The ‘Episode of Gautr’ is set during the brief joint reign of King Magnús góði and Haraldr harðráði (1046–7). Óláfr Tryggvason, now living incognito by the Red Sea, tells Gautr about his admiration for Magnús and also recounts how, while he was travelling through Greece, he heard much about Haraldr's foreign adventures. Óláfr adds that Haraldr was just as much a Viking as a king. Though Óláfr's opinion about the two rulers may seem innocuous, they encapsulate a comparison of the bellicose, adventurous and ruthless Haraldr with his wise and conciliatory nephew.

Unexpected as it was, King Magnús's sudden death was a concern for early Icelandic and Norwegian writers. If Norway's conversion to Christianity, crowned by St Óláfr's sainthood, formed part of a divine plan, then his death seemed an inexplicable event. All things being equal, St Óláfr should have been the progenitor of the Norwegian dynasty, but this was not to be. The ancestor of the Norwegian kings was not the son of St Ólafr but Haraldr, whose personality and reputation differed greatly from that of Magnús.

Theodoricus Monachus approached this problem by appropriating biblical and Roman examples that illustrate the poison of envy within ruling families. Just before dealing with Magnús and Haraldr, the Norwegian writes about Emperor Titus (AD 79–81) whose younger brother, Domitian, coveted the imperial throne. Titus warned Domitian that he would defile himself should he kill his own brother, i.e. him. As supreme power would soon be Domitian's anyway, he would have no need to commit such a crime. And so it transpired; Titus died shortly thereafter and Domitian was spared the ignominy of fratricide. Theodoricus implies that, given the opportunity, Domitian and thus Haraldr harðráði would have killed their kinsmen to further their worldly ambitions. But chance or, more likely, Divine Providence allowed both to gain power without bloodshed.

Heimskringla's quite different take on the same issue merits attention. Snorri Sturluson, like Theodoricus, is concerned with the tense and ambiguous relationship that developed between Magnús góði and Haraldr harðráði. The reader senses that something must eventually give.