But a number of Saxos present themselves in the same
surroundings with whom he has been from time to time
identified. All he tells us himself is, that
Absalon, Archbishop of Lund from 1179 to 1201, pressed
him, who was “the least of his companions, since
all the rest refused the task”, to write the
history of Denmark, so that it might record its glories
like other nations. Absalon was previously, and
also after his promotion, Bishop of Roskild, and this
is the first circumstance giving colour to the theory—which
lacks real evidence—that Saxo the historian
was the same as a certain Saxo, Provost of the Chapter
of Roskild, whose death is chronicled in a contemporary
hand without any mark of distinction. It is unlikely
that so eminent a man would be thus barely named;
and the appended eulogy and verses identifying the
Provost and the historian are of later date.
Moreover, the Provost Saxo went on a mission to Paris
in 1165, and was thus much too old for the theory.
Nevertheless, the good Bishop of Roskild, Lave Urne,
took this identity for granted in the first edition,
and fostered the assumption. Saxo was a cleric;
and could such a man be of less than canonical rank?
He was (it was assumed) a Zealander; he was known
to be a friend of Absalon, Bishop of Roskild.
What more natural than that he should have been the
Provost Saxo? Accordingly this latter worthy had
an inscription in gold letters, written by Lave Urne
himself, affixed to the wall opposite his tomb.
Even less evidence exists for identifying our Saxo
with the scribe of that name—a comparative
menial—who is named in the will of Bishop
Absalon; and hardly more warranted is the theory that
he was a member, perhaps a subdeacon, of the monastery
of St.
Laurence, whose secular canons formed part
of the Chapter of Lund. It is true that Sweyn
Aageson, Saxo’s senior by about twenty years,
speaks (writing about 1185) of Saxo as his “contubernalis”.
Sweyn Aageson is known to have had strong family connections
with the monastery of St. Laurence; but there is only
a tolerably strong probability that he, and therefore
that Saxo, was actually a member of it. ("Contubernalis”
may only imply comradeship in military service.) Equally
doubtful is the consequence that since Saxo calls
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.
