80–81), who tramped round Agdenes in the 1770s, tentatively identified it as a small cave just east of Valset, whichlies some 3 km. to the west-south-west of the tip of the Agdenes
promontory. The place-name otherwise occurs only in Oddr
Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 19 (13).
64. Sigwardum . . . episcopum: in Ágrip ch. 19 the names of theclerics who accompanied Óláfr are given as Sigurðr (byskup),Þangbrandr (prestr) and Þormóðr. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg
ch. 26 (17), says that Óláfr recruited missionaries only on areturn visit to England, after he had been king for one year,

66

Theodoricus Monachus

and provides a list of names which is identical to those presented in Theodoricus and Ágrip, except that he identifies Óláfr’s
bishop as ‘Ión biscup’ rather than Sigurðr/Sigeweard. In this,Oddr agrees with Hist. Norw. 115.8, which names only ‘Johannem
episcopum et Thangbrandem’, and Adam of Bremen (Gest. Hamm.
ii.37 [35], iv.34 [33]), who identifies ‘Iohannes episcopus’ as
the most important of the early missionaries to Norway. Cf.
Maurer 1855–1856, I, 282; Taranger 1890, 146–148.
65. The form Theobrandus (for *Þeodbrand ? cf. Förstemann 1900,
1425, s.v. Theudobrand) is found only here. He is referred toas Þorbrandr in the Þórðarbók redaction of Landnámabók (1968,
348, n. 4). Otherwise, his name is regularly given as Þangbrandr
in both Norwegian and Icelandic sources (cf., for example,
Steinunn skáldkona, lausavísa 1 [Skjd. A I, 135]; Íslendingabók
ch. 7; Ágrip ch. 19; Hist. Norw. 115.8; Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg
ch. 26 [17]; cf. Hauksbók 138.5, 140: Þanbrandr). This formof the name is thought to be German (for OHG *Dankbrant),
although it is not attested elsewhere (see Förstemann 1900,
333, s.v. Branda). According to Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [A]ch. 41, Þangbrandr was not Flemish, but ‘Saxon by race’ (cf.
Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 73), and a later tradition makes him the sonof a certain Count Willebald of Bremen; cf. Kristni saga ch. 5(Hauksbók 130); ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 74; Njáls saga ch. 100.
Kristni saga chs 5 and 7–9 (Hauksbók 130–131, 132–138),ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 74, 81, 189 and 216–218, and Njáls sagachs 100–104 provide highly romanticised accounts of Þangbrandr
and his mission to Iceland (see ch. 12 below). Cf. Taranger
1890, 158–160.
66. The vernacular form of his name is given as Þormóðr in ch.
12. Cf. Ágrip ch. 19, Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 26 (17),Íslendingabók ch. 7, Kristni saga ch. 12 (Hauksbók 141).
67. Iovinianum: Jovianum in L (see Lehmann 1937, 121; rpt 1959–
1962, 428 [15.12]). Roman emperor 363–364. Captain of theimperial bodyguard during Julian the Apostate’s ill-starred Persian
campaign, Jovian was hastily chosen as emperor on Julian’s
death (cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI,
xxv.5). Because of his orthodoxy, he is regularly contrasted
favourably with Julian by Christian historians. As Storm (1880,

Notes67

n. ad 15.12) and Hanssen (1945, 167) note, the form Iovinianus
is not uncommon in twelfth-century sources (cf., for example, Liber exceptionum I.viii.4; see next note).
68. Johnsen (1939, 53) argues that Theodoricus here borrows directly from Hugh of St Victor’s Exceptiones priores (recte Richard of
St Victor Liber exceptionum I.viii.4 ‘De Joviniano’; see n. 9 above).
69. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Roman emperor 361–363, better
known as ‘Julian the Apostate’ for his rejection of Christianity and his promotion of traditional Roman religion. Although
his polemic against Christianity, written during his Persian campaign, has not survived (Jerome, Epist. lxx.3, 1910–1918, I,
703–704, says it comprised not six, but seven books), muchof its content can be recovered from Cyril of Alexandria’s Contra
Julianum. Johnsen (1939, 80–83) and Hanssen (1949, 96–99)
see in this digression on Julian the Apostate a thinly veiled
condemnation of Theodoricus’s contemporary, King Sverrir theguðníðingr. Bagge (1989, 118 and 128–129), however, argues
that Theodoricus more likely intends to draw a typological parallelwith Hákon jarl, who, like Julian, rejected the Christian faithand persecuted its adherents, and who was ousted by the Christianking Óláfr just as Julian was succeeded by the devout Jovian.
Cf. Lange 1989, 42–43.
70. Cf. 1 Sam. 25:39, 1 Kgs. 2:44.
71. This lurid and immensely popular account of Julian’s death(see Tubach 1969, no. 2881) originates in a passage in the Church
History of Theodore of Cyrrhus (c. 393 to c. 466), iii.25. Johnsen(1939, 54) cites ‘Hugh of St Victor’ (recte Richard, Liber
exceptionum I.viii.3—see nn. 9 and 68 above) as Theodoricus’s
immediate source; but Hanssen (1945, 166–167; 1949, 97)
identifies closer parallels for several details in the writings of
Ado of Vienne (Chronicon 361, PL 123, 94), Ekkehard (Chronicon
universale s.a. 364; 1844, 114), Matthew Paris (Chronica majora,
I, 167), and Otto of Freising (Chronica iv.10; 1912, 197).
Theodoricus did not know or ignored the story (repeated bymany other Norse writers) that Mary sent St Mercurius to transfix
Julian with a spear (cf. Hkr[Ólhelg] ch. 12; Ólhelg[Sep] ch.
23; Knýtlinga saga ch. 6; Ágrip af so ≈g u Danakonunga 329;
Mariu saga 72–73, 699–702; see, for example, Bjarni

68

Theodoricus MonachusAðalbjarnarson, 1941–1951, II, 14, n. 1; Demidoff, 1978–1979,
30–47, esp. 44; Bjarni Guðnason, 1982, 98, n.2).
72. Cf. different accounts of the same episode in Oddr Snorrason,ÓlTrygg ch. 26 (17); Orkneyinga saga (the Danish ‘Þ’ text)
ch. 12; Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 47; ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 98.
73. Þorfinnr was to rule Orkney from c. 1014 to c. 1065. Oddr
says that the son of Sigurðr seized by Óláfr was named ‘Huelpr’.
Orkneyinga saga, Hkr[ÓlTrygg], ÓlTrygg en mesta give hisname as ‘Hvelpr or Hundi’, and say that Óláfr took him backto Norway as surety after forcing Sigurðr to accept his terms.
74. Ps. 82:17.
75. Present-day Moster, Hordaland. Cf. n. 123.
76. Cf. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 64 (52); Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch.
47; ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 99. Ágrip ch. 19 merely states thatÓláfr first preached Christianity in Mostr. Hkr(Hákgóð) ch.
18 refers to the burning of three churches built by Hákon
Aðalsteinsfóstri in Møre (c. 950).
77. In another context Oddr Snorrason likewise refers to the early
trading centre of Niðaróss (ÓlTrygg [A]) ch. 40) without stating, as all other sources do, that it was first established byÓláfr himself (cf. Oddr, ÓlTrygg [S] ch. 31; Fsk ch. 23;
Hkr[ÓlTrygg] ch. 70; Hkr[Ólhelg] ch. 42). Andersson (1979,
14–16) compares Hkr(prologus) 6, where Snorri notes that oneof Ari’s ultimate source-men was Þorgeirr afráðskollr, who was‘so old that he lived on Niðarnes when Hákon jarl the Powerful was killed,’ adding, ‘in that same place Óláfr Tryggvason
had the market town established which is there now.’ Andersson
argues that Ari probably mentioned a trading centre on Niðarnes
in his lost *Konungaævi, that this information was used byboth Theodoricus and Oddr, and that the tradition of Óláfr’sfounding of Niðaróss was a later development.
78. Theodoricus makes no mention of the uprising against Hákon,occasioned by his attempted abduction of either Guðrún Lundasól(according to Ágrip ch. 13) or the wife of a certain Brynjólfr(according to Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 20 [14]). Both women
figure in Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 48, ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 101–102;
cf. Andersson 1979, 3.
79. in quendam viculum, Rimul nomine: Here viculus must haveNotes69

the sense ‘minor estate, farmstead’ (cf. Niermeyer 1976, s.v.
vicus, 4). The farm is present-day Romol in Melhus, Guldalen(see Rygh 1897–1924, xiv.281; Olsen 1928, 70, 72).
80. Storm emends the form Barke found in AKS (and L, cf. Lehmann 1937, 121; 1959–1962, 428 [18.3]) to Carke (cf. Ágrip
ch. 13, MS. carki; Hist. Norw. 115.14 Carcus). He is called
Skopti karkr in Jómsvíkinga saga (1969, 185, 194) and Fsk
ch. 22, both Karkr and Þormóðr karkr in Hkr(ÓlTrygg) chs
48–49 and ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 102, simply Karkr in Oddr
Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 21 (15). See Lind 1920–1921, 189;
Driscoll 1995, 92, n. 40.
81. Cf. Nóregs konunga tal st. 21 (Skjd. A I, 582); Ágrip ch. 13;
Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg ch. 21 (15); Hist. Norw. 115.14–18;
Hkr(ÓlTrygg) chs 48–49; ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 102–104.
82. Cf. Matt. 20:1, 21:28.
83. The comma after verba in Storm’s edition should come after movebantur: quia minus movebantur, ad verba addidit frequenter et verbera. For paronomasia of the type post verba
verbera, cf. Walther 1963–1986, no. 28177 and Register s.v.
verba-verbera, and Disticha Catonis iv.6 (1952, 200, and 202
ad loc.).
84. Cf. Luke 10:33–34. The allegorical interpretation of the Samaritan of the parable as ‘dominus noster’ is an exegetical commonplace. Cf., for example, Ambrose, Exp. Lc. vii.74; 1957, 239;
Augustine, Quaest. euang. ii.19; 1980, 62–63; Caesarius ofArles, Sermo clxi.1; 1953, 661; Bede, Exp. Lc. iii.2245; 1960, 223.
85. Luke 14:23.
86. On the form of sorcery called seiðr, see Strömbäck 1935
and 1970; de Vries 1956–1957, I, 330–333; Foote and Wilson
1970, 390 and 404; Dillmann 1993; Price 2002.
87. In other sources the burning of the seiðmenn and the desecration of the temple at Mærin are described as separate incidents. Cf. accounts of the burning in Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg
ch. 36 (28), where Oddr cites Sæmundr as his authority;
Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 62; ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 196; accounts ofÓláfr’s destruction of the idols at Mærin in Oddr Snorrason,ÓlTrygg ch. 54 (42); Hkr(ÓlTrygg) chs 67–69; ÓlTrygg en mesta
chs 167–168.

70

Theodoricus Monachus

88. I.e. one year after Óláfr’s accession to the throne.
89. Cf. Bede, De temporibus vii (1980, 590), and De temporum
ratione xxxi.58–65 (1977, 378–379); Landnámabók (Sturlubók
redaction) ch. 1.
90. Ari, Íslendingabók ch. 7, says that Þangbrandr stayed in Iceland‘one or two winters’; cf. Hkr(ÓlTrygg), ch. 73: ‘two winters’;
Kristni saga ch. 9 (Hauksbók 136): ‘three winters’.
91. Ari, Íslendingabók ch. 7, records the earliest converts in Iceland as ‘Hallr Þorsteinsson of Síða . . . Hjalti Skeggjason fromÞjórsárdalr, Gizurr the White Teitsson . . . and many other chieftains’.
92. It was not Ísleifr (bishop of Iceland 1056–1080), but his son
Gizurr (bishop of Iceland 1082–1106, of Skálaholt 1106–1118)
who established the episcopal see at Skálaholt. Cf. Íslendingabók
ch. 10; Kristni saga ch. 16 (Hauksbók 146); Hungrvaka (1938,85); Jón Helgason 1925, 63–64. According to Hungrvaka (1938,76), the first church at Skálaholt was built by Gizurr the White
Teitsson, Ísleifr’s father.
93. Storm (1880, 20, n. 9) proposed that the name Þorgils here
is a mistake for Þóroddr Eyvindarson goði of ¯lfus, the father
of Skapti the Lawspeaker (1004–1030) and father-in-law of
Gizurr the White; and Jón Jóhannesson (1956, 156–157; 1974,
129) suggested further that Theodoricus may have confusedÞóroddr with his son-in-law Þorgils Þórðarson ¯rrabeinsstjúpr,
the hero of Flóamanna saga. On the other hand, it has beenargued that Theodoricus’s ‘Thorgils de Aulfusi’ could either
refer to Þorgils ¯rrabeinsstjúpr himself (see Jón HnefillAðalsteinsson 1978, 64–65 and refs; Lange 1989, 137–138),or represent a conflation of Þóroddr of ¯lfus and Þorgils of
Flói (see Einar Arnórsson 1950, 321; Perkins 1985, 793–795).
It is not stated elsewhere that Þóroddr had become a Christian before the official acceptance of Christianity as the religion of Iceland in 999 or 1000 (unless the story told in Kristni
saga ch. 12, Hauksbók 142, that opponents of Christianity during
the deliberations at the Alþingi interpreted the eruption of a
volcanic fire near Þóroddr’s farm as a sign of divine disfavour, indicates that Þóroddr had already abandoned the oldreligion; see Jón Jóhannesson 1956, 156–157; 1974, 129).

Notes7

1

According to Flóamanna saga (ch. 20), however, Þorgils wasamong the first to accept the new faith (tók Þorgils í fyrra lagi
við trú). The saga also records (ch. 35) that Þorgils died andwas buried at Hjalli in ¯lfus. It has been noted that the authorof Flóamanna saga might have taken his information aboutÞorgils’s early conversion from Theodoricus’s history (see Perkins
1985, 794–795; Þórhallur Vilmundarson 1991, cxlix–cl). It has
also been suggested that Theodoricus’s own informant here may
have been Þorgils’s illustrious descendant, St Þorlákr Þórhallsson, bishop of Skálaholt 1178–1193; see Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1978, 65.
94. Íslendingabók ch. 7, Kristni saga ch. 12 (Hauksbók 141),
Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 95, and ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 228 likewisestate that Þormóðr accompanied Gizurr Teitsson and Hjalti
Skeggjason on their mission to Iceland. Cf. Taranger 1890, 161–
164; Jón Jóhannesson 1956, 159; 1974, 132.
95. In other accounts (Íslendingabók ch. 7, Kristni saga ch. 12[Hauksbók 142], Njáls saga chs 104–105) the confrontation
between Christians and heathens is, on the contrary, presented
as a stand-off, and violence is averted only when the matter issubmitted to the arbitration of Þorgeirr Ljósvetningagoði.
96. Cf. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [S], chs 22–23.
97. See esp. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [S] ch. 58 (46); cf.
Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 87, ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 222.
98. ad superiora, scilicet Uplond: cf. nn. 44 and 129.
99. As a by-name of Guðrøðr Bjarnarson, sýr ‘sow’ is recorded
only here (cf. Lind 1920–1921, 377–378). Suhm (1783, 321 adloc.) noted that Theodoricus was doubtless thinking of Sigurðr
sýr, the stepfather of Haraldr harðráði. As Storm points out,
however, Theodoricus makes no mention of this nickname inconnection with Sigurðr in ch. 15.
100. This is the usual Icelandic tradition. Cf. Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch.
60, Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 18, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 8.
101. Storm (1880, ad 22.3) notes that this tradition ‘kjendes ikkelænger’. But Johnsen (1939, 20–21) suggests that the English
connections both of St Óláfr and of Norway in the century
after the saint’s death could well have fostered the notion that
he was baptized in England. That Óláfr accepted the Chris-

72

Theodoricus Monachus

tian faith in England is stated explicitly in Eysteinn Erlendsson’s
Pass. Olav. (see next note).
102. Robert, archbishop of Rouen (989–1037), son of Duke Richard
I of Normandy (942–996). Cf. William of Jumièges, GND v.12:‘Rex etiam Olauus . . . ortante archiepiscopo Rodberto, ad Christi
fidem est conuersus, atque ab eo baptismate lotus sacroquechrismate delibutus, de precepta gratia gaudens, ad suum regnum
est regressus.’ This account is echoed in Eysteinn Erlendsson’s
Pass. Olav. 68.7–9: ‘Hic, euangelice ueritatis sinceritate in anglia
comperta, fidem toto admisit pectore, et ad baptismi gratiamin urbe rotomagi deuota animi alacritate conuolauit.’ Cf. thevernacular homily ‘Jn die sancti Olaui Regis et martiRis’ basedon Pass. Olav. (GNH 1931, 109.2–4): ‘á Englande toc hann águð at trva. ok í borg þæirri er Røm hæitir. þar let hann cristna
sic.’103. As Storm notes (1880, ad 22.5), this observation appears
to be a muddled reminiscence of GND v.10–12. The quarrels
between Duke Richard II of Normandy (996–1026) and Odo
II of Chartres (in the years 1013–1014) are confused with theconflicts of Richard’s grandfather William Longsword (dukeof Normandy c. 928–942) with Louis IV d’Outremer (king ofFrance 936–954) and Count Arnulf I of Flanders (918–965).
According to William of Jumièges, it was Richard who called
upon Óláfr (and a certain ‘Lacman’; cf. GND v.11 and van
Houts 1992, II, 20, n. 1) for assistance against Odo, while King
Robert the Pious (996–1031) intervened to reconcile the warring
parties (GND v.11–12; cf. Lemarignier 1945, 87–89, and Musset
1957–1958, 23–25). Cf. the similar confusion in Hkr(Ólhelg)
ch. 20, where ‘jarlar tveir, Viljálmr ok Roðbert’ are said torule Normandy at the time of Óláfr’s visit, rather than theirfather Ríkarðr Rúðujarl (‘earl of Rouen’; cf. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, II, 27, n. 1). If the phrase nobilissimi ducis(at Storm 1880, 22.7) is not simply an error for nobilissimi
regis, then Theodoricus also confuses Duke Hugh the Greatof Neustria (923–956) with his son, Hugh Capet, king of France(987–996), the father of Robert the Pious.
104. Storm (1880, ad 22.11) interprets the reading provectioris
aetatis . . . quam illi dicant, which he adopts from A and S, asNotes73

a comparative of difference with a relative adverb meaning‘than’—‘it is clear that he was of more advanced age . . . thanthey [i.e. Icelanders] say . . .’ Lange (1989, 100–101) points
out, however, that the readings found in L and K—provectioris
aetatis . . . quomodo [L] / quemadmodum [K] illi dicant—are
better interpreted as a comparative of degree with a relative
adverb meaning ‘as’: ‘he was of rather advanced age . . . asthey say’. Storm’s suggestion that the phrase quando martyrio
coronatus est should be omitted as an interpolation (on the
grounds that the preceding passage deals with Óláfr’s baptism
and not his death) is also rejected by Lange (1989, 101), sinceÓláfr’s ultimate end as ‘a faithful martyr of Christ’ is, in fact,
mentioned earlier at 13.10.
105. in illa terra, ubi nullus antiquitatum unquam scriptor fuerit .
Scholarly opinion has long been divided over whether Theodoricus
refers here to Norway or Iceland (see bibliographical references in Lange 1989, 212 nn. 294 and 295). Lange (1989, 102–103) argues that the phrase must be interpreted in the light ofwhat follows: if even an authority such as Jerome can (according
to Theodoricus) be forced to record three conflicting viewson the baptism of Constantine, it is not surprising that threedifferent accounts of Óláfr’s baptism circulate when no chroniclerof these events has ever existed. Lange suggests that the phrase
in question is best treated as a piece of hyperbole, and takes
the words in illa terra in the very general sense ‘auf dieser
Erde’. She argues moreover that nullus antiquitatum scriptor
is probably meant to imply ‘no eyewitness historian’ (see n. 11
above on the notion of historia as a record of ‘things seen’ by
a contemporary chronicler).
106. Jerome, in fact, records only that Constantine was baptizedshortly before his death by the Arian Christian Eusebius, bishop
of Nicomedia (Chronicon, 1956, 234.3–5). The (unhistorical)
legend of Constantine’s baptism at Rome by Pope Sylvester
figures in all versions of the Vita of Sylvester (cf., for example, Liber Pontificalis, 1886–1892, I, 170; Mombritius II, 512.15–
513.13; Silvesters saga chs 7–8), and was confirmed as theofficially sanctioned tradition in a letter from Pope Alexander
III to Eysteinn Erlendsson; the letter is undated but is from

74

Theodoricus Monachus

the period 1161–1172 (Regesta Norvegica I no. 140; see Döllinger
1863, 52–61; 1871, 89–103; Holtzmann 1938, 386 and n. 2;
Hanssen 1949, 102 and 122; Vandvik 1955). We have been
unable to find any other reference to a tradition that Constantine
was baptized in Constantinople; but see Laehr 1926, 170, on
debates over the contradictory traditions in the twelfth century.
107. Horace, Ars poetica 78; Walther 1969, no. 548.
108. According to Hist. Norw. (118.3–16), Sveinn and Óláfr
Eiríksson of Sweden had thirty ships each, while Eiríkr had
only eleven, a total of seventy-one ships against Óláfr’s eleven(cf. Fsk ch. 24, and Halldórr ókristni, Eiríksflokkr st. 2, Skjd.
A I, 202). Ágrip, ch. 20, records that Óláfr’s opponents assembled a fleet of eighty-two ships. Rekstefja (stt. 15, 16, 18,
Skjd. A I, 547) counts a total of seventy-five ships against Óláfr’s
eleven.
109. Cf. Sallust, Catilina, lx.4 (see Skard 1935, 120; Hanssen
1949, 84).
110. Hanssen (1949, 84) cites examples of the same formula from
Orosius, Hist. adv. pag., II.xv.5, and Justin, Epitoma, V.i.10.
See TLL 4, s.v. consumo, 609.55–57; and cf. ch. 19, n. 203
below.
111. Cf. Sallust, Catilina, lxi.7. Hanssen (1949, 84), however,maintains that both this and all of the preceding sentence were
probably borrowed en bloc from an intermediate source.
112. Cf. Ágrip ch. 20 fin.; Hallfreðr, Erfidrápa st. 29 (Skjd. A I,
166); Rekstefja st. 33 (Skjd. A I, 551–552). Rumours of Óláfr’ssurvival began to circulate immediately after the battle, andare mentioned in Hallfreðr’s Erfidrápa (dated 1001) stt. 20–
24 (Skjd. A I, 163–165); cf. Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 112. For the tradition
that Óláfr escaped to end his days as a monk in Syria or Greece,
see Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg, chs 73 (61) to 75 (63), 78 (65)to 81; ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 267–269, 271, 283, 286; Hemingsþáttr Áslákssonar, 1962, 57–58 (cf. Ashdown 1959).
113. All versions of the text (including L, cf. Lehmann 1937,
121; 1959–1962, 428 [24.10]) have the form Svoln, which Storm
emends to Svold. Svo≈ l d(r) is also identified as an island off
Vindland in Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [A] ch. 65, [S] ch. 55

Notes75

fin.; Fsk ch. 24; Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 99. In Knýtlinga saga, ch.
122, however, Svo≈ldr is given as the name of a river in Vindland(í ánni Svo≈ldr). And Storm notes (1880, ad 24.10) that the phrase
fyrir Svaldrar mynni in Skúli Þorsteinsson’s poem on the battle (st. 2, Skjd. A I, 306; cf. Rekstefja st. 15, Skjd. A I, 547)
suggests a river rather than an island (as do, though perhaps
less certainly, Svo≈ ldrar vágr in Nóregs konunga tal st. 25 [Skjd.
A I, 579] and Saxo’s portus Swaldensis at Gesta Danorum
XIV.xliv.9). Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson (1941–1951, I, cxxxv) suggests that Icelanders unfamiliar with the place may have transferred the river-name Svo≈ldr to the island beside which Halldórrókristni says Óláfr and Eiríkr jarl fought (see Eiríksflokkr st.
3, Skjd. A I, 203: ‘iarl vaN hiálms at hólmi hriþ’; cf. Hallfreðr’s
Erfidrápa st. 17, Skjd. A I, 163: ‘hólms . . . a uiðu sunndi’).
For full discussion of the problem see Baetke 1951, Ellehøj
1958, Ólafur Halldórsson 1984, 102–105, and Lange 1989, 65–
68, 108–110, 113–114 and refs. Ágrip ch. 20 and Hist. Norw.
117.14 follow Adam of Bremen (Gest. Hamm. ii.40 [38]) in
placing the site of the battle ‘beside Sjælland’ in the Øresund.
‘Vindland’ is for Storm’s emended Vinnlandiam; cf. B Umlandiam,
AL Uumlandiam, K Vumlandiam, S Wumlandiam.
114. Cf. Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [A] ch. 73: ‘Oc aðr en lukiþessi stefnu. þa heitr Eirikr j. at taka helga skirn ef hann fengi
sigraþ þenna hinn ageta konung. Oc Eirikr j. hafði aðr haftistafni a skipi sinu. Þór. en nu let hann coma istaði N hinn helga
cross. en hann brot Þor isundr ismán mola’—a passage further adapted in ÓlTrygg en mesta chs 252–253.
115. Lucan, Bell. civ. i.92–93. Cf. n. 37 above.
116. pituita: The usual meaning of the word is ‘phlegm, catarrh’.
Hanssen (1945, 174–175) suggests that its use here where one
would expect uva ‘uvula’ (cf. Old West Norse úfr) is due tomiscopying of a text in which both words appeared side byside: (propter) pituitam (uvam) fecisset abscidi becoming thepresent pituitam fecisset abscidi. The same account of Eiríkr’s
death is found in Nóregs konunga tal st. 27 (Skjd. A I, 582),
Ágrip ch. 21, Fsk ch. 26, ÓlTrygg en mesta ch. 266, Knýtlinga
saga ch. 16; cf. Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 25. For discussion of the‘staphylotomy’ operation in medieval Scandinavia see Grön

76

Theodoricus Monachus

1908, 56–58; Finnur Jónsson 1912, 29–30; Møller-Christensen
1944, 118; 1961, 73–74; McDougall 1992, 58–59, 76–77.
117. For accounts of Óláfr’s part in the restoration of ÆthelredUnræd after the death of Sveinn tjúguskegg (in February 1014)
cf. Óttarr svarti, Ho ≈f uðlausn st. 8 (Skjd. A I, 292); Ólhelg(Leg)ch. 10; Hkr(Ólhelg) chs 12–15; see Johnsen 1916, 13–14;
Campbell 1949, 78–82.
118. potens: i.e. inn ríki.
119. In fact, Æthelred died in London on 23 April 1016, eightmonths after the beginning of Knútr’s reconquest of England,
but before the Danish fleet had reached the Thames. After aseries of battles, culminating in the English defeat at Ashingdon
on 18 October 1016, Knútr and Æthelred’s successor Edmund
Ironside agreed to a division of the country which lasted only
until Edmund’s death on 30 November 1016. Knútr then became sole ruler of England. Cf. Stenton 1971, 388–393;Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 10; Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 26; Hist. Norw. 122.18–
123.5. Theodoricus’s account possibly bears some relation to
Sigvatr Þórðarson, Knútsdrápa st. 2, Skjd. A I, 248 (cited in
Hkr[Ólhelg] ch. 26) on Knútr’s expulsion of the sons of Æthelred.
120. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 18.
121. I.e. the year after Eiríkr Hákonarson’s departure from Norway.
122. cum duabus onerariis navibus: cf. identical wording at Hist.
Norw. 124.9. Óttarr svarti, Ho≈ f uðlausn st. 13 (Skjd. A I, 293),Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 19, Ágrip ch. 23, and Fsk ch. 28 likewise specify
that Óláfr set out with two knerrir. On the kno ≈ r r (a type ofmerchant-ship also used in warfare) see Falk 1912, 107–110;
Shetelig–Falk 1937, 374–375; Crumlin-Pedersen and Christensen 1970.
123. Storm (1880, ad loc.) maintains that the name Sæla is avariant form of Selja (present-day Selje in Sogn og Fjordane),
adopted here to allow paronomasia on Old West Norse sæla‘bliss’. In fact, only Bergsbók (Stockholm, Royal Library, perg.
1 fol.) records the name of Óláfr’s landfall in the form Selja;
all other accounts have Sæla in agreement with Theodoricus(Ágrip ch. 23, Fsk ch. 28, Ólhelg[Leg] ch. 19, Ólhelg[Sep]ch. 29 [cf. 57.18, v.l. from Bergsbók: selia], ÓlTrygg en mesta
ch. 270 [cf. 321.15, v.l. from Bergsbók: selia]). Ólafur Halldórsson

Notes77(1984, 107–112) has ingeniously suggested that the otherwise
unrecorded place-name Sæla here may, in fact, owe its existence to confusion with Mostr, the site of Óláfr Tryggvason’s
landfall on his return to Norway from England (see ch. 10 above
and n. 75). Ólafur points out that the name of that island isamenable to a similar kind of word-play, since it is homophonous with Old West Norse mostr ‘abundance, plenty’. He argues that a Latin chronicler might well have used the wordfelicitas (in the sense ‘fruitfulness, fertility’) to render the name
Mostr, which might in turn have been translated back into
Norse at some later stage as the otherwise non-existent placename Sæla (from felicitas in the sense ‘bliss, happiness’). For
similar stories of prognostication by folk etymology (on theprinciple nomen est omen) see Pease 1920–1923 on Cicero,De divinatione ii.84; Whitby Vit. Greg. chs 10, 92–93
and 146, n. 48.
124. Present-day Sauesund beside the island Atløy in Sogn og
Fjordane.
125. Cf. Ágrip ch. 23, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 19. On the skúta see Falk
1912, 95–97; Shetelig–Falk 1937, 372; Crumlin-Pedersen andChristensen 1970.
126. Horace Epodes i.1–2. Theodoricus appears to assume that
‘Liburnians’ were also large ships like, rather than contrasted
with, the alta navium propugnacula of Horace’s verse. Cf.,
however, OLD s.v. Liburna, ‘a light, fast-sailing warship, galley’.
Isidore, Etym. XIX.i.12, defines Liburnae as naves . . .
negotiatorum and quotes the same passage from Horace.
127. Cf. accounts of the stratagem in Ágrip ch. 23, Fsk ch. 28,
Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 19, Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 32, Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 30.
See also Nóregs konunga tal stt. 29–30 (Skjd. A I, 583).
128. noverat enim eorum facilitatem et inconstantiam: see Introd.
p. xxvi. Johnsen (1939, 78) and Hanssen (1949, 95) argue that
Theodoricus’s jibes against the treachery of the Þrœndir (cf.
ch. 19) reflect his abhorrence of their support for Sverrir against
Erlingr skakki and Magnús (and their chief adherent, Archbishop Eysteinn). Cf. Sverris saga ch. 43 (1920, 46–47). In
the context of the battle of Stiklastaðir we have what might
be taken as a verdict on the Þrœndir from the archbishop him-

78

Theodoricus Monachus

self: ‘indurati et pertinaces in malicia sua, ueritatis, et ideo
regis, hostes erant inexorabiles’ (Pass. Olav. 1881, 72).
129. in superiorem provinciam: see nn. 44 and 98.
130. Cf. Ágrip ch. 24, Fsk ch. 29, Ólhelg(Leg) chs 22 fin. to 24;Ólhelg(Sep) chs 33–35, Hkr(Ólhelg) chs 32–35.
131. The coastal region between Langesundsfjord in Telemark
and Larviksfjord in Vestfold. Cf. Ágrip ch. 24, Fsk ch. 29,
Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 24, Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 40, Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 49,
Nóregs konunga tal st. 31 (Skjd. A I, 583).
132. Einarr Eindriðason, married to Sveinn’s sister, naturally
supported him at this stage. Subsequently he became a strenuous promoter of the cult of St Óláfr and one of the principal
supporters of Magnús Oláfsson (cf. chs 21, 25, 27 below). His
by-name is regularly given in the form thambaskelmir in extant
witnesses of Theodoricus’s text (Storm 1880, 45.6, 50.21, 54.29;
cf. Lehmann 1937, 122; rpt 1959–62, 429 [50.21]: Thambar
Kelmer ; cf. þambaskelmir in for example Ágrip ch. 24; Oddr
Snorrason, ÓlTrygg [S] chs 16, 59, 61, 63). The alternative form,þamba- or þambarskelfir, is usually taken to mean either ‘agitatorof the bowstring’ (with reference to Einarr’s prowess as anarcher) or ‘gut-shaker’ (with reference to a big belly); see Lind
1920–21, 405–406; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, I, 218,
n. 2. Saltnessand (1968) has argued in favour of P. A. Munch’s
proposal that þo ≈ m b may have been the name of Einarr’s bow.
Bjarne Fidjestol (1997a, 6–8) prefers the interpretation‘Bowstring-shaker’. Libermann (1996, 100) has argued, moredeviously, that the sense ‘bowstring’ for þo ≈ m b might havedeveloped as a back formation from Einarr’s nickname, which
originally meant ‘paunch-shaker’. That the nickname was later
taken to mean ‘farter’ is suggested by a story in Msk 60 (seeGade 1995a–b, Sayers 1995, Libermann 1996, esp. 100–101).
133. Cf. Hkr(ÓlTrygg) ch. 19.
134. Cf. Ágrip ch. 24: ‘Einarr þambaskelmir kastaði akkeri í skip
Sveins ok sigldi með hann nauðgan á braut til Danmarkar’,and similar accounts in Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 25, Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 40,
Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 49. Cf. Fsk ch. 29: ‘Komsk jarl svá á brott með
dugnaði Einars mágs síns, því at hann lét kasta streng í skip hans.’
135. in Rusciam: Old West Norse Garðar/Garðaríki (see PritsakNotes79

1981, 217–220); cf. Ágrip ch. 24, Fsk ch. 29, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 25,
Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 42, Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 55.
136. I.e. both the new churches and those which had alreadybeen established. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 29: ‘Ólafr Harallzson
gaf fe til kirkna, þæira er Olafr Trygguason hafðe ræisa latet.’
137. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 29 fin. and 38, Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 58 andthe verse attributed to Sigvatr there (Skjd. A I, 240, no. 4).
There are numerous references to ‘the law of the holy KingÓláfr’ in the older Gulaþingslo ≈g, fewer in other lawbooks; seereferences in NgL V, 417.
138. Cf. Ágrip ch. 25, Fsk ch. 30, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 44, Ólhelg(Sep)chs 72–77, Hkr(Ólhelg) chs 88–93. On the confused accountin Hist. Norw. 123.11–124.8, see Storm 1880, 123, n. ad 123.12.
139. quam postea conjunxit Ottoni duci Saxonum: cf. Ágrip ch. 25,
Fsk ch. 30, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 44, Hkr(Mgóð) ch. 26. In fact, thename of Úlfhildr’s husband was Ordulf (duke of Saxony 1059–
1072), and she was not given in marriage by Óláfr, but by her
half-brother Magnús (in the autumn of 1042; cf. Adam of Bremen,Gest. Hamm. ii.79 [75]; Ólhelg[Sep] ch. 264). One is tempted
to conjecture that the proper subject of conjunxit (*Magnus
frater eius?) has been omitted by mistake.
140. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 61 fin.
141. Cf. Nóregs konunga tal st. 33 (Skjd. A I, 583), Ólhelg(Leg)ch. 62, Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 148, Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 156. Knútr’s briberyof Norwegian nobles is also mentioned by John of Worcester(Chronicon 1995–1998, II, 510, s.a. 1027).
142. Cf. Ágrip ch. 26.
143. Present-day Tungenes, just north of Stavanger; cf. Sigvatr,
Erlingsflokkr st. 2 ‘þung var sócn fyr tungum’ and st. 3 ‘fyrnorðan tungor’ (Skjd. A I, 244); Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 63: ‘firir norðan
Tungu’.
144. See Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 64: ‘Aslakr Fitiaskalle var næsta brœðrongrÆrlings at frænzæmi’ (cf. Hkr[Ólhelg] ch. 116). Cf. accountsof the slaying of Erlingr in Ágrip ch. 26, Fsk ch. 33, Ólhelg(Sep)ch. 172, Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 176.
145. mille ducentarum navium: cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 63: ‘Siglir
sunnan . . . með .xii.c. skipa’; Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 167: ‘Knútr . . .
hafði eigi færa en tólf hundruð skipa.’ According to the C, D,

80

Theodoricus Monachus

E, and F versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle s.a. 1028 (ASC1892–1899, I, 156–157; EHD I, 255), Knútr left England with50 ships.
146. ad generum suum Olavum regem Svethiae: Kirchmann (1684)
noted: generum (lege socerum) (see Storm 1880, 30, textualn. 3). As Hanssen remarks, however (1945, 174), the use ofgener in the sense ‘father-in-law’ is not unparalleled in medieval Latin (cf., for example, Niermeyer 1976, s.v. gener, 3).
147. Ruler of Kiev 1016–1054, son of Vladimir the Great (seen. 57 above). Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 69 fin.
148. Cf. Ágrip ch. 27, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 70.
149. I.e. the Pentland Firth. The ‘Charybdis’ referred to is theinfamous Swelchie, north-east of Stroma, Old West Norse
Svelgr(inn) (cf. OED s.v. Swelchie; Orkneyinga saga ch. 74,
Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar ch. 327; Finnbogi Guðmundsson
1965, 169, n. 2).
150. The death of Hákon Eiríksson at sea is also mentioned inÁgrip ch. 27, Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 71, and in the ‘C’ version of
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle s.a. 1030 (ASC 1892–1899, I, 157;
EHD I, 255). Only Snorri (Ólhelg[Sep] ch. 180; Hkr[Ólhelg]
ch. 184) shares with Theodoricus the detail that Hákon met
his end in the Pentland Firth, where he was sucked into the
Swelchie (Theodoricus: in illam imam voraginem; Snorri: í
svelginn; Ágrip and Ólhelg[Leg] record only that he perishedí Englandshafi). Bjarni Guðnason (1977, 115, n. 21) suggeststhat this is a case where Snorri may have borrowed directlyfrom Theodoricus. It is interesting to note that John of Worcester(Chronicon 1995–1998, II, 510, s.a. 1030) appears to preservea dim reminiscence of the same account of Hákon’s death:
Predictus comes Hacun in mari periit. Quidam tamen dicunt
eum fuisse occisum in Orcada insula.
151. As Lehmann points out (1937, 72; rpt 1959–1962, 384) the
passage is borrowed neither from Pliny nor from the stoic
philosopher Chrysippus († c. 208–204 BC ), but is taken either
directly or indirectly from Isidore, Etym. XIII.xx.1.
152. Gen. 7:11. The same verse is cited in Hist. Norw. (95.8–9),
in a discussion of submarine eruptions in Iceland and their
origin in ‘the deepest abyss’ of the earth (see Storm 1880, nn.

Notes8

1

ad 95.7–8). A reminiscence of the same scriptural verse here,
however, is hardly surprising. For example, Honorius Augustodunensis, Imago Mundi i.41 ‘De voragine’, likewise cites
Gen. 7:11 (cf. Johnsen 1939, 47).
153. Cf. Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. i.6.
154. Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. ii.5.
155. Cf. Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. i.9; Isidore, Etym. IX.ii.95.
For bibliography on this derivation of the name of the Lombards,
see Schönfeld 1965, s.v. Langobardi.
156. The end of the fifty-year occupation of Pannonia by the
Huns is noted by Jordanes (Getica xxxii.166; cf. Marcellinus
Comes, Chronicon s.a. 427, 1894, 76.30–33) and his accountis reproduced by Sigebert of Gembloux (Chronica s.a. 428,
1844, 307.44–45). Theodoricus’s remarks here, however, soundlike a confused reminiscence of Jordanes on the reception of
the Vandals into Pannonia by Constantine (in 334; cf. Getica
xxii.115). On the vexed question of the ‘cession’ of all or partof Pannonia to the Huns see Bury 1923, I, 166; Thompson 1948,
64; Maenchen-Helfen 1973, 87–90.
157. On Jordanes’ Gothic history, the Getica or De origine
actibusque Getarum (written in the 550s), see Goffart 1988,
20–111. On the name-form ‘Jornandes’ see Mierow 1915, 2;Goffart 1988, 44, n. 108; Giunta–Grillone 1991, xxix.
158. de Mæotidis paludibus: Maeotis is the ancient name of the
Sea of Azov.
159. As Storm notes (1880, ad 33.2), the legend of Alexander
the Great’s imprisonment of various barbarous nations, identified with the biblical ‘Gog and Magog’, behind the ‘Caspian gates’ is not included in Jordanes’ Getica (although herefers to the building of the gates at vii.50). While the earliest
reference to the story would appear to be in Josephus’s Jewish War vii.245 ( AD 75–79), Anderson (1932, 18) argues that‘it was the bursting of the Caucasus barrier in 395 by tribes
which the Greeks called Huns . . . that provided the setting
for the fusion of the building of Alexander’s Gate with the
Biblical legend of Gog and Magog.’ The ‘enclosed nations’are identified as Huns in the Syrian Sermo de fine extremo(probably from the end of the fourth century) and in the Syrian

82

Theodoricus Monachus

Christian legend concerning Alexander (of the sixth or seventh
century; see Anderson 1932, 16–24). Isidore, Etym. IX.ii.66(reproduced, for example, in Rabanus Maurus, De universo xvi.2,
PL 111, 439D) offers a close parallel for Theodoricus’s account.
160. With this account of the physical appearance of the Huns
cf. Jordanes, Getica xxiv.127 (copied verbatim in Sigebert ofGembloux, Chronica, 1844, 301.70–302.3).
161. Cf. Jordanes, Getica xxiv.123–124 (Sigebert of Gembloux,
Chronica, 1844, 302.9–11).
162. expanderunt se super faciem universæ terræ more locustarum:
cf. Ps. 103:30; Judg. 6:5, 7:12; Judith 2:11. Cf. n. 235 below.
163. Cf. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, s.a. 453, 1844, 309.54;
see Johnsen 1939, 49.
164. Cf. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, s.a. 453, 1844, 310.1–
13; see Johnsen 1939, 49. As Storm notes (1880, ad. 34.3),
Theodoricus’s use of the phrase utriusque sexus indicates that
he has in mind the version of the Ursula legend which developed after the discovery at Cologne in 1155 of bones identified as those of Ursula and her followers. Since these included
the remains of men and children as well as women, male martyrs came to be included among Ursula’s ‘eleven thousand’companions. See Schade 1854, 42ff.; Tout 1902, 31ff; Levison
1927, 107–120.
165. Prov. 28:1.
166. Ps. 35:13: ibi ceciderunt qui operantur iniquitatem, expulsi
sunt nec potuerunt stare. Theodoricus has operabantur insteadof the Vulgate reading.
167. Cf. Ágrip ch. 27; Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 71. Sveinn was Knútr’sson by Ælfgifu of Northampton (see n. 216 below).
168. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:31: praeterit enim figura huius mundi.
169. Cf. 2 Cor. 3:5: sufficientia nostra ex Deo est.
170. Cf. Pass. Olav. 1881, 72.5: diuino inspiratus instinctu;
Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 71 fin.; Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 184; Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 188.
171. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 72; Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 188; Hkr(Ólhelg)
ch. 192.
172. Although other sources agree that Óláfr returned to Norway by way of Sweden, Theodoricus is alone in reporting thathe spent his last winter there. And only Adam of Bremen (Gest.

Notes83

Hamm. i.73 [71]) also speaks of Óláfr’s father-in-law Óláfr
sœnski Eiríksson as still living at this time. His death is usually dated c. 1020–1022 (cf. Hkr[Ólhelg] ch. 114).
173. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 73; Ólhelg(Sep) ch. 200; Hkr(Ólhelg)
ch. 204.
174. With this list of Óláfr’s followers at Stiklastaðir, cf. Ólhelg(Leg)ch. 76; Þormóðr Bersason Kolbrúnarskáld, lausavísa 22 (Skjd.
A I, 287), cited in Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 84. Ro≈ g nvaldr (later earlof Orkney 1035–1046?) is said to have rescued Óláfr’s halfbrother, the young Haraldr Sigurðarson, after the battle(Orkneyinga saga ch. 21).
175. See ch. 9.
176. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. VII.xvi.73. On the ancient notion of
the progressive deterioration of the human race see, for example, Cross 1962, 9–10. In his use of the word exustio, ‘aburning up’, Pliny alludes to the Stoic doctrine that although
the post-diluvian world had survived destruction by water, it
would eventually be subject to destruction by fire. Cf. Pliny,Nat. Hist. II.cx.236, where the fires of Mount Etna are identified as a signal of the final conflagration to come: [In] illo[sc. Aetnae monte] . . . natura saevit exustionem terris denuntians.
Cf. Schilling 1977, 159.
177. Lucan, Bell. civ. vii.812–815.
178. Tenney Frank (1909, 83) notes that these remarks attributed
to Plato are reminiscent of Timaeus 22C and Laws 677b.
Theodoricus’s immediate source has not been identified.
179. eijmarmenem ALS, eijm armenhn K = Gk eiJ m armev n h , i.e.
‘fate, destiny’; see Liddell and Scott 1925–1940, s.v. meivromai,
III; Lampe 1961, s.v. eiJ m armev n h .
180. Storm (1880, n. ad 37.6) suggests that here Theodoricus
may recall the description of the world (mundus) as encompassing the concepts of ‘world’ and ‘time’ implicit in the termsaeculum, in Origen, De principiis II.iii.5: Verumtamen multorum
saeculorum finis esse dicitur hic mundus, qui et ipse saeculum
dicitur.
181. In his Epist. cviii.12 (1910–1918, 321) Jerome gives an accountof the twelve stones of Josh. 4:1–9 preserved at Galgala, but
draws no conclusions about the diminishing stature of the human

84

Theodoricus Monachus

race. Theodoricus’s ultimate source here is, in fact, not Jeromebut the De locis sanctis of Adomnán of Iona (c. 624–704). See
n. 183 below.
182. Ps. 113:5.
183. Cf. Adomnán, De locis sanctis II.xv.3–4, where not Jerome,
but Adomnán’s informant, the Gallic bishop and pilgrim Arnulf,
gives this account of the stones and observes that ‘two strong
young men of our day could scarcely lift any one of them fromthe earth’.
184. Jerome died in 420. As Storm remarks (1880, n. ad 37.22)
Theodoricus compiled his history some 760 years after that date.
185. Theodoricus apparently follows the tradition that the bodyof Pallas was discovered during the reign of Emperor Henry
III (1046–1056). The Icelandic Annales Regii, Flateyjarannáll,
and Oddverja annáll record the discovery s.a. 1053 (Islandske
Annaler 1888, 108, 470; Flat. III, 508). The last two provide
a full account and cite the Latin verse which identified the
body. Another description, complete with an Icelandic translation of Pallas’s epitaph, is included in Breta so ≈g ur ch. 4(Hauksbók 237), where it is reported that the body was foundduring the days of Sigurðr Jórsalafari (1103–1130) and ‘Emperor Henry II’, evidently a mistake for Henry V, emperor from1106 to 1125. The discovery finds frequent record in thirteenthand fourteenth-century sources—e.g., in Helinand’s Chronicon(s.a. 1053, PL 212, 950B), in Vincent’s Speculum historiale
XXV.xxxiv (1624, IV, 1014), in ch. 158 of Gesta Romanorum(1872, 538), and in Higden’s Polychronicon I.xxiv (1865–1886,
I, 222–224, where 1140 is given as the year of the discovery).
The verse also circulated independently; see examples in Walther
1969, no. 6528; Baehrens 1879–1886, V, 395n. These accounts
are ultimately dependent on the oldest known description of
the discovery of Pallas’s body, that in William of Malmesbury’s
Gesta Regum (ii.206; 1998, 384), probably compiled in theyears 1119–1124. William does not associate the discovery witha specific date but assigns it to the reign of Emperor Henry
III. Since Theodoricus differs from William in several details,
it seems unlikely that he borrowed directly from the Gesta Regum.
It looks, however, as though his remark that Pallas’s body wasNotes85

discovered ‘about seventy years ago’ was derived from a sourceof the same age as the Gesta Regum, written c. 1120 and referring seventy years back to c. 1050. Paasche (1934, 125–126)
thought Theodoricus meant seventy years before his own time.
That would envisage c. 1107–1117, firmly in the reign of Sigurðr
Jórsalafari, which would also tally with the Breta so ≈g ur report, though a literary connection need hardly be assumed between
this work and the Historia of Theodoricus. On the transmission of the Pallas story in the Middle Ages, see Graf 1923,
72, and Dittrich 1966, 573–582 (particularly on the accountin the Eneide of Heinrich von Veldeke, completed c. 1190—
here the discovery is dated 1155, in the reign of Frederick
Barbarossa).
186. Augustine, De civ. Dei III.xi (1955, 72–73), recounts how
a statue of Apollo at Cumae wept, not over the death of Pallas,but as an omen of the impending defeat (in 129 BC) of the Asianking Aristonicus at the hands of the Romans, a reflection of
Apollo’s grief over the loss of the Greek territory entrusted tohis care. Livy, Ab urbe condita XLIII.xiii, has the same story,
but places it during the Roman war against Perseus of Macedonin 169 BC .
187. Filius Evandri Pallas, quem lancea Turni / Militis occidit,
more suo jacet hic: The phrase more suo in Pallas’s epitaph
has been interpreted in a variety of ways. The translator of theverse in Breta so ≈g ur reads more suo with jacet, but keeps his
rendering judiciously vague: ‘her liG r Pallas með sið sinvm svn
Avandri konvngs ok hætti sa sem drap spiot Tvrni Riddara’(Hauksbók 237). Similarly, Giles (1904, 234) provides a cautiously nebulous rendering of the same lines in William ofMalmesbury’s Gesta Regum: ‘Pallas, Evander’s son, lies buried here / In order due, transfix’d by Turnus’s spear’. On theother hand, Sharpe (rev. Stevenson 1854, 199) interprets theverse rather differently, apparently reading more suo with occidit
as a phrase describing the habitual action of Turnus’s deadly
spear: ‘Pallas . . . whom Turnus’s spear slew, like all others
whom it reached, lies here.’ Cf. John Trevisa’s rendering of
the epitaph in Higden’s Polychronicon I.xxiv (1865–1886, I,225): ‘Hym Turnus þe knygt wið his spere / Slowe in his manere’.

86

Theodoricus Monachus

In the S manuscript of Theodoricus’s Historia, the phrase more
suo is replaced with morte sua ‘in his death’ (see Storm 1880,
39, textual n. 3). This looks like nothing more than a rationalisation of a puzzling reading in Stephanius’s exemplar, although
this variant is paralleled in other versions of the epitaph. Cf.,for example, the version cited in the thirteenth-century chronicle
entitled Flores temporum (1879, 237) and in Gesta Romanorum(1872, 538); and ‘Epitaphium Pallantis’, Baehrens 1879–1886,
V, 395): ‘quem lanca Turni / Militis effudit morte fera’, ‘whom
the spear of Turnus despatched in savage death’. Following asuggestion from Peter Fisher, we have taken more suo withjacet in the sense ‘in accordance with his wish/will’ (see OLD,
s.v. mos 5.d). Michael Winterbottom (to whom we are grateful for advice on this passage) prefers to take more suo withoccidit ; see Gesta Regum 1998, 384.
188. The Historia reads: ‘Throndenses autem audito adventu regis
convenerunt in Nidrosiensem civitatem quasi vir unus adversus Dominum et adversus [so L] christum eius’; cf. Pass. Olav.
(1881, 72): ‘Quo comperto ueritatis hostes conuocaueruntconcilium iniquitatis, et conuenerunt in unum aduersus dominum
et aduersus christus eius’. This is the only very close verbal
parallel to be observed between the Passio and the Historia,
but each may well be independently echoing scriptural phrasing, Ps. 2:2, Acts 4:26, 27 (cf. Skard 1935, 124).
189. Hárekr ór Þjóttu is not mentioned here or in Ágrip ch. 30(31), although he figures in later sources as one of Óláfr’s main
opponents at Stiklastaðir; cf. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 80, Fsk ch. 34,
Hkr(Ólhelg) chs 219–224, 229, 232. Pass. Olav. (1881, 72)
mentions ‘a certain Cnut’ (i.e. Knútr the Great) as prominent
among Óláfr’s adversaries. GNH (1931, 111) identifies KálfrÁrnason as the leader of the forces assembled against Óláfr.
190. See above at 18.37.
191. Sticlastad’er AKL, Sticlastader SB, in other sources also
Stiklarstaðir (modern Stiklestad in Verdal). The battle is traditionally dated 29 July 1030.
192. Cf. accounts that before the battle Óláfr dreamed of ascending a ladder to heaven: Adam of Bremen, Gest. Hamm. ii.61(59), I Schol. 41 (42); Einarr Skúlason, Geisli (c. 1153) stt. 15–

Notes87

16 (Skjd. A I, 461–462); Pass. Olav. (1881, 74); ‘Lux illuxit’,
Anal. Hymn. 42, 274, no. 302.7a, GNH (1931, 111); Ólhelg(Leg)ch. 78; cf. Johnsen 1939, 27 n. 4; Tate 1978–1979. In Hkr(Ólhelg)
ch. 214, Óláfr’s dream is interpreted by Finnr Árnason as apremonition of the king’s death.
193. The term used here, dispensator, can signify either an administrator of the royal estate, entrusted with management of
the treasury, or simply ‘one who dispenses alms’; see Du Cange
1883–1887, II, 139, s.v.; Niermeyer 1976, 341, s.v. Cf. Ólhelg(Leg)ch. 76, and the slightly more ample account in Hkr(Ólhelg),ch. 207, where Óláfr is said to have appointed a local householder (bóndi) to see that alms were distributed for the goodof the souls of those killed fighting against him at Stiklastaðir.
194. Matt. 5:44. Cf. Hoffmann 1975, 66, 79 (a comparison with
St Oswald).
195. ‘invective’ is for infamia, but this word was perhaps originally insania, ‘frenzy’.
196. Cf. Matt. 3:9, Luke 3:8: potest Deus de lapidibus istis suscitare
filios Abrahae.
197. Cf. Acts 7:58–59. Of this parallel with St Stephen, Hoffmann
1975, 66, observes, ‘Damit rückt er [St Óláfr] selbst in die
Stellung des “Protomartyrs” Norwegens ein.’ Cf. Introd. pp.
xix–xx.
198. Here Theodoricus is evidently thinking of Óláfr’s marshal,
Bjo≈r n digri; cf. the description of his fall at Óláfr’s side in
Sigvatr Þórðarson’s Erfidrápa Óláfs helga (c. 1040) st. 18 (Skjd.
A I, 261–262). Sigvatr, however, identifies Þórðr Fólason, not
Bjo≈ r n, as Óláfr’s standard-bearer (Erfidrápa Óláfs st. 7, Skjd.
A I, 258); and this detail, supported by reference to Sigvatr, isrepeated in Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 212 init. and ch. 266.
199. Ágrip ch. 30 (31) and Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 81 record that Óláfr
was killed by Þórir hundr Þórisson and Þorsteinn knarrarsmiðr
after first being wounded by a retainer or kinsman of KálfrÁrnason. According to Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 228, the king died fromwounds he received from Þorsteinn, Þórir and either Kálfr Árnasonor Kálfr Arnfinnsson. See Fidjestøl 1987 (trans. 1997).
200. Later Icelandic accounts are consistent in recording thatseveral wounds were inflicted upon the king. Ágrip ch. 30 (31)88

Theodoricus Monachusand Ólhelg(Leg) chs 81–82 record that Óláfr was first woundedin the leg and finished off by Þórir hundr and Þorsteinn
knarra(r)smiðr. According to Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 228, the king diedof three wounds, to his left leg, abdomen and neck. See Fidjestøl
1987 (trans. 1997).
201. In other accounts Dagr Hringsson is said to enter the fray
only after the battle is well under way (Hkr[Ólhelg] chs 227,
229; Fsk ch. 34), or after the king has fallen, at which point
he proposes that he himself should be accepted as the king’s
successor (Ólhelg[Leg] ch. 83). Dagr is not mentioned in Ágrip.
202. Cf. Livy, Ab urbe condita XXVII.ii.8: nox incerta victoria
diremit pugnantis. On this classical echo, see Lehmann (1937,
72; rpt 1959–1962, 384). Theodoricus makes no mention of
the tradition that during Óláfr’s last battle the sun was eclipsed,just as it was at the Crucifixion (see Einarr Skúlason, Geislist. 19, Skjd. A I, 462; Hkr[Ólhelg] ch. 226).
203. Cf. ch. 14, n. 110 above.
204. Pass. Olav. (1881, 73) records the date of St Óláfr’s death
as: iiiito kalendas octobris (thus for augusti or perhaps formensis octavi; cf. Gjerløw 1967, 562), feria iiiita, millesimo
et xxviii anno ab incarnatione domini, i.e. Wednesday, 29 July
1028 (cf. MHN 131–132). In Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 235, on the other
hand, Snorri gives Wednesday, 29 July 1030 as the king’s deathday; and Ari, Íslendingabók ch. 8 (1968, 19), remarks that StÓláfr fell in battle thirty years after the death of Óláfr Tryggvason,
i.e. in 1030. Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 88 calculates the date as fra burðKrist, drottens vars, þushundrað vætra oc ix. vætr oc xx. oc.cc. vætra, where the last word is evidently a mistake for nætror nátta, i.e. ‘1029 years and 200 [more likely than 240] nights
after the birth of Christ’. This would give a date sometime in
July 1030 but the number of nights would have to be manipulated
to arrive at the 29th of the month. The Icelandic reckoning is
usually accepted because it is the only one which can accommodate the tradition that Óláfr died on a Wednesday. 29 Julyfell on a Monday in 1028, on a Tuesday in 1029, on a Wednesdayin 1030 (see Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1964, 75–76, 185–186, 329).
We cannot tell whether Theodoricus’s dating is his own compromise between conflicting sources, as suggested by Bjarni

Notes89

Einarsson 1984, xxxvi, or is a date repeated from an older tradition.
He is not alone in reporting 1029 as the year of Óláfr’s death.
The same year is given in Ágrip ch. 32 (33), where it was possibly
derived from Theodoricus, and it has also been calculated fromthe addition of regnal years in Nóregs konungatal stt. 26, 28,
32 (Skjd. A I, 582–583). Theodoricus’s sound observation at
the beginning of the next chapter that dates and numbers inhistorical sources are frequently unreliable suggests that he
may have been well aware of conflict over the dating of Óláfr’s
death. On the problem see, for example, Storm 1880, n. ad
42.6; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, II, xcii–xcviii; Lange
1989, 118–120, 125.
205. Jerome commonly uses the term Hebraica veritas to referto the Hebrew text of the Bible. The phrase, however, was usedambiguously throughout the Middle Ages, and was regularly
employed, as here, to refer to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Cf. Lampe
1969, II, 188; Smalley 1983, 80, n. 2.
206. These figures are not cited directly in either the ‘Chronicle’ or the ‘Ecclesiastical History’ of Eusebius of Caesarea(c. 260 to c. 340). Jerome’s Latin version of Eusebius’s ‘Chronicle’
records that, according to the Septuagint, Abraham was born
3184 years after Adam (2242 years from Adam to the Flood,
plus 942 years from the Flood to Abraham; see Jerome, Chronicon 1956, 15, 174), and that Christ was born 2015 years after
Abraham (Chronicon 1956, 169). The sum of these figures
provides the same anno mundi date of Christ’s birth cited by
Theodoricus, 5199. Eusebius’s record of the Hebrew calculation can be deduced from the Armenian Latin version of his‘Chronicle’, which records that by Hebrew reckoning Abraham
was born 1948 years after the creation of Adam (Eusebius,
Chronicorum libri duo 1866–1875, I, 95). This figure, added
to the Septuagint calculation of 2015 years from Abraham to
Christ, gives an anno mundi date of 3963, not 3971 as citedby Theodoricus. As Theodoricus points out here, however, allsuch calculations are subject to corruption in the course of transmission. It might be noted that another such chronological note,
entered in the Icelandic miscellany manuscript AM 194 8vo
in 1387, records the number of years between the Creation and90

Theodoricus Monachus

the birth of Christ as 5228 (AÍ I, 53–54), evidently a mistaken
substitution of the Eusebian calculation of the anno mundi dateof the Sermon on the Mount (see, for example, Tristram 1985,
180). Despite strenuous objections to the contrary by Johnsen(1939, 39–42), Storm (1880, ix, and n. ad 42.18) is probably
correct in suggesting that Theodoricus knew Latin versions of
the Eusebian calculations through an intermediate source (cf.,for example, the Septuagint calculation in Orosius, Hist. adv.
pag. I.i.5, and further references to various medieval calculations of the age of the world in Grotefend 1891, I, 207; Bately
1979; Tristram 1985, esp. 180–187).
207. Here Theodoricus appears to follow Isidore’s calculationof the number of years from the Creation until the end of thefifth age of the world, 5154 years (Etym. V.xxxix.25: VMCLIV ).
According to Isidore, the sixth age began with the birth of Christ,
during the reign of Octavian; but Isidore calculates that thisevent took place 56 years after the end of the fifth age, i.e.
5210 years after the Creation (Etym. V.xxxix.26; cf. Isidore,
Chronica 1894, 453–454). Theodoricus has probably simply
misinterpreted Isidore’s calculation to the end of the fifth age
as the time passed until the birth of Christ; or he may haveworked from a corrupt source.
208. Cf. Bede, De temporibus (Chronica minora) xxii (1980, 607):—
Dominus nascitur, conpletis ab Adam annis III DCCCCLII, iuxta–
alios V CXCVIIII.
209. Remigius (c. 841–908) was master of the monastic schoolof St-Germain at Auxerre, and not a bishop there. He is notknown to have written any chronicles or works on chronology.
Remigius did write a commentary on Bede’s De arte metrica,
and is credited with another commentary on Bede’s De
schematibus et tropis (see Elder 1947; for accounts of the genuine
works of Remigius, see Manitius 1911–1931, I, 504–519; II,
808–809, III, 1063, and Lutz 1962–1965, I, 11–12). Theodoricus’sreference to Remigius looks like a simple mistake; it is possible that the Norwegian author had access to a manuscript of
one of Remigius’s commentaries which also contained chronological material by Bede. Johnsen’s claim (1939, 46, 62–63)
that this reference to Remigius provides clear evidence ofNotes91Theodoricus’s familiarity with the French author acquired
through an education abroad could hardly be farther from thetruth.
210. Storm (1880, 43, textual n. 3) notes the marginal addition
in AS, septuaginta unum, as if to record an alternative reckoning, according to the Septuagint, of 3951 years. The so-called‘Chronicle’ of Hugh of St Victor (written c. 1130, really aschoolbook of history usually entitled De tribus maximis
circumstantiis gestorum) includes several chronological tables,
the second of which is a tabulation of the succession of patriarchs, judges, kings and priests from Adam to Agrippa throughthe six ages of the world, according to Hebrew chronology(secundum hebraicam veritatem). Although Hugh’s ‘Chronicle’ evidently enjoyed a wide circulation, this section of thetables has never been published (see Green 1943, 484–493,
esp. 492; Goy 1976, 36–43). The only version which we havebeen able to consult, in London BL MS. Egerton 3088, 102r,
records Christ’s birth at the end of the third age. The first event
listed in the fourth age, the slaughter of the Holy Innocents,
is recorded as occurring 3954 years after the beginning of theworld. The testimony of Matt. 2:16, that Herod ordered themurder of children ‘from two years old and under’, may havegiven rise to a tradition that this event took place two years
after the traditional Hebrew date of Christ’s birth, 3952 years
after the Creation (cf. Bede’s calculation, above, n. 208).
211. For accounts of the miracles which occurred after Óláfr’s
death, see, for example, Þórarinn loftunga, Glælognskviða st.
8 (Skjd. A I, 326); Sigvatr Þórðarson, Erfidrápa st. 24b (Skjd.
A I, 264); Einarr Skúlason, Geisli stt. 20–26, 37–41, 57–62,
67 (Skjd. A I, 462–472), Pass. Olav. 1881, 74–116; Ólhelg(Leg)ch. 87; Hkr(Ólhelg) chs 236, 238, 240, 244–245; and cf. Holtsmark
1937; Whaley 1987; Fidjestøl 1987, 42–43 (trans. 1997, 173–
175); Lange 1989, 79–81.
212. The same precise count of the interval between the king’s
death and his translation is given in for example Geisli st. 25(Skjd. A I, 463) and Hkr(Ólhelg), ch. 244; on the foundation
for it cf. Introd. p. xix. Theodoricus’s note that Grímkell wasa nephew of Bishop Sigurðr/Sigeweard (see n. 64 above) is

92

Theodoricus Monachus

paralleled in the Flateyjarbók version of Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar,
where the information about their kinship is attributed to Oddr
Snorrason: ‘Suo segir brodir Oddr . . . at Grimkell byskup sa
er uar med hinum heilaga Olafi Haralldzsyni ok efldi kristinndom
j Noregi væri systurson Sigurdar byskups’ (Flat. I, 516). On
Grímkell see also Adam of Bremen, Gest. Hamm. ii.57 (55),
iv.34 (33); Taranger 1890, 167–173; Abrams 1995, 223.
213. It is usually assumed that Theodoricus refers here to a lost
written account (or to more than one) of St Óláfr’s translationand miracles, sometimes referred to as Translatio Sancti Olavi;
see Storm 1880, xxxiv and n. ad 44.3; Nordal 1914, 10–12;
Skard 1935, 125; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 6; Turville-Petre
1967, 171; Bjarni Guðnason 1977, 108. Lange (1989, 52–53)
has argued that Theodoricus’s words, memoriae tradita sunt,are not unambiguous and might refer to oral accounts or scaldic
verse rather than to a particular written source. This seems lesslikely, however, in view of the fact that the Latin idiom, memoriae
tradere, normally means ‘to record in writing’; cf. Lewis andShort, s.v. trado II.B.2.b; OLD, s.v. memoria 8.b.
214. The unidentified text which Theodoricus calls catalogus
regum Norwagiensium has been the subject of much speculation. It is commonly assumed that Theodoricus here refers to
a Norwegian source, perhaps in Latin; see, for example, Storm
1873, 20; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 5–6, 51; Johnsen 1939,
18; Beyschlag 1950, 124, 127; Ellehøj 1965, 297; Andersson
1985, 202; Introd. p. xiv above. It has also been suggested,
however, that the *Catalogus might be a vernacular work, perhaps
a version of Ari’s *Konungaævi (Lange 1989, 53–54, and 200,
n. 70; cf. Sverrir Tómasson 1988, 37 on Icelandic works which
circulated under Latin titles); or the title might refer to a lost
Latin work on the kings of Norway by Sæmundr inn fróði (see,for example, Gjessing 1873–1876, II, 36; Finnur Jónsson 1929,
xii; Lange 1989, 54). It has been argued that the *Catalogus
must be Norwegian, since the chronological details which
Theodoricus draws from this hypothetical source differ from
Icelandic texts supposedly based on lost works by Sæmundrand Ari. Theodoricus, following the *Catalogus, notes that Knútr
and Sveinn ruled Norway for five years (i.e. one year together

Notes93

with Óláfr and then for four years after his death). In Nóregs
konunga tal, however, which cites Sæmundr as one of its sources(see st. 40, Skjd. A I, 584), it is calculated that Sveinn Álfífuson ruled Norway for six years (st. 36, Skjd. A I, 583–584; cf.
n. 216 below). Snorri, on the other hand, records that Knútr
ruled Norway for seven years (Hkr[Mgóð] ch. 5). However,such differences between accounts of a single chronologicaldetail recorded in Theodoricus and later Icelandic texts offer
only the most indirect evidence of differences between the putative
sources used—the hypothetical *Catalogus and lost works bySæmundr and Ari. There are drastically divergent opinions regarding the form and content of the *Catalogus. Storm (1880,
n. ad 44.11) and Johnsen (1939, 18) assume that the work beganwith the reign of Óláfr Haraldsson; Finnur Jónsson (1920–1924
II, 593; 1928, 264) and Ellehøj (1965, 184) conjecture thatthe work may have begun with Haraldr hárfagri. BjarniAðalbjarnarson (1937, 6) postulates that this text was nothing
more than a list of king’s names together with calculations of
the length of their reigns; whereas Ellehøj (1965, 182–196,278) speculates that the *Catalogus contained narrative passages as well, and goes so far as to suggest that this lost work
provided the basis for Theodoricus’s history. For a succinct
account of the difficulties which surround this hypotheticaltext, see Lange 1989, 53–55 and 200–201, nn. ad loc.
215. I.e. three years after St Óláfr’s translation. As Storm notes(1880, n. ad 44.13), Magnús was five years old when Óláfr
left Russia, and therefore six when his father died. Magnús
returned to Norway four years after Óláfr’s death (Ágrip ch.
34 [35], Ólhelg[Leg] ch. 89) when, as Theodoricus states at
21.6, the young king was ten years of age.
216. Ælfgifu ‘of Northampton’, daughter of Earl Ælfhelm of Northumbria, and Knútr’s concubine before his marriage to Ælfgifu/
Emma of Normandy. In 1030 Knútr appointed her regent of
Norway on behalf of their son Sveinn, but the severity of herrule and of the new forms of taxation she imposed made her
so unpopular that by 1035 she and Sveinn were forced to flee
to Denmark (cf. ASC 1892–1899, II, 211; Stenton 1971, 397–
398, 405–406). On the miseries of the Álfífuo ≈ l d see Ágrip chs

94

Theodoricus Monachus

27–29, 32 (33); Ólhelg(Leg) chs 71, 88; Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 239;
Sigvatr Þórðarson, lausavísa 28, Skjd. A I, 274 (cited in Ágrip
ch. 32 [33], Ólhelg[Leg] ch. 88).
217. Tham Baskelme AKSL (Storm 1880, 45, textual n. 3; Lehmann
1937, 122; rpt 1959–1962, 429); see n. 132 above.
218. bryggyofot : Bryggytfot ABKL, Bryggyfot S (Storm 1880,
45, textual n. 4; Lehmann 1937, 122; rpt 1959–1962, 429).
On this nickname see Lind 1920–1921, 46.
219. On this diplomatic mission, see also Ágrip ch. 33 (34). In
Ólhelg(Leg) ch. 89, Ro≈ gnvaldr Brúsason does not figure among
the emissaries sent to Russia, since he is said to have fled Norway
after the battle of Stiklastaðir (Ólhelg[Leg] ch. 83). In Orkneyinga
saga ch. 21 and MgóðHharðr (Msk 17–19, Flat. III, 261–262)
Ro≈ g nvaldr is said to have been a leading member of Jaroslav’s
court at the time of the Norwegian delegation. Fsk chs 44–45
and Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 251 mention neither Ro≈gnvaldr nor Sveinn
bryggjufótr among the men sent to persuade Magnús to takeup the Norwegian crown. Magnús’s triumphant return from theeast is described by Arnórr Þórðarson jarlaskáld, Magnúsdrápa
stt. 1–2 (Skjd. A I, 338) and by Þjóðólfr Arnórsson, Magnúsflokkr(c. 1045) stt. 1–2 (Skjd. A I, 361); cf. Johnsen 1939, 28, nn. 4–5.
220. The flight of Sveinn Álfífuson to Denmark is described in
Arnórr jarlaskáld, Magnúsdrápa stt. 3–4 (Skjd. A I, 339); Þjóðólfr
Arnórsson, Magnúsflokkr stt. 3–5 (Skjd. A I, 361–362); Bjarni
Hallbjarnarson gullbrárskáld, Kalfsflokkr st. 6 (Skjd. A I, 395);
cf. Johnsen (1939, 28, nn. 4–5). On Sveinn’s departure, his
subsequent death and the death of Knútr the Great, cf. Ágrip
chs 34–35 (35–36), Fsk chs 46–47, MgóðHharðr (Msk 20–22,
Flat. III, 263–264), Hkr(Mgóð) chs 4–5.
221. Brennojar : sic S, Brennorar AB, Brennoiar KL; off the mouthof the Göta älv in present-day west Sweden.
222. Hartha Knut ABK, Harha Knut S; the only son of Knútr
and Emma of Normandy. He was king of Denmark 1035–1042,
of England 1040–1042.
223. On the events leading up to an eventual treaty between Magnús
and Ho≈r ðaknútr, cf. Ágrip 35 (36) and Hkr(Mgóð) ch. 6. Fsk
ch. 47 and MgóðHharðr (Msk 22, Flat. III, 264) refer to open
warfare between Denmark and Norway before the conflict wasNotes95

settled by a truce. The terms of the treaty are expressed somewhat differently in Ágrip, where it is stated that whichever kingoutlived the other should take control of both kingdoms (sáþeira, er lengr lifði, skyldi taka við báðum lo≈ndum). Other sources
agree with Theodoricus, that the treaty stipulated that only if
one king were to die without an heir (barnlauss) would thesurviving king be entitled to take over the other’s kingdom.
The oldest reference to this treaty appears in the anonymous
Chronicon Roskildense (SmhDmæ. I, 22), written c. 1140. See
Driscoll 1995, 101, n. 104.
224. Theodoricus has confused Liutprand, king of the Langobards
from 712 to 744, with the last Langobard king, Desiderius (reigned
757–774), to whom Carloman’s widow fled with her children
in 771 (see, for example, Einhard, Vit. Karol. iii.3).
225. Here Theodoricus has confused various separate occasions
on which different popes appealed for Frankish aid. His reference to Liutprand suggests that Theodoricus is actually recallingthe appeals for help against Liutprand sent by Pope Gregory
III to Charlemagne’s grandfather, Charles Martel, in 739 and740. Hanssen (1949, 90–91) suggests that Theodoricus’s erroneous account of a pope besieged in Pavia may depend on
confusion of Papia (‘Pavia’) and papa (‘Pope’) in a sourcesuch as Ado of Vienne’s account of Charlemagne’s capture ofPavia in 774 (PL 123, 126A).
226. Iam rapido cursu Cæsar superaverat Alpes: a partial misquotation of Lucan, Bell. civ. i.183: Iam gelidas Caesar cursu
superaverat Alpes (‘Now in haste Caesar had crossed the frozen
Alps’). On this quotation see Frank 1909, 82; Hanssen 1949, 88.
227. Ego non corporalem sed spiritualem fero gladium. For discussion of this statement in connection with parallel passagesin St Bernard and Hugh of St Victor, see Hanssen 1949, 117–120.
228. Theodoricus refers here to the so-called ‘Donation ofConstantine’, a document fabricated probably in the Frankish
empire during the late eighth or early ninth century, to strengthen
the power of the Church in Rome (see, for example, Buchberger
1957–1968, VI, 483–484: ‘Konstantinische Schenkung’; Cross
and Livingstone 1983, 419). Cf. Hanssen 1949, 105–120; Vandvik
1955.

96

Theodoricus Monachus

229. Kirchmann (1684) objected that here Theodoricus ought tohave written ‘roughly two hundred years’ (annos plus minus
ducentos, instead of trecentos; see Storm 1880, n. ad 48.6).
Since the Langobards established a kingdom in Italy under Alboin
in 568, and their last king, Desiderius, was defeated by Charlemagne in 774, the period of Langobard rule lasted only slightly
longer than two centuries.
230. cum Wandalis: Theodoricus’s use of Wandali to refer not
to ‘Vandals’, but to the Wends (cf. 24.12: ‘Wandali, quos nos
materna lingua vocamus Windir’; Storm 1880, 48.17), is paralleled
in Adam of Bremen, Gest. Hamm. ii.21 (18) ‘Sclavania igitur,
amplissima Germaniae provintia, a Winulis incolitur, qui olim
dicti sunt Wandali.’ Here Adam confuses both the Langobards(Winili, see Zeuss 1837, 57, 472; Paff 1959, 119; Latham 1965,
522, s.v. Winilus) and the Vandals with the Wends. In the sameway, the Continuatio Valcellensis appended to the Chronicleof Sigebert of Gembloux, in recording the death of St Vicelinin 1154, refers to the so-called ‘apostle of the Wends’ as Vicelinus
Wandalorum apostolus (1844, 460). Saxo similarly refers to
the inhabitants of Vendsyssel as Wandali (Gesta Danorum
XI.xiv.6; cf. Blatt 1957, 603, s.v. Wandali). On confusion ofterms for Vandals and Wends, see generally Hoops 1911–1919,
IV, 478–479; Storm 1880, n. ad 48.17; Paff 1959, 221. Magnús’s
battles against the Wends are described by Arnórr jarlaskáld,
Magnúsdrápa (Hrynhenda) stt. 11–13 (Skjd. A I, 335–336),
Magnúsdrápa st. 8 (Skjd. A I, 340), Þjóðólfr Arnórsson,
Magnúsflokkr stt. 6–7 (Skjd. A I, 362–363), and in Oddr kikinaskáld’s poem on Magnús (c. 1046) st. 1 (Skjd. A I, 354–355);
cf. Johnsen 1939, 28, nn. 4–6.
231. Ho≈ r ðaknútr died in 1042 at a wedding-feast ‘as he stood at
his drink’. See ASC (C and D versions), 1892–1899, I, 162(EHD I, 260); Stenton 1971, 423.
232. Ástríðr was the daughter of Sveinn Haraldsson tjúguskegg
and half-sister of Knútr the Great. Her husband Úlfr was theson of Þorgils sprakaleggr. Sveinn Úlfsson (usually called
Estridsson, using the Danish form of his mother’s name) ruled
Denmark after the death of Magnús, from 1047 to 1076.
233. The battle of Helganes? Cf. Ágrip ch. 36 (37) and n. 239 below.

Notes97234. Ágrip ch. 36 (37) is alone in claiming that after his defeat
at Helganes Sveinn Úlfsson returned to Denmark with an army
he had recruited among the Wends. On the plural Vindir, olderVinðr, Vindr, see Noreen 1923, § 414.
235. operientes faciem terræ more locustarum: cf. n. 162.
236. With this account of Magnús’s vision of St Óláfr before
the battle of Hlýrskógsheiðr, cf. Einarr Skúlason, Geisli st. 28(Skjd. A I, 464) and discussion in Johnsen (1939, 27–28); cf.
also accounts in Ágrip ch. 37 (38), Fsk ch. 50, MgóðHharðr
(Msk 42–43, Flat. III, 278–279), Hkr(Mgóð) ch. 27.
237. On this reference to the preservation of Óláfr’s battle-axe
at Niðaróss and similar stories of the survival of ancient objects of historical significance, see Perkins 1989, 248.
238. Luirscogs-heithr. The battle was fought on 28 September
1043, north-west of Hedeby, supposedly on the site of presentday Lürschau in Schleswig (see Finnur Jónsson 1929, 37, n. 8).
Arnórr jarlaskáld (Magnúsdrápa [Hrynhenda] st. 13, Skjd. A
I, 336) and Þjóðólfr Arnórsson (Magnúsflokkr st. 6, Skjd. A I,
362) describe Magnús’s victory over an overwhelming armyof Wends near the river Skotborgará (according to Þjóðólfr,at a place ‘south of Skotborgará’ and ‘near Hedeby’). Ágrip
ch. 37 (38) and Hkr(Mgóð) ch. 26 describe Hlýrskógsheiðr assituated beside Skotborgará (cf. MgóðHharðr, Msk 38, 42–43;
Flat. III, 275, 278–279); but this detail is erroneous, for theriver in question (present-day Kongeå) lies far north of Hedeby.
On the battle, cf. Adam of Bremen, Gest. Hamm. ii.79 (75),and Fsk ch. 50. The author of Ágrip draws his own very detailed account of the course of the battle from an unknown
source.
239. Magnús’s victory at Helganes is described by Arnórr jarlaskáld,
Magnúsdrápa (Hrynhenda) st. 15 (Skjd. A I, 336–337),
Magnúsdrápa st. 12 (Skjd. A I, 341), and by Þjóðólfr Arnórsson,
Magnúsflokkr st. 21 (Skjd. A I, 366). According to Ágrip ch. 36(37), Magnús and Sveinn Úlfsson fought a naval battle at Helganes before the battle of Hlýrskógsheiðr. According to othersources, this encounter took place after the defeat of the Wends
at Hlýrskógsheiðr; cf. Fsk ch. 50, MgóðHharðr (Msk 49–50;
Flat. III, 283–284); Hkr(Mgóð) ch. 33.

98

Theodoricus Monachus

240. Áróss, Latin Aros: present-day Århus. Magnús’s victory overan army of Wends south of Århus is described in Oddr kikinaskáld’s poem on Magnús, st. 1 (Skjd. A I, 354–355). Cf. thedescription of Sveinn’s defeat in Jutland in Arnórr jarlaskáld’s
Magnúsdrápa st. 15 (Skjd. A I, 342), and accounts in Fsk ch. 50,
MgóðHharðr (Msk 50–51; Flat. III, 284); Hkr(Mgóð) chs 30,
35. Cf. also the reference to three battles (interpreted by Snorri,
Hkr(Mgóð) ch. 35, as those fought between Magnús and Sveinn)in Þjóðólfr Arnórsson’s Magnúsflokkr st. 25 (Skjd. A I, 368).
241. The A text reads non multa ‘not many’, over which is written nulla, to mark alteration to non nulla ‘not none, a goodmany’ (see Storm 1880, 50, textual n. 1). Cf. non nulla KL(Lehmann 1937, 122; rpt 1959–1962, 429), nonnulla multa S.
242. Haraldr’s nickname (Hardrad’r S, Hardradr AK, Hardraðr
L, see Lehmann 1937, 122; rpt 1959–1962, 429) appears in
the title to this chapter, but not in the text. On this nickname,see Lind 1920–1921, 136.
243. Ourarsund S, Ourarsunt ABK (Storm 1880, 50, textual n. 3)= Eyrarsund, the Øresund.
244. purpuram renitebat: i.e. ‘shone with iridescent shot silk’(see e.g. Dodwell 1982, 145–50). Cf. the descriptions of Haraldr’s
ship returning from the east in Fsk ch. 50, MgóðHharðr (Msk
55; Flat. III, 287).
245. All texts read Thambar Kelmer (Storm 1880, 50, textual
n. 4; Lehmann 1937, 122; rpt 1959–1962, 429). See n. 132 above.
246. In Ágrip ch. 38 (39) Einarr þambaskelmir is not present at
the meeting between Haraldr and Magnús, and uncle and nephew
divide the kingdom amicably between them. The statement inch. 27 below, that after this meeting Haraldr left Denmark for
Norway and there agreed to join forces with Sveinn Úlfsson,
is at variance with other sources. They say that Haraldr madea pact with Sveinn in Sweden either after or before his interview with Magnús (Fsk ch. 52, MgóðHharðr [Msk 89; Flat.
III, 307]; Hkr[HSig] chs 17–20). Ágrip subsequently has noaccount of hostility between Haraldr and Einarr and does nottell of the death of Einarr and Eindriði, his son. The hostility
is plain in the Fsk account, but the deaths of Einarr and Eindriði
are reported there only in bare fashion in ch. 47. A more de-Notes99

tailed and graphic description is in MgóðHharðr (Msk 178–
180; Flat. II, 344–345, 349–350) and Hkr(HSig) chs 43–44.
247. See 2 Sam. 15:1–18:33.
248. Mithridates VI, Eupator Dionysus (‘the Great’), was kingof Pontus from 120 to 63 BC , when his son Pharnaces II led
the revolt which drove his father to his death, for which Pharnaces
was remembered as an emblem of filial treachery. See, forexample, Lucan, Bell. civ. x.475–478.
249. Here the reading in AL, spiculatori ‘to the executioner’, isto be preferred over S, speculatori ‘to the watchman’(?), adopted
in Storm’s edition. Speculator is, in any case, a common variant spelling of spiculator (see, for example, Niermeyer 1976,
983, s.v. speculator 2; 984, s.v. spiculator). Cf. Mark 6:27,
where speculator (v.l. spiculator) is the term used to refer toJohn the Baptist’s executioner (cf. Hanssen 1945, 173;
Christiansen 1992, 108, n. 21).
250. Barbarico vix consummato [sic] veneno: a partial citationof Lucan, Bell. civ. i.336–337: lassi Pontica regis / Proelia
barbarico vix consummata veneno ‘the lingering warfare of
the king of Pontus, scarcely ended by barbarous poison’. Lucan
describes how, after years of protracted war against Rome,
Mithridates took poison in a fit of despair; but it failed to kill
him. Theodoricus may have drawn the line from accounts ofMithridates’ war against Rome in Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. VI.i.29,
or Otto of Freising, Chronicon ii.45 (1912, 121), where thesame isolated phrase is cited (see Hanssen 1949, 86–87). A
close parallel to this account of Pharnaces’ murder of his father is contained in Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. VI.v.4–7.
251. Only the final remark, about Mithridates’ polyglot judicial
decisions, appears in Pliny, Nat. Hist. VII.xxiv.88: Mithridates
duarum et viginti gentium rex totidem linguis jura dixit, pro
contione singulas sine interprete affatus. All of the remarks
attributed to Pliny here are found in Landulf Sagax, Historia
Romana vi.13 (see next note). Cf. discussion in Hanssen 1945, 169.
252. On Theodoricus’s references to Romana Historia, see nn.
50, 251, and 257–259. Lehmann (1937, 75; rpt 1959–1962,
386–387) suggests that here Theodoricus refers to the expanded
versions of Eutropius’s Roman history by Paul the Deacon and

100

Theodoricus Monachus

Landulf Sagax, both of which circulated under the title Historia
Romana (see Reynolds 1983, 159–162). Lehmann points out(1937, 72–73; rpt 1959–1962, 384–385) that a close parallelto the beginning of ch. 26 of Theodoricus’s history is provided
by Landulf’s text, which incorporates Orosius’s account of
Pharnaces’ overthrow of his father Mithridates (see n. 248 above);cf. Storm 1880, 51.14–25 and Landulf Sagax, Historia Romana
vi.13 (1912–1913, I, 147–148); cf. Paul the Deacon, Historia
Romana vi.12 (1914, 86–87).
253. scripturam quæ fertur de exaltatione sanctæ crucis: See
BHL 4178; Mombritius 1910, I, 379–381; cf., for example, GNH
1931, 135–36, Salvesen–Gunnes 1971, 179; Vincent of Beauvais,
Speculum Historiale XXIII.xii (1624, IV, 903).
254. On the Decretum Gelasianum, traditionally ascribed toPope Gelasius I (d. 496), but probably a private work compiled in the sixth century, see Hanssen 1949, 92–93; Buchberger 1957–1968, IV, 630; Cross and Livingstone 1983, 385.
It makes no mention of a scriptura de exaltatione crucis, although it does mention a scriptura de inventione crucis.
See Decretum Gelasianum 1912, 10.226. Theodoricus may
have worked from a commonplace version of the decree or may
have muddled the name of the text to which he here refers.
255. Cui beatus Augustinus plurimis in locis attestatur eodem
sensu et pæne iisdem verbis: Hanssen (1949, 92) doubts thata specific source is referred to here. He argues that the verb
attestatur need only mean ‘corresponds with’, and that
Theodoricus may simply be saying that Gelasius and Augustine are in agreement on this point.
256. On this list of apocryphal works, see Decretum Gelasianum
1912, 11.263, 265–268, 273, 275, 279, 280; cf. Storm 1880,
n. ad 52.10.
257. On the title Romana Historia, cf. nn. 50 and 252 above.
The accounts which follow (Storm 1880, 53.5–20), of the defeat of a Persian giant by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (575–641), and of the dealings of Chosroes II Parve–z (king of Persia 590–628; see Kazhdan 1991, 432) with his sons, Mardasa
and Syrois (Kava–d-Shı r– u–ya, king of Persia, Feb.–Sept./Oct. 628;
see Kazhdan 1991, 1117), are paralleled in Landulf Sagax, Historia

Notes101

Romana xx.26 and xx.47–50 (1912–1913, II, 116, 126–128;
cf. Lehmann 1937, 73–74; rpt 1959–1962, 385–386).
258. comedat aurum et argentum, pro quo multos impie peremit
et orbem terrarum delevit: cf. Landulf Sagax, Historia Romana
xx.49 (1912–1913, II, 127): Comedat aurum quod incassumcollegit et propter quod etiam multos fame necauit mundumquedeleuit. Cf. traditional accounts of misers, usurers and exortionists
force-fed gold and silver as one of the torments of Hell, Dunn
1934, 54; Tubach 1969, nos 454, 5039.
259. The story of Chosroes’ ultimatum to Heraclius’s ambassadors
is found in Landulf Sagax, Historia Romana xx.6 (1912–1913,
II, 105).
260. Very similar accounts of Titus’s famous dictum are given
in Jerome, Chronicon (1956, 189.4–8); idem, Comm. in Epistolam
ad Galatos (PL 26, 433); Isidore, Chronica (1894, 456–457).
But the story circulated widely. Cf., for example, Ps. Aurelius
Victor, Epitome x.9; Sedulius Scottus, Collectaneum Miscellaneum
LXXX.x.3; John of Salisbury, Policraticus III.xiv.185–194;
Alphabetum narrationum (1904–1905, I, 303, no. 443); Tubach
1969, no. 1459. Bately (1979, 190–191) discusses examplesof the anecdote in the Old English Orosius (1980, 138.23–139.2,
see n. ad loc.) and ASC s.a. 81.
261. The author’s rather morbid pun on persecutio . . . persequamur
is lost in our translation.
262. I.e. Lake Mjøsa in Oppland. Cf. the accounts of this compact in Fsk ch. 52, MgóðHharðr (Msk 93–95, Flat. III, 309),
Hkr(HSig) ch. 23. According to MgóðHharðr the settlement
was made at a place called Skjaldarakr, referred to in Fsk as‘Akr’. This place has been identified as Aker in Vang in Hedmark,just east of Hamar (see Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951, III,97, n. 2).
263. thambaskelmis K, Thambas Kelmis AS (Storm 1880, 54,
textual n. 8); see n. 132 above.
264. Cf. Matt. 12:25.
265. Proba, Cento Virgilianus de Christo, 1–2 and 8 (in Schenkl,
1888, 569); cf. Walther 1969, no. 9696. On Theodoricus’s mistaken attribution of these lines to Virgil, see Johnsen 1939, 36.
266. Lucan, Bell. civ., i.666–669.

102

Theodoricus Monachus

267. Ágrip ch. 39 (40), Fsk ch. 54, and Hkr(HSig) ch. 28 likewise record that Magnús died the year after he had divided
Norway with Haraldr and expelled Sveinn from Denmark. According to MgóðHharðr (Msk 137; Flat. III, 326), Magnús andHaraldr reigned jointly for two years after Sveinn’s expulsion
from Denmark.
268. Cf. Ágrip ch. 39 (40), MgóðHharðr (Msk 144; Flat. III,331), Hkr(HSig) ch. 28.
269. Theodoricus’s pithy characterisation of Haraldr harðráði,‘sui tenax, alieni cupidus’, neatly compresses Gregory the Great’squestioning characterisation of unregenerate man: ‘Quid enim
vetus, quid carnalis homo noverat, nisi sua retinere, aliena rapere,si posset; concupiscere, si non posset?’ (Hom. 32 in Evang.,
PL 76, 1232D). Ágrip ch. 40 (41) is the only source to saythat Sveinn and his ally, the Norwegian chieftain Finnr Árnason,
initiated hostilities and sent an army to Norway against Haraldr.
On Haraldr’s forays into Denmark cf. Hkr(HSig) chs 32, 34–35,
58–65.
270. Tostig (ON Tósti), the brother of Harold, son of Earl Godwineof Wessex, had been made earl of Northumbria in 1055, but
was deposed and driven out of England after a popular revolt
against him in 1065. See ASC (C, D, and E versions), 1892–
1899, I, 185–86, 190–93 (EHD II, 133, 141–42); Stenton 1971,
570, 578–79.
271. Cf. Ágrip ch. 41 (42), Fsk chs 58–60, MgóðHharðr (Msk
263–264; Flat. III, 387–389), Hkr(HSig) chs 77–79.
272. Storm (1880, n. ad 56.13) remarks that this explanation of
the late arrival of the English king in Yorkshire suggests that
Theodoricus falsely assumed that Harold, like William theConqueror and his successors, ruled over Normandy as wellas England. On the other hand, Theodoricus may have had inmind the tradition that around the year 1064 Harold was held
hostage by Guy de Ponthieu and swore allegiance to Williamof Normandy in Bayeux (see Stenton 1971, 577–578; cf. theaccount of Harold’s sojourn in Normandy in Hkr[HSig] ch.
76). The same detail, that Harold was away in Normandy when
Haraldr landed, is included in Ágrip ch. 41 (42).
273. quid faciant pauci contra tot milia fortes: Ovid, Fasti ii.229.

Notes103

Hanssen (1945, 170; 1949, 83) is inclined to believe that
Theodoricus quotes this verse from a florilegium, rather thandirectly from Ovid.
274. Cf. the phrase uttered by Haraldr in Ágrip ch. 41 (42), Sjaldan
fór svá, þá er vel vildi, reminiscent of Erlingr skakki’s remark,in different circumstances: Eigi for þa sva er vel villdi (Sverrissaga 1920, 35). By contrast, in Fsk ch. 68, MgóðHharðr (Msk
274, Flat. III, 393), and Hkr(HSig) ch. 90, Haraldr interprets
his fall from horseback as an auspicious sign, remarking: Faller farar heill. Harold Godwineson, looking on, interprets thisominous fall as a clear indication that the Norwegian king’s
luck has deserted him. The same proverb, Fall er farar heill,
is uttered by Erlingr skakki after he slips when jumping ashore,
not long before his death in the battle of Niðaróss, 19 June
1179 (Sverris saga 1920, 36). Analogous stories of a militarycommander who falls when first setting foot on the land hewishes to conquer are told of Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar
and William the Conqueror, among others (see Moberg 1940).
275. A convenient summary of medieval chronicles and histories which associate the appearance of this comet with political events in England in 1066 is provided by Freeman 1867–
1879, III, 645–650; cf. Storm 1880, n. ad 57.9. Almost all European accounts agree that the comet appeared not just before
the battle of Hastings (14 October) as Theodoricus suggests,
but rather on the eve of the Major Rogation (25 April). A datein April accords with other reports of the appearance of Halley’s
comet recorded by writers for whom events in England in 1066
had no significance. See Ho Peng Yoke 1962, 184–185, no.
380; Stephenson and Walker 1985, 57; Keynes 1992, 162.
276. Blaland ABK, Blaaland S: Bláland usually refers to ‘Ethiopia’,
but here designates either ‘North Africa’, or perhaps ‘Palestine’; see Fritzner 1886–1896, s.v. (On the vague geographic
limits of ‘Ethiopia’ for medieval European writers, see Friedman 1981, 8.) Haraldr’s military adventures in the east aredescribed or alluded to in Haraldr’s own gamanvísur (c. 1040),
stt. 3–4, 6–7 (Skjd. A I, 357–358; cf. lausavísa 15, Skjd. A I,359); in Þjóðólfr Arnórsson’s Sexstefja (c. 1065), stt. 1–8 (Skjd.
A I, 369–371); in Arnórr Þórðarson’s erfidrápa on Haraldr (c.

104Theodoricus Monachus

1067), st. 19 (Skjd. A I, 353); in Stúfr Þórðarson’s Stúfsdrápa(c. 1067), stt. 2–4 (Skjd. A I, 404–405); in Bo≈lverkr Arnórsson’sdrápa on Haraldr harðráði, stt. 1–5 (Skjd. A I, 385–386); inverses by Illugi Bryndœlaskáld (Skjd. A I, 384, st. 4) and Valgarðr
á Velli (Skjd. A I, 390–391, stt. 1, 4–5); and in Einarr Skúlason’sGeisli (1153), stt. 51–53 (Skjd. A I, 468–469). Cf. Fsk ch. 51,
MgóðHharðr (Msk 58–87; Flat. III, 289–306), Hkr(HSig), chs
2–12; and discussion in Blöndal 1978, 54–102.
277. id locorum KL (see Storm 1880, 57, textual n. 10; Lange
1989, 184, n. 21); ab id locorum AS. On the expressions id
locorum / id loci ‘there, in that region’, see TLL 7.2, s.v. is,482.72–74.
278. Theodoricus refers to the story of Haraldr’s escape from aprison in Constantinople, and of how he took revenge by puttingout the eyes of the Greek emperor who had detained him,
apparently Michael V Kalaphates, who was blinded in April
1042 (Kazhdan 1991, 1336), in Norse sources incorrectly identified as his successor, Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor
from 1042 to 1055 (Kazhdan 1991, 504). The story is referred
to in Þjóðólfr Arnórsson’s Sexstefja st. 6 (Skjd. A I, 370), Þórarinn
Skeggjason’s drápa on Haraldr harðráði (c. 1050–60, Skjd. A
I, 400), and Stúfr Þórðarson’s Stúfsdrápa st. 4 (Skjd. A I, 405).
Cf. the accounts in Fsk ch. 51, MgóðHharðr (Msk 80–84; Flat.
III, 304–305), Hkr(HSig) chs 13–15, and discussion of Þjóðólfr’s
stanza by Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1951, 87 n.; Turville-Petre
1976, 98; and Frank 1978, 134; cf. Blöndal 1978, 70, 88–100.
279. Þórir of Steig (in Gudbrandsdal, central Norway) was theson of Þórðr Guttormsson and his wife, Ísríðr Guðbrandsdóttir.
Ísríðr was sister of Ásta, the mother of St Óláfr Haraldsson.
The description of Þórir as ‘born to high station among his
own people’ presumably refers to his local prominence in
Gudbrandsdal; cf. Hkr(Ólhelg) ch. 128 on the marriage andprestige of his father Þórðr.
280. ‘After this’—i.e. after Haraldr’s death at Stamford Bridge,
evidently referring to the first words of the chapter, ‘After Haraldr
was killed . . .’—Óláfr shared two years of rule with his brother
Magnús (cf. Ágrip ch. 42 [43]) and was sole ruler for only
twenty-four years after Magnús’s death. Theodoricus must mean

Notes105

here that after the death of his father, Haraldr harðráði, Óláfr
was the legitimate ruler of Norway for twenty-seven years;
cf. Ágrip ch. 44 (45), Fsk ch. 79. The author of Msk clearlycounted the year in which Óláfr was absent from Norway after Stamford Bridge as the first year of his reign, for he toosays that Óláfr had been king of Norway for twenty-seven years
when he died (Msk 296). Snorri, on the other hand, counts thereign as starting only when Óláfr was accepted as king on his
return to Norway a year after the death of his father. He allots
him a reign of twenty-six years in all (Hkr[Ólkyrr] ch. 8). The‘peace and concord’ of his rule are of course reflected in his
nickname, kyrri, ‘the quiet’ or ‘the peaceful’ (see Lind 1920–
1921, 36, 231).
281. In Hkr(Ólkyrr) ch. 6 the church containing the sacred relicsof St Óláfr is mistakenly referred to as Kristskirkja, the nameusually applied to Niðaróss cathedral. The mistake is made goodin Hulda–Hrokkinskinna, where the dedication to the Trinity stands
in agreement with Theodoricus (see Louis-Jensen 1977, 148).
In the 1170s the St Mary’s church built in stone by Haraldr harðráði
was taken down and rebuilt by Archbishop Eysteinn as the churchof his Augustinian foundation at Elgeseter, but an author could
say that ‘it may be seen to this day’ both before and after itschange of site. Cf. Ágrip ch. 42 (43); Hkr(HSig) ch. 38.
282. The same comparison with the peace and prosperity of Haraldr
hárfagri’s reign is made in Ágrip ch. 42 (43) and Msk 291.
283. Cf. Ágrip ch. 44 (45), Fsk ch. 79, Msk 296, Hkr(Ólkyrr) ch. 8.
284. In the title of this chapter all witnesses to Theodoricus’s
text give Magnús’s nickname as berfort, evidently a corruption of berfótr or, better, berfœttr. Here Theodoricus uses thecalque nudipes ‘barefoot’, although the vernacular nickname
really means ‘bareleg’. In Ágrip chs 45 (46), 50 (51), Magnús’s
cognomen is given as berleggr. Snorri, Hkr(Mberf ) ch. 16,
explains that Magnús was called berfœttr or berbeinn because
after his sojourn in the west he and his men adopted the dress
fashionable in Scotland and Ireland, and ‘went barelegged about
the streets and wore short tunics and cloaks’ (hann hafði mjo≈ kþá siðu ok klæðabúnað, sem títt var í Vestrlo ≈ n dum, ok margirhans menn. Gengu þeir berleggjaðir um stræti ok ho ≈ f ðu kyrtla

106

Theodoricus Monachus

stutta ok svá yfirhafnir). It is generally accepted by historiansof costume that this describes the brat-and-léine, or mantleand-tunic, garb common in early Ireland and Scotland. Thereis no clear evidence that anything quite like the kilt was wornin those parts before the Renaissance (see McClintock 1949,
3; 1950, 5–6, 8; Dunbar 1962, 23; 1981, 21–22) and indeed
the garment now adopted as the national dress of Scotland
appears to have been invented by an English Quaker from
Lancashire some time in the 1730s (see Trevor-Roper 1983).
Cf. Lind 1920–1921, 19–21, s.vv. Berbeinn, Berf∞ttr, Berleggr.
Saxo, Gesta Danorum XIII.i.1 (1931, 342), records that Magnús
earned his nickname from his shameful barefoot flight froman army of Hallanders. Cf. Christiansen 1980–1981, I, 292,
n. 3; Driscoll 1995, 103–104, n. 127.
285. Cf. Ágrip ch. 45 (46), on the taxes rescinded by Hákon (perhaps
some of those first imposed by Sveinn and Álfífa, see Ágrip
chs 28–29, and Bjarni Einarsson, 1984, xii); see also Fsk ch.
80, Msk 297, Hkr(Mberf) ch. 1. Ágrip presents a rather moredetailed account of the friction between Magnús and Hákon.
286. Hákon died suddenly of a mysterious illness after chasinga ptarmigan on Dovrefjell (see Ágrip ch. 46 [47], Fsk ch. 80,
Msk 298, Hkr[Mberf] ch. 2).
287. Cf. Ágrip ch. 47 (48) fin., and Hkr(Mberf) ch. 7.
288. The portents foreshadowing Charlemagne’s death mentioned
here are catalogued in Einhard, Vit. Karol. ch. 32; see Hanssen
1949, 85–86.
289. The number eight (octo) is included as a superscript addition in K, and added in the margin in A (see Storm 1880, 59,
textual n. 4). This detail differs from Einhard, Vit. Karol. ch.
32.2, where it is stated that the bridge was built over a periodof ten years. According to Einhard, it was destroyed by fire in
May 813, one year before the death of Charlemagne (Vit. Karol.
ch. 17.2; cf. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chron., s.a. 811 [1844, 337]).
290. In fact, the wooden arcade of the church at Aachen did notcollapse until 817, three years after the emperor’s death (seeAnnales regni Francorum 1895, 146; trans. Scholz 1970, 102).
291. According to Einhard, Vit. Karol. ch. 32.3, this event took
place during Charlemagne’s last expedition against the Dan-

Notes107

ish king Godfred. Einhard (Vit. Karol. ch. 14.3) and the Royal
Frankish Annals (Annales regni Francorum 1895, 131; Scholz
1970, 92) record that Godfred was murdered by one of his retainers in 810. Theodoricus, or his immediate source, has confused the warlike Godfred with his successor Hemming who,
during his short reign (810–812), made peace with Charlemagne.
According to the Royal Frankish Annals, Hemming was Godfred’s
nephew (filius fratris eius, Annales regni Francorum 1895, 133;
Scholz 1970, 93), although Adam of Bremen calls Hemming
Godfred’s cousin (patruelis, Gest. Hamm. i.14 [16]), and Saxo
represents Hemming as the son of a certain Olaf and grandson of Godfred (Gøtricus, see Saxo, Gesta Danorum viii.249–
ix.250; cf. Fisher–Davidson 1979–1980, II, 147 n. 175, 150 n. 1).
292. Cf. Notker Balbulus, Gest. Karol. ii.12. The same story is
told of the Merovingian king Chlothar II (584–629) in the LiberHist. Franc. ch. 41 (1888, 314), the Life of Bishop Faro of
Meaux (Vita Faronis ch. 77; 1910, 192–193), and the Gesta
Dagoberti, ch. 14 (1888, 405).
293. quo semel imbuta recens fuit, servavit [servabit S] odorem
testa diu: Horace, Epistulae I.ii.69–70: Quo semel est imbuta
recens, servabit odorem testa diu. See Walther 1963–1986, no. 25711.
294. Cf. the very similar account of events in Ágrip ch. 47 (48)
init.: ‘En eptir fráfall Hákonar þá mátti Þórir eigi víkva skapi
sínu til Magnúss, er þá tók við ríki, ok reisti upp mann þann,er Sveinn var kallaðr, sonr Haralds flettis, fyr ofmetnaðar sakar.’Cf. Fsk ch. 80, Msk 298–299. Snorri (Hkr[Mberf] ch. 4) saysthat Sveinn was of Danish descent.
295. According to Ágrip ch. 47 (48) and Hkr(Mberf) ch. 6, Þórir
and Egill were captured on the island on which Hesjutún (modern
Hestun) is situated, i.e. Hamnøya, a bit to the north of the mouthof Velfjorden (Nordland fylke), and were later taken to be hangedon Vambarhólmr (modern Vomma, off Hamnøya). Storm (n.
ad 61.5) thought Theodoricus was wrong in reporting that Þórir
was captured on Vambarhólmr. His account agrees, however,with that of Msk (302–304); and Fsk ch. 80 records that, while
the followers of Þórir and Egill were captured at Hesjutún,‘Þórir varð ok handtekinn í hólmi þeim, er heitir Vambarhólmr,’
and they were hanged there. The defeat of Þórir and Egill is

108

Theodoricus Monachus

referred to in Þorkell hamarskáld’s Magnúsdrápa (c. 1104),
st. 1 (Skjd. A I, 438).
296. cum quodam alio principe, nomine Eigil, viro probo et valde
eloquente: cf. Ágrip ch. 47 (48): Egill Áskelssonr á Forlandi
enn vaskasti maðr, and Msk 303–304: Egill af Forlandi enn
cvrteisasti maþr, oc allra manna vascastr. Snorri (Hkr[Mberf]
ch. 4) is alone in giving the name of Egill’s father as ‘Áslákr’.
For biographical details see NBL 3, 447–448; Lind 1931, 203.
With the reference here to Egill’s ‘eloquence’, cf. the biting
insult which he is said to have directed at Magnús’s servants
just before being hanged, commemorated in a verse attributedto Þorkell hamarskáld (Skjd. A I, 439, st. 2; cf. Fsk ch. 80,
Msk 304–305, Hkr[Mberf] ch. 6).
297. Dalr, Hofuth, Wear: cf. Ágrip ch. 48 (49): ‘Magnús fór margar
herfarar ok fekk þat fyrst til ákalls á Gautland austr, at hannkvað Dal ok Véar ok Varðynjar með réttu eiga at liggja til Nóregs,kvað sína forellra haft hafa forðum . . .’; cf. Msk 323. Magnús’s
military exploits are described in Þorkell hamarskáld’s
Magnúsdrápa stt. 2–5 (Skjd. A I, 438–439). On the Gautish
campaign, cf. Fsk ch. 82, Msk 323–329, Hkr(Mberf) chs 12–
14. Ágrip is alone in representing Magnús as victorious in eachof his expeditions against Gautland.
298. arma tenenti omnia dat : An extract from Caesar’s address
to his troops at Bell. civ. i.348–349: Viribus utendum est, quas
fecimus. Arma tenenti / Omnia dat, qui iusta negat. ‘The strength
we have created must be used. He who denies his due to theman bearing weapons grants him everything.’ The words quoted
by Theodoricus circulated independently as an aphorism (seeWalther 1963–1986, no. 1353a).
299. Snorri (Hkr[Mberf] ch. 14) recounts how ¯gmundr Skoptason
disguised himself in the king’s doublet, thereby duping theenemy into pursuing him and affording Magnús a chance toescape. Ágrip, ch. 49 (50), merely mentions ¯gmundr among
the men who accompanied Magnús on the Gautish campaign.
The author of Msk (332), apparently working from a source
similar to the list in Ágrip of Magnús’s followers in Gautland,
represents ¯gmundr as one of the men who accompanied Magnús
on his last expedition to Ireland.

Notes109300. King of Sweden c. 1080–1110.
301. On this settlement and Magnús’s marriage to Margrét Ingadóttir,
cf. Ágrip ch. 48 (49) fin., Fsk ch. 83, Msk 329, Hkr(Mberf) ch. 15.
302. ulstrengr AK, Ulstrenger SB (Storm 1880, 62, textual n. 1).
On the nickname of Sigurðr ullstrengr Loðinsson see Lind 1920–
1921, 391.
303. Theodoricus’s statement that Sigurðr ullstrengr establishedthe monastery on Niðarhólmr is confirmed by Ólhelg(Leg) ch.
75 (cf. Taranger 1890, 177; Blom 1956, 127 and 512, n. 11).
In the Icelandic Gísls þáttr Illugasonar in Jóns saga helga(Bps. I, 226) it is likewise reported that during the reign ofMagnús berfœttr a Benedictine house (svartmunkaklaustr) wasestablished on Niðarhólmr, the island which Sigurðr had received from King Magnús and which he bequeathed to themonastery, together with his patrimony at Viggjar (now Viggja,
on Orkdalsfjord in Sør-Trøndelag). Matthew Paris, however,(Chronica majora, V, 42) apparently refers to Niðarhólmr when
he remarks that Knútr the Great had founded a Benedictinemonastery in Norway (coenobium in Norwegia . . . quod dicitur
coenobium sancti Benedicti de Holm), together with a kindredhouse in England with the same name, that is, the monasteryof St Benet’s of Holme in Norfolk. A similar report is includedin the fifteenth-century chronicle attributed to John Brompton(Chron., 1652, 912–913; cf. Langebek 1772–1878, IV, 415,
n. b.; Lange 1856, 199–200; Taranger 1890, 177). There is,on the other hand, ample evidence from later Norse sourcesthat at least the estates at Viggjar had once belonged to Sigurðr’s
family, and that by the fourteenth century this land had passed
into the possession of the monastery on Niðarhólmr (see LouisJensen 1977, 118–119, n. 33). For discussion of the possibility that Theodoricus was himself a monk at Niðarhólmr, see
Introd. pp. ix–x; Lange 1856, 200; Storm 1880, vii; Daae 1895,
400; Nordal 1914, 7–8; Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 5; Johnsen
1939, 86–89; Ellehøj 1965, 176; Lange 1989, 19.
304. Magnús’s killing of a certain ‘Earl Hugh’ in Anglesey iscommemorated in Bjo≈ r n krepphendi’s Magnúsdrápa (c. 1100),
st. 9 (Skjd. A I, 436–437), and Gísl Illugason’s erfikvæði on
Magnús berfœttr (c. 1104), stt. 11–13 (Skjd. A I, 442); cf. Þorkell

110

Theodoricus Monachus

hamarskáld, Magnúsdrápa (c. 1104), st. 3 (Skjd. A I, 438). Ágrip
ch. 49 (50) agrees with Theodoricus in reporting that Magnús
defeated and killed ‘jarl þann, er Hugi hét enn digri’. Later
Icelandic sources (Fsk ch. 81, Msk 318–319, Hkr[Mberf] ch.
10, Orkneyinga saga ch. 39, Magnúss saga skemmri ch. 3,
Magnúss saga lengri ch. 9) record that Magnús fought against
two earls named Hugh at Anglesey, ‘Hugi prúði’ and ‘Hugi
digri’, and that the former was killed and the latter put to flight.
These later accounts accord with information in British sources,
which confirm that Hugh of Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury,
died at the battle of Anglesey in July 1098; see, for example,
the Peterborough Chronicle (1970, 27), John of Worcester,
Chronicon (1995–1998, I, 86–88, s.a. 1098), William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum iv.329 (1998, 570), Orderic Vitalis, Hist.
eccl. X, 5 (1969–1980, V, 222–224)—while Hugh of Avranches(‘the stout’), earl of Chester, died on 27 July, 1101 (Orderic
Vitalis, Hist. eccl. X, 19; 1969–1980, V, 314; Brut y Twysogyon
1955, 41). See Bugge 1914, 38–40; Charles 1934, 116–122.
305. Cf. Ágrip ch. 49 (50): ‘Tekr hann í Orkneyjum síðan jarlinn
Erlend með sér ok Magnús, son hans, áttján vetra gamlan, er
nú er heilagr.’ On the part of Magnús Erlendsson, later St Magnús
of Orkney (d. 1117), in this expedition, cf. also Fsk ch. 81,
Msk 316, Hkr(Mberf) ch. 23, and the detailed accounts in
Orkneyinga saga chs 39–40, Magnúss saga skemmri chs 3–4,
Magnúss saga lengri chs 9–10. On his miracles, see Orkneyinga
saga ch. 57, Magnúss saga skemmri chs 19–20, Magnúss saga
lengri chs 30, 33–35.
306. Witheuthr ASKL (for Withcuthr, see Storm 1880, 63, textual
n. 1; cf. Lehmann 1937, 122; 1959–1962, 429). Cf. similar listsof the names of those who accompanied Magnús on his expedition
to Orkney in Ágrip ch. 49 (50), Fsk ch. 84, Msk 332, Hkr(Mberf)
ch. 23, Orkneyinga saga ch. 39, Magnúss saga lengri ch. 9.
307. On the death of Nikulás Sigurðarson at the hands of Eysteinn
meyla Eysteinsson’s army of Birkibeinar, see Fsk ch. 126,
Hkr(MErl) ch. 40; on Eysteinn, see Fsk chs 122, 127–129;
Hkr(MErl) chs 36–37, 41–42. It is difficult to say what Theodoricus
means to imply in his reference to Eysteinn as infelix tyrannus ;cf. Introd. pp. xi, xiii. As Hanssen (1949, 94–95) points out, thereNotes111

was originally no great difference in meaning between the Latin
terms rex and tyrannus, which had a general sense ‘monarch,sovereign’ (see OLD s.v. tyrannus, 1), and tyrannus only secondarily came to be associated with evil rulers or despots. Cf.,for example, Isidore, Etym. IX.iii.19–20: ‘Tyranni Graece dicuntur.
Idem Latine et reges. Nam apud veteres inter regem et tyrannum
nulla discretio erat . . . Fortes enim reges tyranni vocabantur.
Nam tiro fortis . . . Iam postea in usum accidit tyrannos vocari
pessimos atque inprobos reges’ (cf. Etym. I.xxxi). Depending
on how Theodoricus intended to represent Eysteinn’s career
here, the phrase used to describe him, infelix tyrannus, might
be interpreted as ‘a baleful tyrant’, or simply ‘an unfortunate
king’ (cf. the description of Óláfr Haraldsson at Hist. Norw. 121.3
as beatissimus tyrannus Olavus ‘blessed king Óláfr’). For
conflicting views on the implied sense of tyrannus here, see
Skard 1930, 23 and Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 29. It is perhaps significant in this regard that Theodoricus does not Latinise
Eysteinn’s name as Augustinus as he does when referring toboth Eysteinn Erlendsson and Eysteinn Magnússon (cf. n. 316).
308. The title reads thus: ‘De morte ejusdem Magni et filii ejus’;in the chapter headings, p. 4 above, it appears as ‘De morte
ejusdem Magni et de filiis ejus’.
309. Cf. Ágrip ch. 49 (50) fin. and ch. 50 (51) init.: ‘Vendi heimór þessi herfo≈ r með hlo≈ðnum skipum gulls ok silfrs ok gersima.
En fám vetrum síðarr gørðisk hann vestr til Írlands með skipastóli
ok ferr með miklu liði ok ætlar at vinna landit ok vann nekkvern
hlut í fyrstunni. Dirfðisk hann af því ok gerðisk síðan óvarari,með því at í fyrstu gekk hónum með vildum sem Haraldi fo≈ ðurfeðr hans, er hann fell á Englandi, drógu hann til lífláts ok inso≈mu svik, því at Írir so≈mnuðu á mót Magnúsi konungi óvígjum
her með leynd.’ On Magnús’s ill-starred final expedition to
Ireland, cf. Fsk chs 84–85, Msk 331–337, Hkr(Mberf) chs 23–25.
See Driscoll 1995, 105, n. 143 and refs.
310. On the accession of Magnús’s sons, cf. Ágrip ch. 51 (52),
Fsk ch. 85 fin., Msk 337, Hkr(Msona) ch. 1.
311. Instead of Storm’s text (1880, 64.1): Siwardum suum duxerat,
we follow the reading in L: Siwardum secum duxerat (overlooked by Lehmann 1937, 122; 1959–1962, 429; but noted by

112

Theodoricus Monachus

Lange 1989, 184 n. 21). Skånland (1957, 147–148), unaware ofthis variant in L, suggested that Siwardum suum should be readas a haplography for Siwardum filium suum ‘his son Sigurðr’.
312. tertio anno post patris obitum. For tertio ‘third’, probably
read tertio decimo ‘thirteenth’. Óláfr died twelve years after
his father’s death (Ágrip ch. 51 [52], Msk 337), i.e. in the thirteenth year of the reign of the sons of Magnús (Fsk ch. 93),
on 22 December 1115 (Hkr[MSona] ch. 18).
313. rebus humanis decessit: i.e. ‘he died’; cf. TLL 6.3 s.v. humanus
3090.4–6, 18. Snorri likewise notes that Eysteinn ruled Norway for twenty years (Hkr[Msona] ch. 23; cf. Fsk ch. 93). The
section of Ágrip which covered the reign of Eysteinn is now
lost (see Bjarni Einarsson 1984, 49 n. 3 ad ch. 54; Driscoll
1995, 106, n. 151).
314. In Msk 352 and Hkr(Msona) ch. 14 Eysteinn is likewise
credited with establishing a monastery at Nordnes in Bergenand ordering the construction of St Michael’s church there.
315. On the improvements made during Eysteinn’s reign, cf. Msk
352–353, 384; Hkr(Msona) chs 14, 23; and the fragmentary
text of Fsk ch. 92. On the haven at Agðanes, see Jasinski 1995.
316. Theodoricus’s use of a Latinised form of Eysteinn’s name,
Augustinus, permits a ready association with his near namesake Augustus Caesar, which is obscured in our translation.
317. Geoffrey of Monmouth records that the legendary Cornish
king Dunwallo Molmutius granted similar immunities on roads
leading to cities and temples, and that these laws were confirmed by his son Belinus (Historia Regum Britanniae 1984–
1991, I, 24, 26; II, 30, 34; cf. the anonymous thirteenthcentury poem Gesta Regum Britannie, ibid., V, 52; the Welsh
version of Historia Regum Britanniae 1929, 275, 282; Higden,
Polychronicon II, 42–44). Comparable accounts of safety andprosperity associated with the reign of any powerful king are
a commonplace of medieval history (cf., for example, the description of the reign of Edwin of Northumbria in Bede, Hist. eccl.
II.xvi), although the detail of the king’s highway as a sanctuary
for criminals is less common. On the popular notion of theking’s highway as a place of peculiar legal sanctuary, see Pollock
1890, 80–83; Pollock and Maitland 1898, I, 44–45; II, 464.

Notes113

318. The date implied here is 1106, seven years after the liberation of Jerusalem, 15 July 1099 (see Storm 1880, n. ad 65.9).
This account of Sigurðr’s departure from Norway accords with
Msk 338, where it is stated that Sigurðr travelled abroad three
years after the death of his father (in 1103), or as calculated
in Fsk ch. 86 init., after the sons of Magnús had governed thecountry for three years. Ágrip ch. 52 (53) and Hkr(Msona) ch. 3
report that Sigurðr went abroad four years after his father’s
death, i.e. in 1107, the date recorded in the Annales regii (ed.
Storm 1888, 111). Neither of these calculations is corroborated
by foreign sources. The English Annales Radingenses (Liebermann
1879, 10) record that Sigurðr arrived in England, his first stopon his journey south, in 1108. This accords with the statement
by Albert of Aachen that Sigurðr (incorrectly referred to as‘Magnus’) spent two years travelling to Jerusalem (i.e. from1108 to 1110); see Albert of Aachen, Hist. Hier. XI.xxvi (1879,
675).
319. Sigurðr’s trip to Jerusalem and the conquest of Sidon arerecalled in Einarr Skúlason’s Sigurðardrápa stt. 3–5 (Skjd. A
I, 455–456). Cf. the references to Sigurðr’s exploits on thisexpedition in Halldórr skvaldri’s Útfarardrápa (c. 1120?) st.
11 (Skjd. A I, 488), and accounts in Ágrip chs 52–54 (53–55),
Fsk chs 88–89, Msk 341–351, 383, and Hkr(Msona) chs 10–
11. See also the account in Fulcher of Chartres, Hist. Hier.
II.xliv (1913, 543–548); cf. Riant 1865, 194–203. On Arabic
sources see KLNM 1, 196–197.
320. The episode of the robber’s cave is alluded to in Halldórr
skvaldri’s Útfararkviða (Skjd. A I, 485) and Útfarardrápa stt.
7–8 (Skjd. A I, 487), and in Þórarinn stuttfeldr’s Stuttfeldardrápa
st. 4 (Skjd. A I, 490). Cf. versions of the story based on some or
all of these verses in Fsk ch. 86, Msk 345–347 and Hkr(Msona) ch. 6.
321. On Sigurðr’s sojourn at the court of Baldwin I (king of
Jerusalem 1100–1118), cf. Fsk ch. 88, Hkr(Msona) chs 10–11.
322. Fsk ch. 88 and Hkr(Msona) ch. 11 likewise record that Baldwin
gave Sigurðr this sacred relic. According to Ágrip ch. 53 (54),Sigurðr persuaded the king of Jerusalem (who is not named)
to give him a splinter of the cross. Sigurðr had it kept as a
dedicatory relic in the Holy Cross church he built in the border-

114

Theodoricus Monachus

fortress at Konungahella; see for example Hkr(Msona) ch. 32.
For accounts of the proliferation of pieces of the True Cross
distributed as relics, see Brewer 1884, 269–270; Buchberger
1957–1968, VI, 615, ‘Kreuzpartikel’.
323. Sigurðr’s madness is described in Hkr(Msona) ch. 22, but
Snorri makes no mention of poison as the cause of the king’smalady. The author of Ágrip (ch. 55 [56]) refers euphemistically to the onset of Sigurðr’s bouts of madness as his óhœgyndi‘discomfort’. Cf. Driscoll 1995, note 154.
324. de Scotia: Scotia, ‘Scotland’, is generally distinguished from
Hibernia, ‘Ireland’, and in all other instances (see above, 3.21,
7.10, 32.15) Theodoricus refers to Ireland as Hibernia. On theother hand, although it is not common, Scotia can be used asa synonym of Scotia Maior, i.e. ‘Ireland’ (see Grässe–Benedict–
Plechl 1972, II, 237, s.v. Hibernia), and it is possible that thisis the sense which Theodoricus means to attach to the word
here. The heading to this chapter refers to Haraldr Magnússon
as ‘Irish’ (Hyberniensis). The accounts in Flat. II, 440 and Msk
391 suggest that Haraldr came from the Hebrides. Ágrip ch.
57 (58) and Fsk ch. 93 state that Haraldr came from Ireland.
Snorri (Hkr[Msona] ch. 26) tries to accommodate these conflicting
reports by describing Haraldr as a man from Ireland whom
Hallkell húkr Jóansson had taken aboard his ship in the Hebrides. Haraldr’s nickname was gilli (cf. Ágrip ch. 57 [58]: gillikrist,from Irish gille-Críst ‘servant of Christ’; cf. Lind 1920–1921, 110).
325. Ordeal was allowed or prescribed as a means of proof inthe ‘laws of the land’ and not finally abolished till the middleof the thirteenth century; cf. references in NgL V 325, s.vv.
járn, járnburðr. Cf. the account in Sverris saga ch. 59 (1920,
64–65) of Eiríkr who proved himself a son of King Sigurðr
munnr by carrying hot iron. As most relevant to the situationof Haraldr gilli and this Eiríkr may be cited article VIII 16 in
the Frostathing laws (for Trøndelag and other parts of northern Norway); see NgL I, 207. On the prohibition of this kindof ordeal by church law see Hanssen 1945, 168; 1949, 95–96;
cf. Hamre 1960, 551–553. Accounts of Haraldr gilli’s ordeal
are also in Ágrip ch. 57 (58), Fsk ch. 93, Hkr(Msona) ch. 26.
326. hominem exuit : i.e. ‘he died’. For this euphemism see, forNotes115

example, DMLBS, s.v. exuere 2.b.; cf. TLL 5.2, s.v. exuo, 2114.51–
55, 81.
327. Ovid, Metamorphoses i.128–131.
328. Lucan, Bell. civ. vii.552–554.
329. Lucan, Bell. civ. vii.556. Theodoricus’s reference to thisline as appearing alio loco suggests that he is unaware that it
is part of the same passage as the preceding citation from Lucan,
separated from the earlier quotation by only a single line. Hanssen(1949, 88) points to this together with earlier misquotation of
Lucan (see above, n. 226) as evidence that Theodoricus did
not know the Bell. civ. at first hand.
330. non visa sed audita: see n. 11.
331. For classical antecedents of this humility formula see Skard
1930, 75.

116

Theodoricus Monachus

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
I. PRIMARY SOURCES: EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Adam of Bremen, Gest. Hamm. = Magistri Adam Bremensis Gesta
Hammaburgensis ecclesiae Pontificum. 1978. Ed. W. Trillmich
and R. Buchner. Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur
Geschichte der hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches, 135–499.
Adomnán, De locis sanctis. 1965. Ed. L. Bieler. CCSL 175, 175–234.
Ágrip 1 984 : in Ágrip af Nóregskonunga so≈g um. Fagrskinna—
Nóregs konunga tal. Ed. Bjarni Einarsson. ÍF 29.
Ágrip 1 995 : in Ágrip af Nóregskonungasog≈ um. A twelfth-century
synoptic history of the kings of Norway. Ed. and trans. M. J.
Driscoll. Viking Society for Northern Research. Text series
10. (Where chapter references in this edition differ from Ágrip
1984, they are added in parentheses.)Ágrip af so≈g u Danakonunga: see Danakonunga so≈g ur, 323–336.
AÍ = Alfræði Íslenzk. Islands encyclopædisk litteratur I–III. 1908–
1918. Ed. Kr. Kålund and N. Beckman. STUAGNL 37, 41, 45.
Albert of Aachen, Hist. Hier. = Alberti Aquensis Historia
Hierosolymitana. 1879. Ed P. Meyer. Recueil des historiens
des croisades. Historiens occidentaux 4, 265–713.
Alphabetum narrationum = An Alphabet of Tales. 1904–1905.
Ed. Mary M. Banks. EETS, O.S. 126, 127.
Ambrose, Exp. Lc. = Sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis . . . Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. 1957. Ed. M. Adriaen. CCSL 14.
Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri XXXI. 1935–1940.
Ed. and trans. J. C. Rolfe. 3 vols.
Anal. Hymn. = Analecta Hymnica medii aevi. 1886–1922. Ed.
C. Blume and G. M. Dreves. 55 vols.
Annales regni Francorum. 1895. Ed. F. Kurze. MGH. SS. rer.
Germ. in usum scholarum.
ASC = Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 1892–1899. Ed. C. Plummer andJ. Earle. Two of the Saxon chronicles parallel. Rpt 1952 withbibl. by D. Whitelock. 2 vols.
Augustine, De civ. Dei = Sancti Aurelii Augustini De civitate
Dei libri I–XXII. 1955. Ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb. CCSL 47–48.

Bibliography

117

Augustine, Quaest. euang. = Sancti Aurelii Augustini Quaestiones
Evangeliorum. 1980. Ed. A. Mutzenbecher. CCSL 44B.
Baehrens, E. 1879–1886. Poetae Latini Minores. 6 vols.
Bede, De temporibus. 1980. Ed. C. W. Jones. CCSL 123C, 579–611.
Bede, De temporum ratione. 1977. Ed. C. W. Jones. CCSL 123B.
Bede, Exp. Lc. = Bedae Venerabilis . . . In Lucae Evangelium
expositio. 1960. Ed. D. Hurst. CCSL 120, 1–425.
Bede, Hist. Eccl. = Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English
People. 1969. Ed. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors.
Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgata versionem. 1975. Ed. R. Weber et al.
2 Aufl.
Boethius, Cons. phil. = Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii Philosophiae
Consolatio. 1984. Ed. L. Bieler. CCSL 94.
Bps. = Biskupa sögur. 1858–1878. Ed. Guðbrandur Vigfússon
and Jón Sigurðsson. 2 vols.
Brennu-Njáls saga. 1954. Ed. Einar Ól. Sveinsson. ÍF 12.
Brut y Twysogyon = Brut y Twysogyon or the Chronicle of theprinces. Red Book of Hergest version. 1955. Ed. T. Jones.
Caesarius of Arles, Sermones. 1953. Ed. G. Morin. 2nd ed. CCSL
103–104.
Catalogus regum Danie: in SmhDmæ. I, 159–160.
CCCM = Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis.
CCSL = Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina (1953– ).
Chronicon Roskildense. 1917–1922. Ed. M. Cl. Gertz. SmhDmæ.
I, 14–33.
Cicero, De Divinatione. 1920–1923. Ed. A. S. Pease. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 6 (1920),
161–500 and 8 (1923), 153–474; rpt 1963.
Continuatio Valcellensis: see Sigebert of Gembloux.
CSEL = Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum.
Danakonunga so ≈g ur: Skjo≈ l dunga saga. Knýtlinga saga. Ágrip
af so ≈g u Danakonunga. 1982. Ed. Bjarni Guðnason. ÍF 35.
Decretum Gelasianum = Das Decretum Gelasianum. De libris
recipiendis et non recipiendis. 1912. Ed. E. von Dobschutz.
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des altchristlichen
Literatur 38 (3R. 8).
Disticha Catonis. 1952. Ed. M. Boas.
E.A. = Editiones Arnamagnæanæ.

118

Theodoricus Monachus

EETS. OS. = Early English Text Society, Original Series.
EETS. SS. = Early English Text Society, Supplementary Series.
EHD I = English Historical Documents. I. c. 500–1042. 1979.
Ed. D. Whitelock. 2nd ed.
EHD II = English Historical Documents. II. 1042–1189. 1981.
Ed. D. C. Douglas and G. W. Greenaway. 2nd ed.
Einhard, Vit. Karol. = Vita Karoli imperatoris, in Einhard’s Lifeof Charlemagne. 1915. Ed. H. W. Garrod and R. B. Mowat.
Ekkehard, Chronicon universale. 1844. Ed. G. Waitz. MGH. SS.
6, 33–231.
Eusebius, Chronicorum libri duo. 1866–1875. Ed. A. Schoene.
2nd ed. 2 vols.
Flat. = Flateyjarbók I–III. 1860–1868. Ed. Guðbrandur Vigfússon
and C. R. Unger.
Flóamanna saga. 1991. In Harðar saga. Ed. Þórhallur Vilmundarson
and Bjarni Vilhjálmsson. ÍF 13, 229–327.
Flores temporum. 1879. Ed. O. Holder-Egger. MGH. SS. 24,
228–250.
Fsk = Fagrskinna, in Ágrip af Nóregskonunga so≈gum. Fagrskinna—
Nóregs konunga tal. 1984. Ed. Bjarni Einarsson. ÍF 29.
Fulcher of Chartres, Hist. Hier. = Fulcheri Carnotensis Historia
Hierosolymitana. 1913. Ed H. Hagenmeyer.
Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae = The Historia
Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth I–V. 1984–1991.
Ed. N. Wright and J. Crick; The Historia Regum Britanniae ofGeoffrey of Monmouth . . . together with a literal translationof the Welsh Manuscript No. LXI of Jesus College Oxford. 1929.
Ed. A. Griscom and R. E. Jones.
Gesta Dagoberti = Gesta Dagoberti I. Regis Francorum. 1888.
Ed. B. Krusch. MGH. SS. rer. Merov. 2. 326–425.
Gesta Romanorum. 1872. Ed. H. Oesterley.
Giles 1904: see William of Malmesbury.
GND: see William of Jumièges.
GNH = Gamal Norsk Homiliebok. Cod. AM 619 4 o . 1931. Ed.
G. Indrebø; Gammelnorsk Homiliebog. 1971. Trans. A. Salvesen,
introduction and notes by E. Gunnes.
Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar. 1887. Ed. Guðbrandur Vigfússon.
R.S. 88, vol. 2, 1–360.

Bibliography

119

Hauksbók. 1892–1896. Ed. Finnur Jónsson and Eiríkur Jónsson.
Hemings þáttr Áslákssonar. 1962. Ed. G. Fellows Jensen. E.A., B. 3.
Higden, Ranulph, Polychronicon I–IX. 1865–1886. Ed. C.
Babington. R.S. 41.
Hist. Norw. = Historia Norwegiæ. In MHN, 69–124.
Hkr = Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla I–III. 1941–1951. Ed. BjarniAðalbjarnarson. ÍF 26–28.
Hkr(Hákgóð) = Hákonar saga góða.
Hkr(Hhárf) = Haralds saga ins hárfagra.
Hkr(HSig) = Haralds saga Sigurðarsonar.
Hkr(Mberf) = Magnúss saga berfœtts.
Hkr(Mgóð) = Magnúss saga góða.
Hkr(Msona) = Magnússona saga.
Hkr(Ólhelg) = Óláfs saga helga (Haraldssonar).
Hkr(Ólkyrr) = Óláfs saga kyrra.
Hkr(ÓlTrygg) = Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar.
Honorius Augustodunensis, Imago Mundi. 1983. Ed. V. Flint.
Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 49.
Horace, Epistulae. Ars poetica. 1929. Ed. and trans. H. R. Fairclough
in Horace: Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica, 250–440, 450–488.
Horace, Epodes. 1927. Ed. and trans. C. E. Bennett in Horace:
The Odes and Epodes, 359–417.
Hungrvaka. 1938. Ed. Jón Helgason in Byskupa so ≈ g ur I, 25–115.
ÍF = Íslenzk fornrit.
Isidore of Seville, Etym. = Isidori Hispalensis episcopi
etymologiarum siue originum libri xx. 1911. Ed. W. M. Lindsay.
Isidore of Seville, Chronica. 1894. Ed. Th. Mommsen. MGH,
AA. 11.2, 424–488.
Islandske Annaler indtil 1578. 1888. Ed. G. Storm.
Íslendingabók. Landnámabók. 1968. Ed. Jakob Benediktsson. ÍF 1.
Jerome, Chronicon. 1956. Ed. R. Helm in Die Chronik desHieronymus. Hieronymi Chronicon. Die griechischen christlichen
Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Eusebius Werke 7.
Jerome, Epist. = Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae I–III. 1910–
1918. Ed. I. Hilberg. CSEL 54–56.
John Brompton, Chron. = Chronicon Johannis Bromton Abbatis
Jornalensis. 1652. Ed. R. Twysden. Historiæ anglicanæ scriptores
X, 725–1284.

120

Theodoricus Monachus

John of Salisbury, Policraticus = Ioannis Saresberiensis Policraticus
I–IV. 1993. Ed. K. S. B. Keats-Rohan. CCCM 118.
John of Worcester, Chronicon = The Chronicle of John of Worcester.
1995–1998. Ed. R. R. Darlington and P. McGurk. 2 vols.
Jómsvíkinga saga. 1969. Ed. Ólafur Halldórsson.
Jordanes, Getica = De origine actibusque Getarum, alias Getica.
1882. Ed. Th. Mommsen. MGH, AA. 5.1, 53–138; Iordanis
De origine actibusque Getarum. 1991. Ed. F. Giunta and A.
Grillone. Fonti per la storia d’Italia 117; The Gothic History
of Jordanes. 1915. Trans. C. C. Mierow.
Josephus, The Jewish war. 1956–1957. Ed. and trans. H. St J.
Thackeray in Josephus II–III.
Justin, Epitoma = M. Iuniani Iustini epitoma historiarum
philippicarum Pompeii Trogi. 1972. Ed. O. Seel.
Knýtlinga saga: in Danakonunga so≈ g ur, 91–321.
Kristni saga: in Hauksbók 126–149.
Kristnisaga. 1905. Ed. B. Kahle. Altnordische Saga-Bibliothek
11, 1–57.
Landnámabók : see Íslendingabók. Landnámabók.
Landulf Sagax, Historia Romana. 1912–1913. Ed. A. Crivellucci
in Landolfi Sagacis Historia Romana I–II. Fonti per la storia
d’Italia 49–50.
Langebek J., ed., 1772–1878. Scriptores rerum Danicarum medii
ævi. 9 vols.
Liber Hist. Franc. = Liber Historiae Francorum. 1888. Ed. B.
Krusch. MGH. SS. rer. Merov. 2, 215–328.
Liber Pontificalis. 1886–1892. Ed. L. Duchesne. 2 vols; additions and corrections vol. 3. 1957. Ed. C. Vogel.
Liebermann, F., ed., 1879. Ungedruckte anglo-normannische
Geschichtsquellen.
Livy, Ab urbe condita. 1919–1959. Ed. and trans. B. O. Foster
et al. in Livy. 14 vols.
Lucan, Bell. civ. = De Bello civili. 1928. Ed. and trans. J. D.
Duff in Lucan.
Magnúss saga lengri. Magnúss saga skemmri: in Orkneyinga saga
1965.
Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon. 1894. Ed. T. Mommsen. MGH.
AA. 11, 37–108.

Bibliography

121

Mariu saga. 1871. Ed. C. R. Unger.
Matthew Paris, Chronica majora. 1872–1883. Ed. H. R. Luard.
7 vols. R.S. 57.
MGH = Monumenta Germaniae Historica. AA. = Auctores
Antiquissimi. SS. = Scriptores. SS. rer. Germ. = Scriptores rerum
Germanicarum. SS. rer. Lang. Ital. = Scriptores rerum
Langobardicarum et Italicarum. SS. rer. Merov. = Scriptores
rerum Merovingicarum.
MgóðHharðr = Magnúss saga góða ok Haralds harðráða (in Msk
1–286, and Flat. III, 249–400).
MHN = Monumenta Historica Norvegiæ: Latinske kildeskriftertil Norges historie i middelalderen. 1880. Ed. G. Storm. Rpt 1973.
Mombritius, B., ed., 1910. Sanctuarium, seu Vitae Sanctorum. 2 vols.
Msk = Morkinskinna. 1932. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. STUAGNL 53.
NgL = Norges gamle Love indtil 1387. 1846–1895. Ed. R. Keyser
et al.
Njáls saga: see Brennu-Njáls saga.
Notker Balbulus, Gest. Karol. = Gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris.
1959. Ed. Hans F. Haefele in Notker der Stammler: Taten Kaiser
Karls des Grossen. MGH SS. rer. Germ., N.S. 12.
Oddr Snorrason, ÓlTrygg = Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar af Oddr Snorrason munk. 1932. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. (Numbers in brackets referto the S text, Stock. perg. 4:o nr 18.)
Old English Orosius. 1980. Ed. J. Bately. EETS. SS. 6.
Ólhelg(Leg) = Olafs saga hins helga. Die ‘Legendarische Saga’über Olaf den Heiligen (Hs. Delagard. saml. nr. 8 II ). 1982.
Ed. A. Heinrichs, D. Jahnsen, E. Radicke, H. Röhn.
Ólhelg(Sep) = [Separate saga of Óláfr helgi ] Saga Óláfs konungs
hins helga. Den Store Saga om Olav den Hellige I–II. 1941.
Ed. O. A. Johnsen and Jón Helgason.
ÓlTrygg en mesta = Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta. 1958–
1961. Ed. Ólafur Halldórsson. E.A., A 1–2.
Orderic Vitalis, Hist. eccl. = The ecclesiastical history of Orderic
Vitalis. 1969–1980. Ed. M. Chibnall. 6 vols.
Origen, De principiis = Origène. Traité des Principes . . . La
Version de Rufin. 1978–1984. Ed. H. Crouzel and M. Simonetti.
5 vols.
Orkneyinga saga. 1965. Ed. Finnbogi Guðmundsson. ÍF 34.

122

Theodoricus Monachus

Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. = Pauli Orosii Historiarum adversum
paganos libri VII. 1882. Ed. K. Zangemeister. CSEL 5.
Otto of Freising, Chronica = Ottonis Episcopi Frisingensis Chronica
sive Historia de duabus civitatibus. 1912. Ed. A. Hofmeister.
MGH. SS. rer. Germ. in usum scholarum.
Ovid, Metamorphoses. 1966–1968. Ed. and trans. F. J. Miller. 2 vols.
Pass. Olav. = Passio et miracula beati Olavi. 1881. Ed. F. Metcalfe.
Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang. = Historia Langobardorum. 1878.
Ed. L. Bethmann and G. Waitz. MGH. SS. rer. Lang. Ital. saec.
vi–ix, 12–187.
Paul the Deacon, Historia Romana. 1914. Ed. A. Crivellucci.
Fonti per la storia d’Italia 51.
Peterborough Chronicle. 1970. Ed. C. Clark in The Peterborough Chronicle 1070–1154.
PL = Patrologia Latina (Patrologiæ cursus completus series secunda). 1844–1905. Ed. J.-P. Migne.
Pliny, Nat. hist. = Naturalis historia. 1940–1962. Ed. and trans.
H. Rackham et al. in Pliny: Natural History. 10 vols.
Ps. Aurelius Victor, Epitome = Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber deCaesaribus . . . subsequitur Epitome de Caesaribus. 1911. Ed.
F. Pichlmayr.
Regesta Norvegica. I, 822–1263. 1989. Ed. E. Gunnes.
Richard of St Victor, Liber exceptionum. 1958. Ed. J. Chatillon.
Textes philosophiques du Moyen Âge 5.
Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum. 1841–1844. Ed. H. O.
Coxe. 4 vols and appendix.
R.S. = Rolls Series.
Sabatier, P., ed., 1743–1749. Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones
antiquae, seu Vetus Italica. 3 vols.
Sallust, Catilina. 1931. Ed. and trans. J. C. Rolfe in Sallust, 1–129.
Salvesen, A., trans., 1969. Norges historie. Theodoricus Munk:Historien om de gamle norske kongene. Historien om Danenes
ferd til Jerusalem.
Salvesen–Gunnes 1971: see GNH.
Saxo Grammaticus, Gesta Danorum. 1931. Ed. J. Olrik andH. Ræder in Saxonis Gesta Danorum I.
Saxo Grammaticus, History of the Danes. 1979–1980. Trans.
P. Fisher and H. R. Ellis Davidson. 2 vols.

Bibliography

123

Saxo Grammaticus, Danorum Regum Heroumque Historia. Books
X–XVI. The text of the first edition with translation and commentary in three volumes. 1980–1981. Ed. E. Christiansen.
BAR [British Archaeological Reports] International Series
84, 118 (i–ii).
Schenkl, K. et al., eds., 1888. Poetae christiani minores I. CSEL 16.
Scholz, B. W., with B. Rogers, eds, 1970. Carolingian Chronicles.
Sedulius Scottus, Collectaneum Miscellaneum. 1988. Ed.
D. Simpson. CCCM 67.
Series regum Danie: in SmhDmæ. I, 157–158.
Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica. 1844. Ed. D. L. C. Bethmann.
MGH. SS. 6, 300–374; Chronica Sigeberti. Continuatio
Valcellensis. Ed. D. L. C. Bethmann. MGH. SS. 6, 458–460.
Silvesters saga. 1877. Ed. C. R. Unger in Heilagra manna søgur II,
245–280.
Skard, E., trans., 1932. Soga um dei gamle norske kongane av
Tjodrek munk.
Skjd. = Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning. 1912–1915. Ed. Finnur
Jónsson. A I–II, Tekst efter Håndskrifterne; B I–II, Rettet Tekst.
SmhDmæ. = Scriptores minores historiæ Danicæ medii ævi. 1917–
1922. Ed. M. Cl. Gertz. 2 vols.
Statius, Thebaid. 1928. Ed. and trans. J. H. Mozley in Statius I,
339 to II, 505.
Stevenson 1854: see William of Malmesbury.
Storm, G., ed., 1880. Monumenta Historica Norvegiæ.
Storm, G., ed., 1888: see Islandske Annaler indtil 1578.
STUAGNL = Samfund til Udgivelse af Gammel Nordisk Litteratur.
Sven Aggesen, Brevis Historia Regum Dacie. 1917–1922. Ed.
M. Cl. Gertz. SmhDmæ. I, 94–141. Trans. E. Christiansen 1992.
The works of Sven Aggesen. Viking Society for Northern Research. Text series 9.
Sverris saga = Sverris saga etter Cod. AM 327 4o. 1920; rpt 1981.
Ed. G. Indrebø.
Theodoricus monachus. Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium. In MHN, 1–68. A = AM 98 fol. B = Det kongelige
bibliotek, Copenhagen, Kalls samling, no. 600. K = ed. princeps, Bernhard Caspar Kirchmann, Amsterdam 1684. L =Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, Ms. lat. fol.

124

Theodoricus Monachus

356. M = Det kongelige bibliotek, Copenhagen, Thotts samling,no. 1541 4to. S = Universitetsbiblioteket, Uppsala, Ms. De la
Gardie no. 32.
vet. lat.: see Sabatier 1743–1749.
Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Historiale. In Speculum Maius
sive Quadruplex I–IV 1624, rpt 1964–1965. Vol. IV.
Vita Faronis = Vita Faronis episcopi Meldensis. 1910. Ed. B.
Krusch and W. Levison. MGH. SS. rer. Merov. 5, 171–203.
Västgötalagens litterära bilagor. 1941. Ed. I. Lindquist.
Whitby Vit. Greg. = De vita atque virtutibus beati Gregorii papae
urbis Romae. 1968, rpt 1985. Ed and trans. B. Colgrave in The
earliest Life of Gregory the Great. By an anonymous monk ofWhitby.
Widukind, Res gestae Saxonicae. 1935. Ed. G. Waitz and K. A.
Kehr in Die Sachsengeschichte des Widukind von Korvei. 5thed. by H.-E. Lohmann and P. Hirsch. MGH. SS. rer. Ger. inusum scholarum.
William of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum. 1992. Ed.
E. M. C. van Houts in The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of Williamof Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni. 2 vols.
William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum, vol. I. 1998.
Ed. and trans. R. A. B. Mynors, R. M. Thomson and M.
Winterbottom. Trans. J. Stevenson 1854 in The church historians of England III.1: The history of the kings of England . . .
by William of Malmesbury. Revision of a translation by John
Sharpe 1815. Trans. J. A. Giles 1904 in William of Malmesbury’s
Chronicle of the kings of England.
II. SECONDARY LITERATURE(Includes editions to which reference is made for commentary rather than text)

Abrams, L. 1995. ‘The Anglo-Saxons and the Christianizationof Scandinavia’, Anglo-Saxon England 24 (1995), 213–249.
Anderson, A. R. 1932. Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog andthe inclosed nations.
Andersson, T. M. 1979. ‘Ari’s Konunga Ævi and the earliest accountsof Hákon Jarl’s death’, in Opuscula 6. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana
33, 1–17.

Bibliography

125

Andersson, T. M. 1985. ‘Kings’ sagas (Konungasögur)’, in Carol
Clover and John Lindow, eds, Old Norse-Icelandic literature.
A critical guide. Islandica 45, 197–238.
Ashdown, M. 1959. ‘An Icelandic account of the survival of Harold
Godwinson’, in P. Clemoes, ed., The Anglo-Saxons, 122–136.
Baetke, W. 1951. ‘Das Svoldr-Problem’, Berichte über die
Verhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Leipzig. Philol.-hist. Klasse, Bd. 98, Heft 6, 59–135.
Bagemihl, G. 1913. Otto II und seine Zeit im Lichte mittelalterlicher
Geschichtsauffassung.
Bagge, S. 1989. ‘Theodoricus Monachus—clerical historiography
in twelfth-century Norway’, Scandinavian Journal of History
14, 113–133.
Bately, J. 1979. ‘World history in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
its sources and its separateness from the Old English Orosius’,
Anglo-Saxon England 8, 177–194.
Beyschlag, S. 1950. Konungasögur. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 8.
BHL = Bibliotheca Hagiographia Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis.
1898–1901. Ed. Socii Bollandiani (Subsidia Hagiographica 6),
2 vols; Supplementum 1911 (Subsidia Hagiographica 12); Novum
Supplementum 1986 (Subsidia Hagiographica 70).
Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1937. Om de norske kongers sagaer. Skrifter
utg. av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos.
Klasse. 1936, no. 4.
Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–1951: see Hkr.
Bjarni Einarsson 1984: see Ágrip.
Bjarni Guðnason 1977. ‘Theodoricus og íslenskir sagnaritarar’,in Einar G. Pétursson and Jónas Kristjánsson, eds, Sjötíu ritgerðir
helgaðar Jakobi Benediktssyni, 107–120.
Bjarni Guðnason 1982: see Danakonunga so≈g ur.
Blatt, F. 1957. Saxonis Gesta Danorum II: Index verborum.
Blom, G. A. 1956. Trondheim bys historie I: St. Olavs by, ca.
1000–1537.
Blöndal, Sigfús 1978. The Varangians of Byzantium. Trans. andrev. B. S. Benedikz.
Brewer, E. C. 1884. A dictionary of miracles.
Buchberger, M. et al. 1957–1968. Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche.
2. Aufl.

126

Theodoricus Monachus

Bugge, A. 1914. Smaa bidrag til Norges historie paa 1000-tallet.
Bury, J. B. 1923. History of the later Roman empire from thedeath of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian. 2 vols. Rpt 1958.
Campbell, A., ed., 1949. Encomium Emmae Reginae.
Charles, B. G. 1934. Old Norse Relations with Wales.
Chatillon, J. 1948. ‘Le contenu, l’authenticité et la doute du “Liber
Exceptionum” et des “Sermones centum” de Richard de Saint
Victor’, Revue de moyen âge latin 4, 23–52, 343–366.
Christiansen 1980–1981: see Saxo Grammaticus.
Christiansen 1992: see Sven Aggesen.
Coens, M. 1920. ‘Les Vierges martyres de Cologne’, Analecta
Bollandiana 48, 89–110.
Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone 1983. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 2nd ed., 4th impression.
Cross, J. E. 1962. ‘Aspects of microcosm and macrocosm in Old
English literature’, Comparative Literature 14, 1–22.
Crumlin-Pedersen, O. and E. Christensen 1970. ‘Skibstyper’, KLNM
15, 482–493.
Daae, L. 1895. ‘Om Historieskriveren “Theodoricus monachus”
og om Biskop Thore af Hamar’, [Norsk] Historisk Tidsskrift.
3. rk. III, 397–411.
Demidoff, L. 1978–1979. ‘The death of Sven Forkbeard—in reality
and later tradition’, Mediaeval Scandinavia 11, 30–47.
Dillmann, F.-X. 1993. ‘Seiður og shamanismi í Íslendingasögum,’
Skáldskaparmál 2, 20–33.
Dittrich, Marie-Luise 1966. Die ‘Eneide’ Heinrichs von Veldeke.
DMLBS = Dictionary of medieval Latin from British sources. I–
V (A–L) 1975–1997. Ed. R. E. Latham, D. R. Howlett et al.
Dodwell, C. R. 1982. Anglo-Saxon Art. A new perspective.
Döllinger, Johann J. Ign. von 1863. Die Papst-Fabeln desMittelalters. Ein Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte. Trans. A. Plummer
1871 in Fables respecting the Popes of the Middle Ages.
Driscoll 1995: see Ágrip.
Du Cange, C. Du Fresne 1883–1887. Glossarium Mediae et Infimae
Latinitatis. Rev. G. A. L. Henschel and L. Favre. 10 vols.
Dunbar, J. T. 1962. History of Highland Dress.
Dunbar, J. T. 1981. The Costume of Scotland.
Dunn, T. F. 1934. The Facetiae of the Mensa Philosophica. Washington University Studies. New series. Language and Literature 5.

Bibliography

127

Einar Arnórsson 1950. Árnesþing á landnáms- og söguöld.
Elder, J. P. 1947. ‘Did Remigius of Auxerre comment on Bede’s
De schematibus et tropis?’, Mediaeval Studies 9, 141–150.
Ellehøj, S. 1958. ‘The location of the fall of Olaf Tryggvason’,Árbok hins íslenzka fornleifafélags, Fylgirit, 68–73.
Ellehøj, S. 1965. Studier over den ældste norrøne historieskrivning.
Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 26.
Falk, H. 1912. ‘Altnordisches Seewesen’, Wörter und Sachen 4, 1–122.
Fidjestøl, B. 1987. ‘Legenda om Tore Hund’, in J. R. Hagland, J. T.
Faarlund and J. Rønhovd, eds, Festskrift til Alfred Jakobsen, 38–51.
Rpt 1997, ‘The legend of Þórir hundr’, in B. Fidjestøl, Selected
Papers. Ed. O. E. Haugen and E. Mundal. Trans. P. Foote, 168–183.
Fidjestøl, B. 1997a. ‘Tre norrøne tilnamn. Þambaskelmir, hárfagriog hornklofi’, Nordica Bergensia 14, 6–14.
Finnbogi Guðmundsson 1965: see Orkneyinga saga.
Finnur Jónsson 1912. Lægekunsten i den Oldnordiske Oldtid.
Finnur Jónsson 1920–1924. Den Oldnorske og Oldislandske
Litteraturs Historie. I–III. 2nd ed.
Finnur Jónsson 1928. ‘Ágrip’, Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighedog Historie. 3. R. 18, 261–317.
Finnur Jónsson, ed., 1929. Ágrip af Nóregs konunga so ≈ g um.
Altnordische Saga-Bibliothek 18.
Fisher-Davidson 1979–1980: see Saxo Grammaticus.
Foote, P. G. and D. M. Wilson 1970. The Viking Achievement.
Foote, P. G. 1988. ‘Observations on Orkneyinga saga’, in B.
Crawford, ed., St Magnus Cathedral and Orkney’s twelfth-century
renaissance, 192–207.
Frank, R. 1978. Old Norse court poetry: the dróttkvætt stanza.
Islandica 42.
Frank, T. 1909. ‘Some classical quotations from the Middle Ages’,
Classical Philology 4, 82–83.
Freeman, E. A. 1867–1879. The History of the Norman Conquestof England. 6 vols.
Friedman, J. B. 1981. The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art andThought.
Fritzner, J. 1886–1896. Ordbog over det gamle norske Sprog.
I–III. 1972. IV. Rettelser og Tilleg. Ed. F. Hødnebø.
Förstemann, E. 1900. Altdeutsches Namenbuch. Erster Band:
Personennamen. 2nd ed.

128

Theodoricus Monachus

Gade, K. E. 1995a. ‘Einarr Þambarskelfir’s last shot’, Scandinavian
Studies 67, 153–161.
Gade, K. E. 1995b. ‘Einarr Þambarskelfir, Again’. Scandinavian
Studies 67, 547–550.
Giunta–Grillone 1991: see Jordanes, Getica.
Gjerløw, L. 1967. ‘Olav den hellige. Liturgi’, KLNM 12, 561–567.
Gjessing, A. 1873–1876. Undersøgelse af Kongesagaens
Fremvæxt. I–II.
Gjessing, A. 1877. Jómsvíkinga saga i Latinsk oversættelse af
Arngrim Jonsson.
Glob, P. V. 1969. The Bog People. Trans. R. Bruce-Mitford.
Goffart, W. 1988. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D.
550–800).
Goy, Rudolf. 1976. Die Überlieferung der Werke Hugos von St.
Viktor. Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters Bd. 14.
Grässe–Benedict–Plechl 1972 = J. G. T. Grässe, F. Benedict,
H. Plechl, S.-C. Plechl. Orbis Latinus: Lexikon lateinischer
geographischer Namen des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. 3 vols.
Graf, A. 1923. Roma nella memoria e nelle immaginazioni delmedio evo.
Green, W. M. 1943. ‘Hugo of St Victor: De tribus maximis
circumstantiis gestorum’, Speculum 18, 484–493.
Grön, F. 1908. Altnordische Heilkunde, extract of Janus 13.
Grotefend, H. 1891. Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters undder Neuzeit. I–II.
Guenée, B. 1980. Histoire et culture historique dans l’Occident
médiéval.
Gunnes, E. 1973. ‘Om hvordan Passio Olavi ble til’, Maal og
Minne, 1–11.
Hamre, L. 1960. ‘Gudsdom: Norge’, KLNM 5, 551–553.
Hanssen, J. S. Th. 1945. ‘Observations on Theodoricus Monachus
and his History of the Old Norwegian Kings, from the end of
the xii. sec.’, Symbolae Osloenses 24, 164–180.
Hanssen, J. S. Th. 1949. ‘Theodoricus monachus and European
literature’, Symbolae Osloenses 27, 70–127.
Ho Peng Yoke. 1962. ‘Ancient and mediaeval observations ofcomets and novae in Chinese sources’, Vistas in astronomy
5, 127–225.

Bibliography

129

Hoffmann, E. 1975. Die heiligen Könige bei den Angelsachsen
und skandinavischen Völkern.
Holtsmark, A. 1937. ‘Sankt Olavs liv og mirakler’, in Festskrift
til Francis Bull. Rpt in A. Holtsmark 1956. Studier i norrøn
diktning, 15–24.
Holtsmark, A. 1961. ‘Historia de antiquitate regum Norvagiensium’, KLNM 6, 583–585.
Holtzmann, W. 1938. ‘Krone und Kirche in Norwegen im 12.
Jahrhundert (Englische Analekten III)’, Deutsches Archiv fürGeschichte des Mittelalters 2, 341–400.
Hoops, J. 1911–1919. Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. I–IV.
van Houts 1992: see William of Jumièges.
Jasinski, M. 1995. ‘Kong Øysteins havn på Agdenes’, Viking 58,
73–105.
Johnsen, O. A. 1916. Olav Haraldssons ungdom indtil slaget ved
Nesjar. Skrifter utgitt av Videnskapsselskapet i Kristiania. Hist.Filos. Klasse, no. 2.
Johnsen, A. O. 1939. Om Theodoricus og hans Historia de
antiquitate regum Norwagiensium. Avhandlinger utg. av Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse,
no. 3.
Jón Helgason 1925. Islands kirke fra dens grundlæggelse til
reformationen. En historisk fremstilling.
Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1978. Under the cloak. Acta universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia ethnologica Upsaliensia 4.
Jón Jóhannesson 1956. Íslendinga saga I.
Jón Jóhannesson 1974. A History of the Old Icelandic Commonwealth. Trans. Haraldur Bessason.
Kazhdan, A. P. et al. 1991. The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium.
3 vols.
Keynes, Simon. 1992. ‘The comet in the Eadwine Psalter’, in
M. Gibson, T. A. Heslop, R. W. Pfaff, eds, The Eadwine Psalter: Text, image, and monastic culture in twelfth-century Canterbury, 157–164.
Kirchmann 1684 = Theodoricus monachus K.
KLNM = Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk Middelalder. 1956–
1978. 22 vols.

130

Theodoricus Monachus

Laehr, G. 1926. Die konstantinische Schenkung in der abendländischen Literatur des Mittelalters bis zur Mitte des 14.
Jahrhunderts. Historische Studien. Heft 116.
Lampe, G. W. H. 1961. A patristic Greek lexicon.
Lampe, G. W. H. 1969. The Cambridge history of the Bible.
Lange, Chr. C. A. 1856. De Norske Klostres Historie. 2nd ed.
Lange, G. 1989. Die Anfänge der isländisch-norwegischen
Geschichtsschreibung. Studia Islandica/Íslensk fræði 47.
Latham 1965. Revised medieval Latin word-list from British andIrish sources.
Lehmann, P. 1937. Skandinaviens Anteil an der lateinischen Literatur
und Wissenschaft des Mittelalters. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Abteilung, Jahrg.
1936, Heft 2 and Jahrg. 1937, Heft 7. Rpt in P. Lehmann 1959–
1962. Erforschung des Mittelalters, V, 275–300, 331–429.
Lemarignier, J. F. 1945. Recherches sur l’hommage en marche
et les frontiers féodales.
Levison, W. 1927. ‘Das Werden der Ursula-Legende’, Bonner
Jahrbücher 132, 1–164.
Lewis, C. T., and C. Short. 1879. A Latin Dictionary.
Libermann, A. 1996. ‘Gone with the wind. More thoughts on
medieval farting’, Scandinavian Studies 68, 98–104.
Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott 1925–1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., rev. H. S. Jones, with supplement 1968.
Lind, E. H. 1920–1921. Norsk-isländska personbinamn frånmedeltiden.
Lind, E. H. 1931. Norsk-isländska dopnamn ock fingerade namnfrån medeltiden. Supplementband.
Lutz, Cora E. 1962–1965. Remigii Autissiodorensis commentumin Martianum Capellam. 2 vols.
Louis-Jensen, J. 1977. Kongesagastudier: Kompilationen Hulda–
Hrokkinskinna. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 32.
Maenchen-Helfen, O. J. 1973. The world of the Huns. Ed. M. Knight.
Manitius, M. 1911–1931. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur
des Mittelalters. 3 vols.
Maurer, K. 1855–1856. Die Bekehrung des norwegischen Stammes
zum Christenthume. 2 vols.
McClintock, H. F. 1949. Old Highland Dress and Tartans.

Bibliography

131

McClintock, H. F. 1950. Old Irish and Highland Dress and thatof the Isle of Man. 2nd ed.
McDougall, I. 1992. ‘The third instrument of medicine: Someaccounts of surgery in medieval Iceland’, in S. Campbell,
B. Hall and D. Klausner, eds, Health, disease and healing inmedieval culture, 57–83.
Mierow 1915: see Jordanes.
Moberg, O. 1940. ‘Olav Haraldssons hemkomst: En historiografisk
undersökning’, [Norsk] Historisk Tidsskrift 32, 545–575.
Momigliano, A. 1961–1962. ‘Historiography on written tradition and historiography on oral tradition’, Atti della Accademiadelle Scienze di Torino 96, 1–12. Rpt in A. Momigliano, Studies in historiography 1966, 211–220.
Musset, L. 1957–1958. ‘Actes inédits du XIe siècle, iii: les plus
anciennes chartes normandes de l’abbaye de Bourgueil’, Bulletinde la société des antiquaires de Normandie 54, 15–54.
Møller-Christensen, V. 1944. Middelalderens lægekunst i Danmark.
Møller-Christensen, V. 1961. ‘Halssygdomme’, KLNM 6, 72–74.
NBL = Norsk Biografisk Leksikon. 1923–1983. Ed. E. Bull et al.
19 vols.
Niermeyer, J. F. 1976. Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus.
Nordal, Sigurður 1914. Om Olaf den helliges saga.
Nordal, Sigurður 1941. ‘Gunnhildur konungamóðir’, Samtíð og
saga 1, 135–155.
Noreen, A. 1923. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik.
4th ed.
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary 1884–1928. Ed. J. A. H.
Murray et al. 2nd ed. 1989. Ed. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C.
Weiner.
Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1964. Studier i kronologisk metode i tidlig
islandsk historieskrivning.
Ólafur Halldórsson 1958–1961: see ÓlTrygg en mesta.
Ólafur Halldórsson 1984. ‘Mostur og Sæla’, Gripla 6, 101–112.
OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary 1968–1982. Ed. P. G. W. Glare et al.
Olsen, Magnus 1928. Farms and fanes of ancient Norway. Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie A: Forelesninger 9.

132

Theodoricus Monachus

Paasche, F. 1934. ‘Über Rom und das Nachleben der Antike im
norwegischen und isländischen Schrifttum des Hochmittelalters’,
Symbolae Osloenses 13, 114–145.
Paff, W. J. 1959. The geographical and ethnic names in the Þiðriks
saga: A study in Germanic heroic legend.
Page, R. I. 1981. ‘The audience of Beowulf and the Vikings’, in
C. Chase, ed., The dating of Beowulf, 113–122.
Paris, Gaston 1865. Histoire poétique de Charlemagne.
Pease 1920–1923: see Cicero, De Divinatione.
Perkins, R. 1985. ‘Christian elements in Flóamanna saga’, The
Sixth International Saga Conference 28.7–2.8, 1985. Workshop
papers. II, 793–811.
Perkins, R. 1989. ‘Objects and oral tradition in medieval Iceland’, in R. McTurk and A. Wawn, eds, Úr dölum til dala:Guðbrandur Vigfússon centenary essays, 239–266.
Petersen, C. S. 1938. Stenalder, Bronzealder, Jernalder. Bidrag
til nordisk arkæologis literærhistorie 1776–1865.
Pollock, F. 1890. ‘The King’s Peace’, in Oxford lectures and otherdiscourses, 65–90.
Pollock, F. and F. W. Maitland 1898. The History of English Law
before the time of Edward I. I–II. 2nd ed. rev. 1968.
Price, Neil. 2002. The Viking Way: religion and war in late Iron
Age Scandinavia.
Prinz–Schneider 1967– = O. Prinz and J. Schneider. Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch bis zum ausgehenden 13. Jahrhundert.
Pritsak, O. 1981. The Origin of Rus’. I. Old Scandinavian Sources
other than the Sagas.
Reynolds, L. D. 1983. ‘Eutropius’, in L. D. Reynolds et al. Texts
and Transmission. A survey of the Latin classics, 159–162.
Riant, P. 1865. Expéditions et pèlerinages des Scandinaves en
Terre Sainte au temps des croisades.
Richter, H. 1938. Englische Geschichtschreiber des 12. Jahrhunderts.
Rygh, Oluf. 1897–1924. Norske Gaardnavne.
Saltnessand, E. 1968. ‘Hva betyr tilnavnet Tambarskjelve?’ [Norsk]
Historisk Tidskrift 47, 143–148.
Salvesen 1969: see Primary Sources.
Sayers, W. 1995. ‘The honor of Guðlaugr Snorrason and EinarrÞambarskelfir. A reply’, Scandinavian Studies 67, 536–547.

Bibliography

133

Schade, O. 1854. Die Sage von der heiligen Ursula und den
elftausend Jungfrauen.
Schilling, R. 1977. Pline l’ancien: Histoire Naturelle Livre VII.
Schulz, M. 1909. Die Lehre von der historischen Methode bei
den Geschichtschreibern des Mittelalters (vi.–xiii. Jahrhundert).
Abhandl. z. Mittl. u. Neueren Geschichte 13.
Schönfeld, M. 1965. Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personenund Völkernamen. 2nd ed.
Schøning, G. 1910. Reise . . . gennem en deel af Norge i de aar
1773, 1774, 1775. 2 vols.
Seeberg, A. 1978–1981. ‘Five kings’, Saga-Book 20, 106–113.
Shetelig–Falk 1937 = H. Shetelig and H. Falk. Scandinavian Archaeology. Trans. E. V. Gordon.
Skard, E. 1930. Målet i Historia Norwegiae. Skrifter utgitt av
Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse, no. 5.
Skard, E. 1935. ‘Kirchliche Olavus tradition bei Theodoricus
monachus’, Symbolae Osloenses 14, 119–125.
Skard, E. 1941. Review of Lehmann 1937 and Johnsen 1939,[Norsk] historisk tidsskrift 32, 267–277.
Skånland, V. 1957. ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu der Historia de profectione Danorum in Hierosolymam’, Symbolae Osloenses 33,
37–155.
Skånland, V. 1966. ‘The Year of King Harald Fairhair’s Accessto the Throne according to Theodoricus Monachus’, Symbolae
Osloenses 41, 125–128.
Smalley, B. 1983. The study of the Bible in the Middle Ages.
3rd ed.
Steenstrup, J. C. H. R. 1876–1882. Normannerne. I–IV.
Stefán Karlsson 1977. ‘Ættbogi Noregskonunga’, in Einar G.
Pétursson and Jónas Kristjánsson, eds, Sjötíu ritgerðir helgaðar
Jakobi Benediktssyni, 677–704.
Stenton, F. M. 1971. Anglo-Saxon England. 3rd ed.
Stephenson, F. R. and C. B. F. Walker 1985. Halley’s comet in history.
Storm, G. 1873. Snorre Sturlassöns Historieskrivning, en kritisk
Undersögelse.
Storm, G. 1880 = MHN; 1888 = Islandske Annaler indtil 1578.
Ström, F. 1942. On the Sacral Origin of the Germanic Death
Penalties. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets
Akademiens Handlingar 52.

134

Theodoricus Monachus

Strömbäck, D. 1935. Sejd. Nordiske texter och undersökningar 5.
Strömbäck, D. 1970. ‘Sejd’, KLNM 15, 76–79.
Strömbäck, D. 1975. The Conversion of Iceland: A Survey. Trans.
P. Foote.
Suhm, P. F. 1783 = Langebek 1772–1878, vol. V.
Sveinbjörn Rafnsson 1976. ‘Aðferðir og viðhorf í Landnámurannsóknum’, Skírnir 150, 213–238.
Sverrir Tómasson 1988. Formálar íslenskra sagnaritara á miðöldum. Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi. Rit 33.
Taranger, A. 1890. Den angelsaksiske Kirkes Indflydelse paa den
norske.
Tate, G. S. 1978–1979. ‘The Cross as Ladder: Geisli 15–16 andLíknarbraut 34’, Mediaeval Scandinavia 11, 258–264.
Thompson, E. A. 1948. A history of Attila and the Huns.
TLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. 1900– . 10 vols: A–pro.1.
Tout, Mrs Thomas F. 1902. ‘The legend of St Ursula and theeleven thousand virgins’, in T. F. Tout and J. Tait, eds, Historical essays, 17–56.
Trevor-Roper, Hugh. 1983. ‘The Invention of Tradition: The Highland
Tradition of Scotland’, in Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger, eds,
The Invention of Tradition, 15–41.
Tristram, H. L. C. 1985. Sex aetates mundi. Die Weltzeitalter
bei den Angelsachsen und den Iren. Untersuchungen und Texte.
Tubach, Frederic C. 1969. Index Exemplorum. A handbook ofmedieval religious tales. Folklore Fellows Communications
no. 204.
Turville-Petre, E. O. G. 1967. Origins of Icelandic Literature.
Turville-Petre, E. O. G. 1976. Scaldic Poetry.
Ulset, T. 1983. Det genetiske forholdet mellom Ágrip, Historia
Norwegiæ og Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium.
Vandvik, E. 1955. ‘Donatio Constantini and early Norwegianchurch policy’, Symbolae Osloenses 33, 131–137.
Vaughan, R. 1958. Matthew Paris. Rpt 1979.
de Vries, J. 1956–1957. Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. 2nd
ed. 2 vols.
Walther, H. 1963–1986. Proverbia sententiaeque latinitatis medii
aevi. Lateinische Sprichwörter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters
in alphabetischer Anordnung. 9 vols.

Bibliography

135

Walther, H. 1969. Initia carminum ac versuum medii aevi posterioris
latinorum. Alphabetisches Verzeichnis der Versanfänge mittellateinischer Dichtungen. 2. Aufl.
Weibull, L. 1911. Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia
omkring år 1000.
Whaley, D. 1987. ‘The Miracles of St Olaf in Snorri Sturluson’s
Heimskringla’, in J. Knirk, ed., Proceedings of the Tenth Viking
Congress. Larkollen, Norway, 1985, 325–342.
Zeuss, K. 1837. Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme.
Þórhallur Vilmundarson 1991: see Flóamanna saga.

Indexes

139

INDEXES
Authors mentioned or quoted in the Historia are listed in Index 3. Abbreviations used are: abp = archbishop; b. = brother; bp = bishop; d. = daughter; D =Danish; E = English; Emp. = emperor; f. = father; J = jarl, earl; K = king; m. =mother; N = Norwegian; O = Orkney; Q = queen; R = Russian; s. = son; S =Swedish; w. = wife. References are to chapter and line; t. = chapter title.
1. PERSONS(Appellations of the Almighty and Christ
are not recorded)

Abraham 19.54
Absalom 26.6
Adam 20.32
Æthelred, EK 15.2, 5Æthelstan, EK 2.5, 10; 4.1
Alexander the Great 17.28
Álfífa, m. of Sveinn, s. of Knútr
Sveinsson ‘the mighty’ 21.5
Áslákr fitjaskalli 16.42
Ásta, m. of St Óláfr 13.12; 15.51
Ástríðr, d. of SK Óláfr and w. of StÓláfr 16.22, 26
Ástríðr, d. of DK Sveinn, m. of Sveinn,s. of Úlfr 24.8
Ástríðr, m. of Óláfr Tryggvason 7.24
Ástríðr, sister of Óláfr Tryggvason 13.4
Attila, Hun K, 17.38
Augustus Caesar 32.39–48
Baldwin, K (of Jerusalem) 33.14
Benedict, St 31.32
Bergljót, d. of Hákon Sigurðarson
15.61
Bernard, E abbot 7.13
Bjo≈rn, s. of Haraldr Fair-hair 13.14–15
Bjo≈rn, standard-bearer of St Óláfr
19.69
Brúsi Sigurðarson, OJ 18.41
Carloman, b. of Charles the Great
23.t., 3–5; his sons and widow 23.5–7
Charles the Great, Emp. 23.t., 1–7, 11–
44, 50, 54–60; 30.t., 16–65
Chosroes, Persian K 26.t., 35–36, 64–
96; his sons 26.84–85

Constantine the Great, Emp. 13.36–
39; 23.51
Constantius, Emp. 13.36
Dagr (Eilífsson), f. of Gregorius 31.47
Dagr Hringsson 18.36; 19.77–80
Domitian, Emp. 26.97–98, 106, 112–
114
Egill (Áskelsson) 31.11
Einarr þambaskelmir 15.59–62;
21.10; 25.24–29, 34–39; 27.14; hisson (Eindriði) 25.38
Eiríkr, NJ, s. of Hákon Sigurðarson
14.3, 20–48; 16.1
Eiríkr, NK, called ‘brothers’ bane’, s.
of Haraldr Fair-hair, 2.t., 1–3, 7, 9–
12; 4.15
Erlendr (Þorfinnsson), OJ 31.43
Erlingr Skjálgsson 13.4; 16.36–42
Eutropia, St 17.42
Evander, f. of Pallas 18.109, 121
Eysteinn (Erlendsson), abp Prol. 4,
49–54
Eysteinn (meyla, s. of Eysteinn, s. of
Magnús berfœttr) 31.49
Eysteinn, NK, s. of Magnús berfœttr
32.14, 22–25, 27–38; 33.18
Finnr Árnason, NJ 18.37; 19.13, 25
Flóki, voyager to Iceland 3.27
Garðarr, voyager to Iceland 3.26
Gizurr of Skálaholt 12.13, 19, 24–26
Gormr Haraldsson, DK 4.22
Gregorius Dagsson 31.47
Grímkell, bp 20.38; 27.13
Guðrøðr sýr, s. of Bjo≈rn, s. of Haraldr
Fair-hair 13.12

140

Theodoricus MonachusGuðrøðr, s. of Eiríkr and Gunnhildr
5.7; 13.5
Gundabunda, Persian commander
26.70
Gunnhildr, NQ, w. of Eiríkr, s. ofHaraldr Fair-hair 2.7; 4.14, 18, 29,
32; 5.8; 6.t., 1–4, 10–19
Hákon, NJ, s. of Eiríkr, s. of Hákon
Sigurðarson 14.42, 49; 15.23, 34–
42; 16.32, 57, 60–65; 18.2; 20.55
Hákon, NK, s. of Haraldr Fair-hair andfoster-son of Æthelstan 2.4, 8, 12;
4.t., 1–16
Hákon, NK, s. of Magnús, s. ofHaraldr Sigurðarson 29.7; 30.3–8;
31.1–2
Hákon Sigurðarson, NJ, called ‘theevil’ 4.26–30; 5.t., 1–9; 6.t., 1–5,
7–9, 20–24; 7.t., 1, 17–37; 10.t.,
7–10, 25–34; 11.18; 14.3; 20.49
Halfdan the Black, f. of Haraldr Fairhair 1.2
Hallr of Síða 12.12
Haraldr Fair-hair, NK Prol. 19, 39;
1.t., 1–4; 2.1, 3; 3.1, 17; 4.1, 35;
13.15; 29.21
Haraldr gráfeldr, NK, s. of Eiríkr, s.
of Haraldr Fair-hair 4.16, 24–28; his
brothers 4.17, 28–29
Haraldr Gormsson, DK 4.21–25; 5.2–
6, 9–12; 6.8–14, 17–18, 23–24, 26
Haraldr (Knútsson), nephew of Haraldr
Gormsson 4.20
Haraldr, s. of Guðrøðr sýr and f. of StÓláfr 13.13
Haraldr, NK, s. of Magnús berfœttr
34.t., 1–9
Haraldr Sigurðarson, NK, half-b. of StÓláfr 18.35; 25.t., 9–43; 27.t., 1–17,
33; 28.t., 1–15, 23–32, 38–47; 29.1,
17; 30.11, 12–14
Harold, EK 28.10, 15–19, 31
Helena, Empress 13.37; 23.51
Hemming, DK 30.39–41, 53–55

Heraclius, governor of Africa 26.57
Heraclius, Emp. 26.57–64, 88
Hjalti of Þjórsárdalr 12.17, 19, 24–26
Hjo≈rleifr, b.-in-law of Ingólfr 3.15
Hringr Dagsson 18.36
Hugh Capet, Duke 13.24
Hugh, Earl of Cornwall 31.41
Hyrningr, b.-in-law of Óláfr Tryggvason 13.7
Ho≈ r ðaknútr, DK, s. of Knútr
Sveinsson ‘the mighty’ 22.10, 12–
22; 24.2–3 (Knútr)
Ingi Steinkelsson, SK 31.25–28
Ingigerðr, d. of SK Óláfr and w. of RK
Jaroslav 16.24, 49; 18.18; 21.15,
17–21
Ingólfr, first settler of Iceland 3.13–
18, 24Ísleifr, bp in Iceland, s. of Gizurr 12.14
Jaroslav, RK 16.49, 52; 18.18; 21.14, 16
Jósteinn, uncle of Óláfr Tryggvason
7.22–37; 8.2; 10.8–11
Jovian, Emp. 8.12–16, 38, 41–46
Julian, Emp. 8.16–36, 40
Julius Caesar 18.58–60; 23.29
Kálfr Árnason 16.36; 18.38; 19.11, 13;
21.11
Karkr, slave of Hákon Sigurðarson
10.28–34
Karlsho≈fuð, uncle of Óláfr Tryggvason
7.22–37; 8.2; 10.8–11
Knútr = Ho≈rðaknútr 24.2–3
Knútr Sveinsson, EK and DK, ‘themighty’ (the Great) 15.4; 16.29–35,
43, 55–60; 18.1–3, 12; 20.51, 54;
22.4, 11; 24.9
Laurence, St 31.33–34
Liutprand, Langobard K 23.7–10, 32–
34, 40–45, 54–57
Magnús, St, OJ, s. of Erlendr 31.44–46
Magnús, NK, s. of Haraldr Sigurðarson 29.3–6; 30.3 (uncle of Magnúsberfœttr); 31.1

Indexes
Magnús, NK, s. of St Óláfr 16.53;
18.18; 21.t., 5–6, 13, 15, 18, 21, 25;
22.t., 2, 6–22; 24.t., 2–11, 20–38,
41; 25.1–34, 40–44; 27.t., 1–17, 34–
49; 28.3
Magnús, NK, called ‘berfœttr’, s. ofÓláfr, s. of Haraldr Sigurðarson
30.t., 1–3, 8–11; 31.t., 4–29, 36–42;
32.t., 1–16; 34.3
Mardasa, s. of Chosroes 26.66
Margareta, d. of SK Ingi Steinkelsson
31.27
Mithridates, K of Pontus 26.9–33
Narses, the patrician 17.17
Nero, Emp. 26.98, 114
Nicasius, abp, St 17.41
Nikulás Sigurðarson 31.49

141

Pallas, s. of Evander 18.109–126
Peter, St 12.16; 23.48, 53
Pharnaces, s. of Mithridates 26.8–17
Philip, K (of Macedon) 17.28
Pope (unnamed; see n. 225) 23.9, 11–
18, 41, 44–54
Robert, abp of Rouen 13.20
Robert Capet, K of France 13.23–28
Ro≈gnvaldr Brúsason, OJ 18.40; 21.8
Sigeweard, bp 8.t., 4–5; 20.39
Sigurðr Hranason 31.48
Sigurðr, NK, s. of Magnús berfœttr
32.14–17, 22–26; 33.t., 1–24; 34.1–
8, 10, 18
Sigurðr, step-f. of St Óláfr 15.51
Sigurðr (Hlo≈ðvisson), OJ 9.t., 3–19;
18.41–43
Sigurðr ullstrengr 31.30–35
Steigar-Þórir, fosterer of NK Hákon,s. of Magnús 29.7–8; 31.2–10
Stephen, St 19.62–63
Sveinn bryggjufótr 21.10
Sveinn, NJ, s. of Hákon Sigurðarson
14.31–32, 36, 43, 49; 15.42–44, 53–
63; 20.48
Sveinn, DK, s. of Haraldr Gormssonand f. of Knútr ‘the mighty’ 14.2,
23, 28–29; 16.31
Sveinn Haraldsson, ‘pseudo-king’31.4–5, 12
Sveinn, s. of Knútr Sveinsson ‘themighty’ 18.2; 19.3; 20.51, 55; 21.4;
22.1–4, 11
Sveinn, DK, s. of Úlfr and Ástríðr
24.8–11, 40–41; 25.2, 42; 27.1–5,
35–41; 28.6
Sylvester, St, pope 13.39
Syrois, s. of Chosroes 26.34, 67–83, 96

Óláfr (Eiríksson), SK 14.2, 23, 30;
16.22, 47; 18.20
Óláfr, s. of Haraldr Fair-hair 4.35
Óláfr, St, NK, s. of Haraldr, s. ofGuðrøðr sýr 10.23; 13.t., 10–12,
15–22, 29–33; 15.t., 1–3, 7–55; 16.t.,
2–28, 39, 41, 43–54; 18.t., 4, 13–39;
19.t., 1–82, 87; 20.36–42, 47–51; 21.t.,3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 20; 24.25–30, 33–
34; 25.10, 13; 27.t.; 28.1; 29.16–17
Óláfr, NK, s. of Haraldr Sigurðarson
29.t., 1–2, 10–24; 30.1, 10; 31.1
Óláfr, NK, s. of Magnús berfœttr
32.14, 18–22Óláfr Tryggvason, NK 4.28, 30–34;
7.t., 2–20, 22–23, 27, 30, 33, 35,
37–40; 8.t., 1–11; 9.t., 1–15; 10.t.,
1–15, 18, 24–25, 33; 11.t., 1–11,
19–24; 12.t., 1, 20–25; 13.2–10, 17–18; 14.t., 1–18; 16.7; 20.39–40
Ole, pseudonym of Óláfr Tryggvason
Theobrand, priest 8.6; 12.1, 7–9, 19–22
7.16
Theodoricus, monk Prol. 1, 5; incipit
Otto, Duke of Saxony 16.27–28
p. 5; explicit p. 54
Otto, Emp., ‘the pious’ 5.25–26
Otto, Emp. ‘Rufus’ 5.11–20, 25–26; Thermo, priest (= Þormóðr) 8.7;
12.23–29
6.25–28

142

Theodoricus Monachus

Titus, Emp. 26.99–111
Tostig, b. of EK Harold 28.9–15, 31–32
Tryggvi, s. of Óláfr and f. of Óláfr
Tryggvason 4.28, 31, 34–37
Turnus 18.110, 121Úlfhildr, d. of St Óláfr 16.27
Úlfr Hranason 31.48
Úlfr, f. of DK Sveinn by Ástríðr, d. of
Sveinn and half-sister of Knútr ‘themighty’ 24.8
Ursula, St 17.45
Valdemar, RK 7.4
Viðkunnr Jóansson 31.47–48
William, Duke of Normandy 13.21,
26, 27
Þóra, concubine of Hákon Sigurðarson 10.28
Þorfinnr Sigurðarson, OJ 9.10
Þorgeirr, b.-in-law of Óláfr Tryggvason 13.4, 8Þorgils of ¯lfus 12.18
Þórir, half-b. of Magnús, s. of St Óláfr
27.39
Þórir hundr 16.37; 19.11, 70
Þórir klakka 7.26; 10.16
Þormóðr, priest = Thermo¯gmundr Skoptason 31.24
2. PLACES AND PEOPLES
Aachen 30.24
Africa 26.57
Agðanes, N 7.30; 10.4; (port at) 32.38
Agrippina (= Cologne) 17.44
Alps 23.27, 29
Áróss, D 24.43
Auxerre 20.23
Bergen, N 32.32, 35, (palace at) 35–37
Bithynia 13.38
Bláland, see Ethiopia
Brenneyjar 22.10
Bretland, see Cornwall
Britain, Greater 7.12

Britain, Lesser (= Ireland) 3.21
Britons 17.45
Brundisium 32.40
Caesarea 20.13
Charybdis 16.62–64; 17.t., 1–13
Cologne 17.44
Constantinople (and emperors of)
13.38; 17.22–26; 28.44–46
Cornwall (= Bretland) 31.39–41 (seen. 304)
Dalr (part of Gautland) 31.15, 27–28
Denmark (Danes, Danish kings)
4.20, 21, 23; 5.2; 6.8, 11, 17, 26;
7.5; 14.2, 28; 15.4; 16.29; 20.52;
22.t., 3, 7, 9; 24.t., 4, 13, 17; 25.13,
18, 43; 27.5, 6, 10, 11, 34, 40; 28.7;
30.40
England (the English) 2.5, 9; 7.2, 14,
25; 9.1; 10.16; 13.19, 29; 14.41;
15.t., 2, 7, 41; 16.29, 59, 60; 18.1;
20.40, 51; 22.4; 24.9; 28.t., 9, 10,
13, 15, 17, 32, 36; 29.1, 5
Ethiopia (Bláland ) 28.40
Eyrarsund 25.3
Faroe Islands 3.3
Fitjar, N 4.11
Flanders (and count of) 8.7; 13.25
France (and king of) 13.23, 28
Francia (kingdom of Charles theGreat) 23.12
Garðarshólmr (early name for Iceland)
3.27
Gaul, Gaulish provinces Prol. 31, 36;
17.38
Gautland (and kings of the Gautar)
31.13, 17, 25
Greece 25.t., 10, 29
Hálogaland, N 31.9
Helganes, D 24.42
Hlýrskógsheiðr, D 24.49
Hungary (= Pannonia) 17.21
Huns 17.t., 21, 26–49

Indexes143

Ho≈fuð (part of Gautland) 31.15–18, Pentland Firth = Petlandsfjo≈rðr
Persia (Persians) 8.12, 44; 26.60, 62;
27–28
33.5. See Parthians, Saracens
Ho≈rðaland, N 3.14
Iceland (Icelanders) Prol. 12; 1.7; 3.t., Petlandsfjo≈rðr 16.63
Phoenicia 33.9
19; 12.t., 2, 3, 30
Ireland, also called Lesser Britain (and Pontus 26.9, 28
the Irish) 3.21; 7.10; 32.4–7, 9–12, Red Sea 18.95
Rheims 17.42, 43
15; 34.t.
Rhine, river 30.17
Israel (sons of) 18.93
Rimull, N 10.27
Italy 17.16; 23.7, 51, 62
Rome 13.39; 18.110; 34.31
Jerusalem 28.41; 33.3–5
Rouen 13.21, 29
Jordan, river 18.94, 97
Russia 7.3; 15.62; 16.t., 48; 21.15;
Langobards 17.t., 17–19; 23.8, 32, 39,
28.40
59, 61(Saracens, see Persians, 33.5)
Loire, river Prol. 36Sauðungssund, N 15.22
Longobarbs = Langobards
Saxony (Saxons) 23.21; 30.41–53
Maeotic swamps 17.27
Scilly Isles 7.11
Mainz 30.17
Scotland 31.39; 34.2
Mostr, N 10.2–4
Scythia, Nether Prol. 29–30
Mærin, N 11.16
Scythia, Upper (= Sweden) Prol. 30–31
Seine, river Prol. 32
Nesjar, N 15.55(Niðarhólmr, N 31.32–35; see n. 303) Seville 20.21
Niðaróss (city, cathedral, diocese), N Sicily 28.43
Prol. 5; 10.19; 11.16; 19.7; 20.42; Sidon 33.8–9
Síða, in Iceland 12.13
24.35; 29.16, 23; 31.35, 50
Skálaholt, in Iceland 12.13
Normandy 13.22, 27; 28.16
Slavia (= Vindland) 14.19
Northmen Prol. 29, 35
Sóli, N 16.36
Northumbria 28.14
Norway (Norwegians, Norwegian Stiklastaðir, N 19.25
kings) Prol. 2–3, 9; 1.3; 2.11; 3.10; Storð, N 4.11
4.19, 36; 5.7, 8; 6.1; 8.t.; 9.3; 10.1, Svo≈ldr 14.19
3; 14.33; 15.t., 13, 40; 16.31, 35, Sweden Prol. 32; 14.2, 30; 16.48;
18.20
56; 18.3, 17; 20.53–54; 21.1–2, 17,23; 22.8; 23.62; 25.10, 13, 21, 28, Sæla, N 15.17
41; 27.t., 2, 6, 8, 10; 29.2, 20; 31.3, Thule 3.6; 12.3
6, 16; 32.2, 16; explicit p. 54
Tours Prol. 37
Orkney Islands 9.t., 2–4; 16.63–64; Tunga, N 16.41
18.42; 31.36, 43; 32.16
Upplo≈nd, N 4.37; 13.9; 15.50; 19.2;
27.13
Pannonia (= Hungary) 17.11, 15, 20
Paris Prol. 27; 20.26
Vambarhólmr, N 31.9
Parthians (= Persians) 8.19
Véar (part of Gautland) 31.15, 27–28
Pavia 23.10
Vienne 23.55

144

Theodoricus Monachus

The Vík, N 13.5; 15.52; 19.4; 29.22
Vindir = Wends
Vindland (= Slavia) 14.20
Wends 24.t., 12–19, 35–38
Þjálfahellir, N 7.31; 10.5
Þjórsárdalr, in Iceland 12.18
Þrándheimr (and people of), N 15.48–
49; 19.2, 5¯lfus, in Iceland 12.18
3. AUTHORS AND BOOKS
Augustine, St 18.111; 26.46
Bede 20.21, 24
Boethius Prol. 23
Book about the birth of the blessed
Mary 26.51
Book of the infancy of Jesus 26.50–51
Chronicle of Hugh of St Victor Prol.
28 (cf. n. 9); 20.29 (cf. n. 210)
Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux
Prol. 34
Chrysippus 17.4
Eusebius 20.13, 17, 22
Gelasius 26.42, 48
Genesis 17.8
Gospel of St Bartholomew 26.53
Gospel of St Thomas 26.52
History of the Normans (by Williamof Jumièges) 13.18–19
History of Pannonia, see Paul the Deacon
Hugh of St Victor Prol. 26; 20.25, 30;
cf. Chronicle of Hugh of St Victor
Isidore, St 20.20
Itinerary of Clement 26.52
Jerome, St 8.20; 13.35; 18.91, 100–
107; 20.28, 30
Jornandes (his history) 17.26
Lucan 4.6 (cf. n. 36); 14.38; 18.56;
23.27; 26.24; 27.28; 31.19; 34.24
Natural History, see Pliny

On the exaltation of the Holy Cross
26.38–39, 55–56
Origen 18.84–89
Ovid (= the satirist) 34.18
Passion of St Andrew 26.50
Passions of apostles 26.49
Paul (‘the apostle’), his first epistle to
Timothy 1.15
Paul the Deacon 17.9–12
peri Ÿ ajrcwn~ (‘Concerning first things’),
see Origen
Plato 18.69, 75
Pliny the Elder 17.2–3; 18.47, 53;
26.27; his Natural History 17.3;
18.48
Psalmist 17.53, 18.95
Register of Norwegian kings 20.53–54
Remigius of Auxerre 20.23
The Roman History 5.19; 26.37,
56–57
Septuagint (translators) 20.18
Sigebert, monk of Gembloux, see
Chronicle
Virgil 27.21 (cf. n. 265)
4. CHURCHES & MONASTERIESSt Benedict and St Laurence’s monastery (Niðarhólmr) 31.31–35
Holy Trinity church, Niðaróss 29.15,
23–24
St Mary’s church, Niðaróss 29.18
St Michael’s monastery, Bergen32.31–32
Monte Cassino monastery 17.10
St Peter’s church, Skálaholt 12.15–16
St Victor’s monastery, Paris Prol. 27(cf. 20.25–26)
5. MISCELLANEOUSAlþing 12.31
Apollo, image of 18.110
Christ’s cross, relic of 33.16
seiðmenn 11.22