The Danish History, Books I-IX | Page 3

himself "one of the least" of Absalon's "followers"
("comitum"), he was probably, if not the inferior officer, who is called
an "acolitus", at most a sub-deacon, who also did the work of a superior
"acolitus". This is too poor a place for the chief writer of Denmark,
high in Absalon's favor, nor is there any direct testimony that Saxo held
it.
His education is unknown, but must have been careful. Of his training
and culture we only know what his book betrays. Possibly, like other
learned Danes, then and afterwards, he acquired his training and
knowledge at some foreign University. Perhaps, like his contemporary
Anders Suneson, he went to Paris; but we cannot tell. It is not even
certain that he had a degree; for there is really little to identify him with
the "M(agister) Saxo" who witnessed the deed of Absalon founding the

monastery at Sora.

THE HISTORY.
How he was induced to write his book has been mentioned. The
expressions of modesty Saxo uses, saying that he was "the least" of
Absalon's "followers", and that "all the rest refused the task", are not to
be taken to the letter. A man of his parts would hardly be either the
least in rank, or the last to be solicited. The words, however, enable us
to guess an upward limit for the date of the inception of the work.
Absalon became Archbishop in 1179, and the language of the Preface
(written, as we shall see, last) implies that he was already Archbishop
when he suggested the History to Saxo. But about 1185 we find Sweyn
Aageson complimenting Saxo, and saying that Saxo "had `determined'
to set forth all the deeds" of Sweyn Estridson, in his eleventh book, "at
greater length in a more elegant style". The exact bearing of this notice
on the date of Saxo's History is doubtful. It certainly need not imply
that Saxo had already written ten books, or indeed that he had written
any, of his History. All we call say is, that by 1185 a portion of the
history was planned. The order in which its several parts were
composed, and the date of its completion, are not certainly known, as
Absalon died in 1201. But the work was not then finished; for, at the
end of Bk. XI, one Birger, who died in 1202, is mentioned as still alive.
We have, however, a yet later notice. In the Preface, which, as its
whole language implies, was written last, Saxo speaks of Waldemar II
having "encompassed (`complexus') the ebbing and flowing waves of
Elbe." This language, though a little vague, can hardly refer to anything
but an expedition of Waldemar to Bremen in 1208. The whole History
was in that case probably finished by about 1208. As to the order in
which its parts were composed, it is likely that Absalon's original
instruction was to write a history of Absalon's own doings. The
fourteenth and succeeding books deal with these at disproportionate
length, and Absalon, at the expense even of Waldemar, is the
protagonist. Now Saxo states in his Preface that he "has taken care to
follow the statements ("asserta") of Absalon, and with obedient mind

and pen to include both his own doings and other men's doings of
which he learnt."
The latter books are, therefore, to a great extent, Absalon's personally
communicated memoirs. But we have seen that Absalon died in 1201,
and that Bk. xi, at any rate, was not written after 1202. It almost
certainly follows that the latter books were written in Absalon's life; but
the Preface, written after them, refers to events in 1208. Therefore,
unless we suppose that the issue was for some reason delayed, or that
Saxo spent seven years in polishing--which is not impossible--there is
some reason to surmise that he began with that portion of his work
which was nearest to his own time, and added the previous (especially
the first nine, or mythical) books, as a completion, and possibly as an
afterthought. But this is a point which there is no real means of settling.
We do not know how late the Preface was written, except that it must
have been some time between 1208 and 1223, when Anders Suneson
ceased to be Archbishop; nor do we know when Saxo died.

HISTORY OF THE WORK.
Nothing is stranger than that a work of such force and genius, unique in
Danish letters, should have been forgotten for three hundred years, and
have survived only in an epitome and in exceedingly few manuscripts.
The history of the book is worth recording. Doubtless its very merits,
its "marvellous vocabulary, thickly-studded maxims, and excellent
variety of images," which Erasmus admired long afterwards, sealed it
to the vulgar. A man needed some Latin to appreciate it, and Erasmus'
natural