Enjoyed a minor writer’s pleasure today, as I worked on the new Erling book.
I went over this one scene I’d added during the last revision. I always feel uncertain about inserted scenes, worrying that the graft might not take (even though most of the time I insert them precisely because I feel something’s missing at that point).
But it did work. Quite well, actually. Not only dramatically, but emotionally. The scene moved me, in fact. Which is always a surprise, like playing a practical joke on yourself.
The scene centered on King Olaf Haraldsson – Saint Olaf. Who is, in the great scheme of the series, the villain. In spite of the fact that he’s the patron saint of my second favorite country, the man was a totalitarian. Also a heretic, in my view, because I consider the use of violence in evangelism heretical. So I approached this project prepared to give him a waxed mustache and a black top hat.
But a funny thing happened as I wrote. I started getting under his skin. The first breakthrough came some years back, when I was talking about Olav’s life with a (longsuffering) friend.
I told him about a story from the Icelandic Flatey Book, not included in Heimskringla (the usual source). Flatey Book explains how Olaf was named after an ancestor, a great king called Olaf Geirstad-Elf, believed to have had supernatural powers. In the old heathen religion, naming a child after a recently dead relation was thought to cause a sort of reincarnation. The new baby was believed to be, in some sense, that ancestor reborn. (Yes, they also believed in Valhalla. And they believed the ancestor slept in his grave mound. Consistency played no part in their theology.) So Olaf was raised believing that he was really a wizard who’d lived before. His foster father Rani even dug into Olaf Geirstad-Elf’s grave mound and removed the ancient family sword, Besing, which was then given to young Olaf.
But Olaf sailed abroad as a Viking, saw a bit of the world, and chose to be baptized a Christian. We’re never told what he thought of his supposed reincarnation, in light of his new faith.
But there’s a story in Flatey Book about how he rode his horse one day past his ancestor’s grave mound. And suddenly a terror came over him. He turned his horse around and galloped off, giving orders that no one should stray near that mound again.
As I told that story to my friend, I suddenly felt I had an insight into Olaf’s psychology. He’d had a traumatic experience there at the grave mound. It instilled in him a terror of the old religion, a fear that he’d be sucked back into the power of a horrific ancestral curse. This helped explain his whole approach to Christianization.
I don’t think I’ll ever be an Olaf booster. His actions are too repellant.
But I think I’m beginning to sympathize with him. A little.
Which leads me to the inevitable thought…
After a thousand years dead, this S.O.B. is charming me! No wonder they made him patron saint!
I believe we should judge historical figures according to the standards of the time and place in which they lived. While that standard does not entirely excuse conduct that significantly deviates from Biblical teaching, such as killing nonbelievers, I believe it is the only way to accurately assess the behavior of such figures. Furthermore, I would assume that Olaf only knew of the Christian faith what he was told by priests or church officials at the time. Since the Catholic Church had no problem advocating violent action against northern pagans, i.e. the Northern Crusades, I doubt the clergy he encountered encouraged tolerance towards pagans that refused to convert. I also doubt he was encouraged to read the Bible for himself. Additionally, I imagine that he looked to other high profile Christian rulers, such as Charlemagne, as to how he should act towards pagans. If he did he probably thought violent suppression was what was expected of him.
One last thought, was Olaf really any more of a totalitarian than Harald Fairhair or his son Eric Bloodaxe? While he was no Haakon The Good, was all that different from many others that wore the crown during the Viking period? Olaf was a product of his time and place and should be judged accordingly.
True enough, but scholarship (a while back) by Bishop Fridtjof Birkeli, and (more recently) by Anders Winroth indicates that Olaf’s violent approach may not have been typical of the time — and Winroth considers it apocryphal altogether. The stories in Flatey Book seem to me to bear the marks of authenticity, and to give us genuine insight into the man’s psychology.
Interesting stuff, Lars and Joel!