Art and ethics in Hrafnkel's saga 8716003004

Citation preview

Hermann Palsson

Art and Ethics

in Hrafnkel 's Saga

MUNKSGAARD vvr:. Sam and Thorbjorn going down to Oxar River to \vash themselves, and Eyvind and his men making their slow way across the treacherous moor. The court scene and various references to legal customs could \vell have been based on the author's O\Vll experiences. But, most of all, his characterizations show unmistakably that he is an author who relies more on his own observations and experiences than on the vagaries of popular tradition. The characters are real people \.vho move in a real \vorld, and their world belongs no less to the thirteenth century than it does to the tenth. They are in fact thirteenthcentury people cast in the roles of real and imagined characters from the pagan period. Thus there are at work in Hrafnkel's Saga t\.\>'O opposite forces; on the one hand those which direct our attention a\vay from the author and his environment back to the tenth century, and on the other those relating to the human situation around him, mirroring life in the thirteenth century. The contemporary elements must have encouraged the original public to read the story against the background of their own experiences. .t'\nd for them the characters in Hrafnkel's Saga must have been easy to understand, because the values underlying their conduct are those we find in medieval Christian authors, in the homiletic literature and the Bible. Once we start probing into the deeper levels of the narrative, v.re are bound to realize that the morality relates to a thirteenth-century perception of human values and has very little to do \Vith pagan attitudes.

22 What gives the story such a distinctive character and cohesion is the tightly woven pattern of Christian ethics that runs through the whole narrative, revealing to us people's motives and feelings. Hrafnkel's Saga is a story about moral problems, about human strengths and weaknesses, an exposition of the difficulty of making the right choice. It is a story of passion, no less than of action; the author was not only exploring and expounding the past, but also throwing light on the present and encouraging people to attain a better understanding of their neighbours and a truer knowledge of themselves. It is this humanistic aspect of Hrafnkel's Saga which shows up the inadequacy of traditional saga criticism. Whereas the romanticists regard the story in a purely Germanic context, it seems more reasonable to view it against its own background, the Christian society of thirteenth-century Iceland, which had a closer affinity with medieval European culture than with the pagan world of primitive heroism.

Structure

The structure of Hrafnkel's Saga is probably neater and more artistic than that of any other medieval Icelandic narrative. After a brief descriptive Prologue ( chs. 1-3 ) which sets the scene and introduces the principal characters, it falls into three main acts which could be called Murder ( 4-6), Punishment (7-16) and Revenge ( 17-19) ; these are then followed by a short Epilogue (20) rounding off the story.1 A summary will, I hope, make the structure clearer:

fJH_...HRAFNK.EL, at the age of fifteen, comes to Iceland with his ]>arents, taies ssession of Hrafnkelsdale and makes his home at Adalbol. the priest-chieftain (goJi) of ffie diStrtct. A devout worshipper of Frey, Hrafnkel dedicates a horse, reyfa:Xi, to this god and swears an oath to kill anyone who rides the horse without his permission. Among his neighbours is a well-to-do farmer BJARNI, who has two sons: EYVIND who goes abroad and travels to Constantinople, and SAM who is a skilled lawyer and becomes a farmer in the ~ct I. Murder. One of Hrafnkel's neighbours, THORBJORN, is very badly off though he is the brother of the prosperous Bjarni. He is so poor that he is forced to send away his eldest 1. For a different structural analysis of the saga, see Theodore M. Andersson, The Icelandic Family Saga. An Analytic Reading, pp. 280-3. Anne Saxon Slater makes some pertinent observations in her "From rhetoric to structure in Hrafnkels Saga Freysgo5a" Scandinavian Studies XL ( 1968) pp. 36-50. '

J

24 son EINAR, to look for employment. This is in the spring when most of the farmers have engaged the servants they need, so Einar asks Hrafnkel to take him on. Hrafnkel offers to engage him as his shepherd, and Einar is also to look afte rr;yaxi. Hrafnkel warns him on pain of death never to ride the forbidden horse, ano Einar gives his promise. All goes well for a while, but then some of the sheep stray, and Einar cannot find them. When he sets out in search of the sheep one morning, Freyfaxi is the only horse he can catch, so he ignores the warning and the promise he has given and takes the forbidden horse. Hrafnkel finds out and kills the shepherd the following day.

Act II. Punishment. Einar's father is heartbroken and asks Hrafnkel for compensation for his son, and Hrafnkel offers to take care of Thorbjorn and his family so that they would never have to suffer any hardships again. But Thorbjorn turns down the offer and insists that they should choose arbitrators to settle the issue. Hrafnkel points out that that would make them equals, and they part on terms of enmity. Next Thorbjorn asks his wealthy brother to help him take Hrafnkel to court, but Bjarni refuses. However, Thorbjorn succeeds in persuading his nephew Sam to take on the case and Sam prepares a court action for the Althing. But there he runs into difficulties, because he cannot find any powerful backers to support him against Hrafnkel, wero is so great that he can easily prevent the case..irom being heard. Sam and Thorbjorn are very disappointed, and one morning Old Thorbjorn gives up all hope, breaks down and weeps. But Sam is determined to go on with the case, and just then they meet a total stranger, THORKEL, who takes pity on Thorbjorn when Sam asks him for help. Thorkel tells the old man to go to his brother THORGEIR and give his sore toe a hard pull. Thorbjorn does as he is told, and Thorgeir wakes up, enraged

25 at the pain. Thorkel explains to his brother that the old man has suffered no less agony through the death of his son than Thorgeir has in his sore toe, and he asks Thorgeir to help Thorbjorn and Sam with their court case. At first Thorgeir refuses, but finally agrees after Thorkel has threatened to leave him. So with Thorgeir's backing Sam presses on with the case, and Hrafnkel is sentenced to full outlawry at the Althing. A fortnight later Sam and his helpers set out east to Adalbol, drag Hrafnkel out of bed and torture him. They hold a court of confiscation over him and deprive him of all his possessions, his estate and his authority. Sam takes everything for himself and banishes Hrafnkel from the district, but he refuses to put Hrafnkel to death, though Thorkel and Thorgeir urge him to do so. Sam is now a chieftain, but it does not take Hrafnkel long to fight his way back from poverty, and he becomes the chieftain over Fljotsdale where he had settled after his eviction from Hrafnkelsdale.

Act III. Revenge. Six years pass. Then Sam's brother Eyvind comes back to Iceland. He sets out from his ship to visit Sam at Adalbol, but Hrafnkel pursues Eyvind and kills him before he reaches his destination. Sam gets a warning of this, but arrives too late at the scene to save his brother. Next morning Hrafnkel travels over to Hrafnkelsdale, takes Sam by surprise and drives him away from Abaldol. Hrafnkel resumes his estate and authority over Hrafnkelsdale and forces Sam into subm1ss10n. Epilogue. Late the following winter Sam sets out and asks Thorkel and Thorgeir once more for help, but they refuse. Sam goes back home disappointed and remains Hrafnkel's subordinate for the rest of their lives. Hrafnkel retains his status, and on his death his sons take over his wealth and authority.

26

The climaxes of Acts I and II are violent deeds: the murder of the shepherd (I), and the torture of Hrafnkel (II) . In Act III there are two climaxes: the killing of Eyvind, corresponding to the shepherd's murder in Act I, and the humiliation of Sam which echoes the treatment of Hrafnkel in Act II. Each act has two crucial scenes set on a summer morning.2 It is early one morning just after midsummer that the shepherd sets out in search of his straying sheep, and the following morning Hrafnkel rides off to the shieling to kill him. This act has a distinctly pastoral character, almost idyllic in tone, but it ends abruptly on a tragic note when the shepherd is so brutally killed. Act II has different settings, and the mood of the narrative changes from Thorbjorn's grief, defiance and contrition to a triumphant note when the shepherd's killer is brought to justice and made to pay for his crimes. The first of the focal morning scenes in this act is set at the Althing when Thorbjorn breaks down and wants to give up his fight against Hrafnkel, but Sam insists on carrying on with the fight. Then the unexpected helper turns up, and it is still so early in the morning when they meet him that people are asleep in the booth. This scene takes place a year after the shepherd was killed, and the second morning scene in Act II takes place a fortnight later east at Adalbol. Again, someone is aroused from his sleep and given pain, but this time it is Thorkel and Thorgeir who torture Hrafnkel. The third act opens on a quiet peaceful note with Eyvind's return from abroad and his brief and happy meeting with Sam, but a disturbing element suddenly obtrudes when Hrafnkel's servant throws down her laundry and lectures her master on his duty to take revenge. The first morning scene in this act describes Eyvind setting out from his ship to 2. Most of the action in Hrafnkel's Saga takes place in summer. Elsewhere in medieval Icelandic literature, authors show a predilection for other seasons. Thus, in Gisli's Saga the focal scenes have an autumnal setting, and in Grettir's Saga the critical events take place at Christmas or in early winter.

27 visit his brother at Adalbol, and it is just 'half-way between rising time and mid-morning' when he fords the river and the servant by the lake recognizes him. As in the corresponding part of Act I, the doomed man rides a long distance over a moor before Hrafnkel's axe catches up with him. The final morning scene, a day later, is again set at Adalbol, as was the second one in Act II, but this time the roles are reversed and now it is Hrafnkel who catches Sam in bed, humiliates him and throws him out of Adalbol. The structural pattern is made obvious by an effective use of parallelisms and contrasts, both in the delineation of character and the arrangement of scenes and situations. As an example one could mention the preludes to the two killings. On both occasions a serving woman has a word with Hrafnkel and as the result of what he learns from her, he sets out in a murderous mood. Hrafnkel is sitting at table when his servant tells him that Freyfaxi is outside, so he goes out and sees his beloved horse all covered in mud. ' "It grieves me to see how you have been treated, my fosterling, and this shall be avenged". In the morning he had a horse brought in and saddled, and rode up to the shieling. He was wearing blue clothing and carrying an axe in his hand, and that was the only weapon he had.' This is how Hrafnkel is accoutred when he sets out to take vengeance on Einar for riding the forbidden horse, and when he finds his intended victim, he questions him about his disobedience and then strikes him down. Before Eyvind is killed, Hrafnkel's lust for vengeance is roused, and then he prepares for the attack. He and his men 'armed themselves efficiently', but it is through the eyes of Eyvind's servant boy that we get a vivid picture of Hrafnkel this time: "There are some men riding after us, eighteen or twenty of them. One of the riders is a tall man wearing blue clothing and he seems to me like Hrafnkel, though I've not set eyes on him for a long time". The image of Hrafnkel on

28 both occasions riding in blue clothing is all vv·e need to know about his mood and intentions; for in the sagas blue clothing is conventionally \VOrn by killers. But whereas Hrafnkel speaks vvith Einar before he kills him, he sets on E·yvind 'without a single \vord', for Eyvind is totally innocent, as \vill be discussed further in a later chapter, and Hrafnkel has nothing to argue \Vith him about. The two victims have certain features in com~ mon, apart from being cousins. Both are killed unjustly, though they are also at fault: Einar for riding the forbidden horse, and Eyvind for being too proud to save his OY..'Il life. But there are also striking contrasts. Einar is poor, and he is slaughtered like a sacrificial lamb, v.'hereas the v-...-ealthy and far-travelled Eyvind puts up a brave fight before he is killed. Einar is buried unceremoniously, with a heap of stones to mark his grave, but Eyvind is given a proper burial mound. Einar's name is commemorated by the simple cairn (Einarsvarda), but Eyvind's by a mountain and other impressive features of the landscape (Eyvindarfell~ Eyvindardale~ Eyvindartorfa). Thus the circumstances of Eyvind's death keep evoking memories of what has happened to his cousin before. The contrasts bet\veen the three pairs of brothers are very striking and they form significant strands in the patterning of the narrative. Thorbjorn and Bjami (whose names, incidentally, are closely related, as Bjarni and -bjorn are but variations of the same noun) are not only different in terms of \Vealth and social position, but also in their self-estimation, as \vill be discussed later. Like his father, Eyvind is a man who does not meddle in other people's affairs, but his brother Sam lets himself be talked into trouble. In the last chapter Thorgeir gives the verdict that Eyvind 'vas a \Viser man than Sam. The two Thjostarssons, Thorkel and Thorgeir, show totally different attitudes v.·hich are sharply brought out in the confrontation scene at the Aithing. Thorkel is a sophisticated and articulate man of the 'A-'orld, 'vho understands one's duty

29 to justice and is moved by pity for the needy, but Thorgcir is practical and self-preserving; he refuses to make any sacrifices for an ideal and does not want to alleviate misery, on the grounds that he is not the one responsible for it. But in the end they iron out their differences and stand solidly together \vhen they help Sam overcome Hrafnkel, and later when they refuse to help him the second time. The author emphasizes the agreement bet\veen them by referring to them jointly as the Thjostarssons. There are certain interesting similarities between Eyvind and Thorkel. Both have spent years in Constantinople, and both are moved by compassion for the poor. Thorkel sho\vs genuine pity for Old Thorbjorn, who is helpless and grief-stricken. He reminds his brother that 'it 'A.'ould be a noble gesture to aid this poor old man.' This reminds us of Eyvind's considerate treatment of his servant: 'Eyvind had saved this boy from utter poverty before he left Iceland, taken him abroad and treated him just as his own self'. This trait in their characters \vill be considered more fully later. A good deal of the action involves travels, and the recurrent movements give the story a certain rhythm \vhich controls the flo\v of the narrative. Adalbol provides the focal point; again and again we see the characters going there for a number of different reasons: Einar in search of employment (ch. 4), the horse Freyfaxi to complain to his master (ch. 5), Einar's father seeking redress (ch. 7), Sam and the Thjostarssons to punish Hrafnkel ( c. 13), Eyvind to visit his brother, though he is not fated to complete the journey (ch. 17), and finally Hrafnkel to take Adalbol away from Sam (ch. 19). Then there are the long rides to the Althing and back, Sam's trip to Thorskafjord, and various people crossing the moors. All these travels help to create a feeling of distance and perspective, and they play a noticeable part in the patterning of the narrative.

30 Hrafnkel's Saga has several confrontation scenes, where the characters reveal their attitudes and personality in verbal exchanges.3 The first of these is between Thorbjorn and Einar (ch. 4), when the destitute crofter tells his son to seek employment elsewhere, and in the same chapter we have the first encounter of Einar and Hrafnkel. Then there is their second meeting, which ends with Einar's death (ch. 6). In the follo\ving chapter, Thorbjom confronts three people, one after another: Hrafnkel, Bjarni and Sam. Thorbjorn and Sam have another argument later (ch. 7), echoing their first one. In the same chapter Sam and Thorkel meet for the first time, and their conversation is follo\ved by the longest confrontation scene in the story, the one between Thorkel and his brother Thorgeir (ch. 9). The dialogue between Sam and Thorgeir in chapter 12 is a sequel to the one between the brothers, and it also anticipates the confrontation with Hrafnkel in the follo\ving chapter. When the Thjostarssons take leave of Sam after Hrafnkel's downfall (ch. 15), Sam is a passive listener and contributes nothing to the dialogue. In chapter 17 it is Hrafnkel's senrant who confronts her master and urges him to kill Eyvind, and in the following chapter Eyvind's servantboy tries to persuade his benefactor to flee to safety. After Hrafnkel has crushed Sam at Adalbol (ch. 19), there is only one confrontation scene left, \vhen Sam asks the Th jostarssons for help the second time and Thorgeir explains their reasons for refusing to help him~ Thorgeir's words echoing previous situations and showing up the differences between him and Sam, between Sam and Eyvind, and Hrafnkel and Sam. But the sharpest clashes are those between the real antagonists, 3. These scenes fall, roughly speaking, into t\vo categories. In some of them a speaker appeals for help: which is either rejected or granted, or offers his advice. Other scenes depict a relatively strong person \vho issues an order and imposes his will on a \Veaker person. The ethical problems involved \vill be considered in later chapters.

31 Hrafnkel and Sam, and it was a particularly brilliant stroke on the part of the author to make Hrafnkel use Sam's speech in the humiliation scene at .~dalbol as the basis for his ov..'n when their fortunes are reversed. The similarities between these tvvo confrontations emphasise the structural design, as we can clearly see v..'hen \\re look at the two speeches, side by side, bearing in mind their circumstances. Sam at Adabol: Hrafnkel at Adalbol: 'I'm giving Hrafnkel a choice 'Your life's in my hands. I'll be of t\vO things. One that he'll just as generous to you as you be taken to a place I'll choose \Vere, and give you the same and be put to death there. choice as you have me: to live But since he has so many de- or to be killed. If you choose pendants in his care I'm wil- to live, the terms \vill be solely ling to give him the chance up to me ... You're to leave of looking after them. If he Adalbol, move down to Leikwants me to spare his life he's skalar and settle there on }'Our to leave .!\dabol with his en- farm. You can take away tire household and take away with you all the goods Eyvind with him only such goods as I brought v..rith him, but you let him, which will be very won't be allow·ed to take anylittle indeed. I'll take away thing else avvay from here, unfrom you your authority and less people are V..'illing to testiestate, Hrafnkel. You and fy you brought it \Vith you to your heirs are never to claim Adalbol. Such belongings you these back, and you're never may carry off with you. I'll to settle on this side af Fijots- resume my authority and dale Moor. If you are willing chieftaincy over this district, to accept these terms, shake and take over the estate with hands now.' all the other possessions that used to be mine. I can see there's been a vast increase in my wealth, but you won't

32 benefit from it, as I'll be taking it all for myself . . . You had me outlawed from my own district, but I'll allow you to live at Leikskalar as long as you don't let your pride be your downfall ... ' With this final morning scene, the old order of things is fully restored, and Sam's abortive attempt to get the Thjostarssons involved once more only accentuates the real difference between the two antagonists. Sam has lost the contest and is forced to take up his former and natural position, while Hrafnkel has regained the power he created for himself at the beginning of the story. The author leaves no loose ends when the narrative is brought to its logical and ineluctable conclusion.

Landscape

The entire action in Hrafnkel's Saga takes place in the author's native land, with every incident seen against the backdrop of a familiar landscape. Though two of the characters spend years away from Iceland, travelling to Norway and Constantinople, this is only alluded to in very general terms. Place names and other topographical details are much in evidence, characterizing the landscape with vivid realism, and this genuineness of the physical setting contributes to the illusion that the story itself must be dealing with actual events. Here we are given a view over a large area in eastern Iceland, but the range of vision stretches over to the west, to Thingvellir and Thorskafjord. Everywhere in the story we get that feeling of space and perspective which is so often lacking in medieval narratives. Sometimes the author seems to be casting a farmer's eye over the scene, as for example when he describes Hrafnkel's choice of land to settle: "When Hrafnkel was riding across Fljotsdale Moor he saw that an uninhabited valley branched off from Jokulsdale, and it seemed to him more suitable for farming than any other valley he had ever seen". Later, after Hrafnkel is driven from Adalbol, he moves "over to the far side of Fljotsdale, east of Lagarwater. There was a little farm called Lokhilla at the head of the lake, and he bought it on credit . . . The land that Hrafnkel bought was extensive and heavily wooded, but the farm buildings were poor, which was the reason why he could buy it at such a low price. But Hrafnkel spared no expense: he felled a lot of timber, for there was plenty of it, and built a fine house. The place has been known as Hrafnkelsstead ever since and is still

34 considered a good farm". Hrafnkel O\ves his recovery from destitution to the fact that he makes full use of \vhat land and lake have to offer and he does not spare himself: "Hrafnkel lived the first year there in great hardship, but he improved his resources by sending his men fishing. Hrafnkel himself \Vorked very hard while he was building the house. He raised every calf and every kid the first year, and he was so successful \vith his livestock that hardly any of the beasts failed; in fact they v.;ere so productive they gave him almost double the normal yield. That summer Lager\vater \Vas teeming \vith trout, which proved very profitable for the farmers in the district, and this continued for a good many years". In the first chapter we follovv the movements of the imrniarant Hallfred ' from the time he puts in "at Breiddale east 0 of the Fljotsdale District" until he crosses "Rang River in Ton211e" and settles at Hallfredarstead. His route is marked 0 by two places, .i\rnthrudarstead and Geitdale, where he makes temporary homes, and after he leaves the second one "a landslide fell on the farmstead". But it is as a traveller, rather than a farmer, that the author describes the wild rugged nature of Iceland. Chapter t\VO opens with the sentence: ''Hrafnkel made it his custom in the summer to go riding over the moors", \vhich anticipates a good deal of the landscape sketches later on. This chapter concludes with a broad description of Fljotsdale Moor where the action in chapter eighteen is set: Fljotsdale Nfoor is stony and boggy and difficult to travel over, yet Hrafnkel and his father used to visit each other frequently, for they were on very affectionate terms. Hallfred thought the usual path across the moor \\'as much too rough, so he looked for an alternative route south of the hills which rise on the moor; and there he found a drier but slightly longer way. This path has been called Hallfredargata ever since, and

35 it can only be used by those \vho are thoroughly familiar \vith the moor. This anticipatory account of the moor is later enlarged upon -vv·hen it becomes the scene of action and Eyvind makes his v1lay slowly across the rough terrain, \vith Hrafnkel in pursuit..i\s \v·e follo\v Eyvind's progress over the moor; a clear visual and tactile image of the route gradually emerges, a \vild landscape \vhere bogs and rocks alternate, and the doomed travellers end their journey at a place \.vhere the destructive forces of erosion have made their mark on the pastures: There's a swamp there, and one has to ride through watery slush; \vith the mud reaching up to the horse's knee or midleg, sometimes even up to its belly; but underneath the mud the rock is very firm so there's no risk of sinking any deeper. West of this bog the terrain is very stony, and Eyvind and his men rode on to it . . . They rode on west across the rocky ground, and then they came to another S\vamp V·.'hich is called Oxroire. It's very grassy and has a good many soft patches \Vhich make it almost impassable. This bog is about as wide as the previous one, but it's much softer so travellers have to dismount. That's why old Hallfred used to take the upper path, even though it was longer; in his opinion these two S\vamps \Vere nearly complete barriers. Eyvind and his men rode \vest into the S\vamp, and they were so often bogged down they were very much delayed. The pursuers, \vith no pack-horses to slow them down, were travelling much faster. When Hrafnkel and his men rode into the bog, the others \vere just clear of it ... They rode west from the swamp and up the ridge. West of the ridge there's a fine grassy valley, and west of the valley another ridge, and west of the second ridge lies Hrafnkelsdale. They rode up the easternmost ridge. There are some humps on the ridge, and on the slope stands a steep knoll,

36 \vith lyme grass on top but eroded by the vvind on all sides. This is fine land for grazing, but near it lies a bog. Eyvind rode avvay from the path and into the hollo\v east of the lyme knoll. He dismounted and told his companions to let their horses graze there for a while. No\vhere else in medieval Icelandic fiction do \\'e find such sharply focused images of a bleak moorland. This is obviously described by an experienced traveller vvho probably was "thoroughly familiar') with some of the wilder moors in Iceland and many of his readers must have shared in this experience. The treatment of the landscape sho\vs the same articulate quality as does the author's handling of human motivation. Both show an observant writer who describes \vhat he has seen and felt and cares about. It matters very little whether or not the description of the moor fits the route from Fljotsdale to lirafnkelsdale; it is certainly true in the sense that there are many such moors in Iceland. The romanticists have either searched for places which could fit the author's sketches of the landscape,1 or else criticized him for a lack of accuracy. Thus it has been pointed out that there is no bluff by the river belO\V ~A.dalbol, 2 though the author makes use of one when Freyfaxi is destroyed: "They led the stallion across the meadO\V and then dov.;n along the river. Below the farmstead there are high cliffs and a waterfall with a deep pool underneath. They led the stallion on to the bluff. Then the Th jostarssons pulled a bag over Freyfaxi)s head, tied long heavy poles to his flanks, fastened a stone to his neck, and with the poles they pushed the horse over the cliff. So the horse perished, and the bluff has been kno\vn as Freyfaxahamar ever since". The place name Freyfaxahamar is no longer known, 1. See e.g. SiguriJur Gunnarsson's article in Safn til sOgu Islands 11, 1886, p. 453-8. 2. S. Nordal, op. cit., p. 23.

37 tl1ough there is no reason to suspect that the author invented it, but the topographical features mentioned in this passage are common all over Iceland, so the author evidently based his description on a landscape he had observed for himself. It is not only in the depiction of Fljotsdale lvfoor that movement and landscape go hand in hand. VVhen the shepherd sets out to search for his straying sheep, he wades "across Grjotteigs River vvhich flov.-·s past the shieling)' and sees some of the sheep lying "on the gravel flats dov..,rn by the river". Then he catches Freyfaxi. He "rode up along Grjotargill, south to the glacier and then \Vest along the edge of the ice to the source of Jokuls River. From there he follo\ved the river down to Reykja Shieling ... Einar rode Freyfaxi from dawn to mid-evening, travelling fast and far, for this was an outstanding horse . . . He rode east across the ridges over to Hrafnkelsdale, and \Vhen he came to Grjotteig he heard the bleating of sheep beside the ravine which he had passed earlier in the morning)). Though the author does not attempt any detailed description of the scenery there are enough landmarks on the Vv·ay to evoke a realistic picture of the route. Then there are several descriptions of long travels, from one part of Iceland to another. First there is the route taken by Hrafnkel to the Althing, signposted with several \vell-kno\vn landmarks: Hrafnkel rode east across Fljotsdale 1v1oor, then round the head of the lake and across the ridge over to Skridudale, up through that valley, south over Oxar Moor to Berufjord, and from there he folio\ved the usual route to Sida. The journey from Fljotsdale to Thingvellir takes seventeen days. Sam travels over the \vilderness in central Iceland: When Hrafnkel had left the district Sam gathered forces. Sam took a different route out of the valley. He rode north to

38 the bridge and crossed the river there, then over Modrudale Moor and spent the night at Modrudale. From there they rode to Herdibreidstongue, and then down by Blafell and over to Kroksdale, and so south to Sand near Sandafell and then to Thingvellir. Both Hrafnkel and Sam take the same route back home, and the last stretch of Sam's journey to Adalbol is described in some detail: "He turned sharply away from the path and up the mountainside and then along the ridge between Hrafnkelsdale and Jokulsdale until they reached the mountain above the farm at Adalbol. There were grassy hollows stretching up to the moor there and the hillside sloped steeply down to the farm in the valley below". This echoes the first glimpse we get of Hrafnkelsdale and Adalbol when Hrafnkel sees it from the moor and decides to make his home there. All the journeys in the saga take place in summer, except for Sam's trip to Thorskafjord: Late in the winter when the days grew longer, Sam had his horses shod and hired a groom to accompany him on a journey. They had three horses, one of them carrying Sam's clothes. They rode over the bridge and then across Modrudale Moor and forded Jokuls River up in the mountains. Then they rode on to Mywater, and from there across Fljots Moor and Ljosawater Pass; they kept going without a halt until they reached Thorskafjord. Sam was given a good welcome there. Earlier in this chapter I quoted the passages describing Eyvind's journey across Fljotsdale Moor, but the first part of his route is marked on the map in a manner similar to the travels of Hrafnkel and Sam to the Althing: They rode up to Thordale Moor and drove sixteen pack-horses before them. Two of the men were Sam's servants, and the re-

39 maining four were travellers. These wore coloured clothing and carried bright shields. They rode across Skridudale and then over the ridge into Fljotsdale through Bulungavellir, and down to Gilsareyr which lies to the east of the lake between Hallormsstead and Hrafnkelsstead. Then they continued their ride up along Lagarwater, below the home meadow at Hrafnkelsstead, round the head of the lake, and crossed Jokuls River at Skala Ford. Here, as elsewhere in the saga, it is from horseback that the thirteenth century author observes the land he seems to know so well. All these pictures of Icelandic scenery add to the visual quality of the narrative and they are meaningful elements in its total design.

Freedom and action

Before we set out to explore what happens in Hrafnkel's Saga, it is necessary to define the exponents of action and passion in terms of their social status. In order to understand the moral nature of each individual act, we must form a clear idea as to where the agents stand in relation to one another and to society at large. As I have already mentioned, the social scene is depicted with no less realism than is the physical background. Early Iceland was a completely rural society; there were no villages, and the entire population lived on farms and crofts of various sizes, scattered thinly over the inhabitable lowlands and valleys. Generally speaking, the distributional pattern of farmsteads seems to go back to the Age of Settlements, and the thirteenth century farmer was in many ways faced with similar problems to those with which his forebears had been back in the tenth. This rural economy was based on animal husbandry, particularly cattle and sheep, and grass was the most important natural asset. Sheep were kept not only for meat and wool, but also for milk, and in order to save the precious grazing near the farmstead, the milch ewes were moved to remoter pastures in the summer, where a shepherd and dairy-maids looked after them, making butter and other products from the milk. The hut which was built to accommodate the herdsman and his helpers was known as a 'shieling' (Ice!. sel, Norwegian seter ), and nearby was the pen where the ewes would be milked. The task of herding the ewes at the shieling was regarded as a menial job, usually assigned to youngsters, and the law made it clear that no farmer could force his regular farmhands to act as shepherds in summer.

41 It is necessary to bear this in mind when we consider the tragedy of Einar in Hrafn kel's Saga. He is far too accomplished a man to be a shepherd in normal circumstances, but when he starts looking for a job, this is the only one he can get. In Hrafnkel's Saga we can, broadly speaking, distinguish between four levels of society: chieftains (Hrafnkel, the Thjostarssons, and other leaders referred to in the Althing scene who are not mentioned by name ), prosperous farmers (Bjarni and Sam; Eyvind, though not a practising farmer, belongs essentially to this level), destitute crofters (Thorbjorn and his son Einar), and anonymous servants. The difference between the two top levels lies in the fact that the chieftains (gooar ) , who are also essentially farmers, had certain important functions at the Althing and local assemblies, acting as law-makers and nominating judges for the courts; in pagan times, they were also priests and in charge of the temples, but this sacerdotal role came to an end with the introduction of Christianity about the year 1000. The main difference between the second and third levels lies in wealth, but the fourth level stands quite apart, as it consists of people who sell their labour to others and are not independent householders. Since the freedom of action given to each character depends not only on his innate talents and ability, but also on such external factors as his social standing and wealth, it is obvious that Hrafnkel enjoys a much wider choice than his neighbours. His wealth makes him materially independent, and his authority means that he has more power over his social environment than anyone else in the district. But he wilfully misuses this freedom in two different ways. First against others by denying them justice, as will be discussed in the next chapter, and then against himself by swearing an oath which curbs his freedom. The narrative makes it clear that it is of his own free will that he circumscribes his choice of action: "He swore a solemn oath to kill anyone who rode the stallion without his

42

permission". This means that in one particular contingency Hrafnkel must act in a predetermined way. According to medieval ethics, the act of swearing an unnecessary oath should be avoided at all costs, and in this connection one could quote a passage from Hugh of St. Victor: "Now whoever swears without cause, even if he swears the truth, is not without blame, because he is either censured for levity or he is condemned for arrogance".1 And to make a solemn vow to commit an evil deed was a very serious matter indeed. It is not certain what gave the author of Hrafnkel's Saga the idea of the vicious oath, but he was presumably inspired by the teachings of some medieval authority or other. Hugh of St. Victor is very outspoken on this moral problem: "If anyone should vow to kill someone or to do something else in which there might be blame, the vow would be with reference to evil and it would be evil and on this account would not have to be dissolved". 2 Seen in this light, Hrafnkel commits two evil acts: first by swearing the oath and second by fulfilling it. In spite of his oath it was his manifest duty to spare the shepherd's life, because the violation of the oath would have been the lesser of two evils, as Hugh of St. Victor makes abundantly clear in the work I have already quoted: "Whoever swears that he will do evil sins, in which case, however, it would be better to break an oath than to fulfil it, so that he should beware of the evil which he swore and nevertheless understand the guilt in that he swore evilly".3 But Hrafnkel rejects this moral duty and takes refuge in his own beliefs, showing that he has a different standard of conduct: "My faith tells me that nothing good can happen to people who break their solemn vows". As one would expect, the romanticists regard Hrafnkel's oath l. Hugh of Saint Victor on the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, R. J. Deferrari, p. 198. 2. Ibid., p. 371. 3. Ibid., p. 198.

43 and its fulfilment in a totally different way. In his essay on Hrafnkel's Saga, Sigur5ur Nordal makes the following comment: "Before Hrafnkel slays Einar there are two courses open to him, both distasteful : either he must break the powerful oath he has sworn, or he must kill a servant he likes for a mere trifle. This dramatic situation is not uncommon in our ancient literature, both in the Eddie poetry and in the sagas; fate can drive men into such desperate corners that a foul deed can appear the better of two evils. Bolli must slay Kjartan his sworn foster-brother, Gisli Sursson his brother-in-law Thorgrimr; Flosi must burn Njall and Bergth6ra in their home. Yet, knowing that their actions are evil, men who are truly great choose and act without hesitation". 4 The moral dilemmas facing the characters in Njal's Saga, Laxdada Saga and Gisli's Saga are beyond the scope of the present study, but it seems an odd way of looking at the crimes committed to regard them as signs of greatness. Gisli steals into his sister's bedroom under cover of darkness and murders her husband who is sleeping peacefully beside her; Bolli kills his cousin and blood-brother who refuses to defend himself; and Flosi sets fire to a house, deliberately burning to death an innocent old man, his wife, grandson and others who had never done him any harm. According to medieval morality these were reprehensible acts, and that is precisely how the saga authors must have expected their public to react to them. In Nordal's view, the seriousness of these crimes is mitigated by the fact that fate must be blamed for the tragedy, and this interpretation marks the decisive difference between the romanticist and humanistic approaches to saga exegesis. According to the former, inexorable fate controls the action, and the hero lives out his life in fulfilment of a predestined pattern, but the humanist examines individual acts in terms of motivation and 4. Nordal, op. cit., pp. 48-9.

44 intention, execution and effects; \.vhat people do is a manifestation of their free choice. The human will is the motivating force behind the action, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the characters themselves, rather than \Vith any extrahuman agency.5 Later in the story Hrafnkel is punished for his crime, and his punishment can be regarded as an external restriction of his freedom. First, at the Althing Sam and the Thjostarssons have him sentenced to outlawry, which means that he is excluded frorn Icelandic society. But as Thorgeir points out, I-Irafnkel still is an outlaw in name only, as he has the power and authority to ignore the sentence and maintain his status. So Sam and the Thjostarssons go east to Adalbol, tie Hrafnkel up and torture him, curbing his physical freedom, but after that Sam and his helpers fail to agree about the final form of punishment. The Thjostarssons want Hrafnkel to suffer total exclusion and urge Sam to put him to death. Sam, however; refuses to deprive Hrafnkel unconditionally of the right to live and offers him a choice: either to be killed or else to accept Samis terms. For a Christian this is a simple choice, because it is every man's duty to save and safeguard his life as long as he can, and Hrafnkel makes the obvious decision. "For above all man was ordered to preserve both his own and another's lifen; Hugh of St. Victor reminds us,6 and there are plenty of other instances in Christian writings \•,:here people are urged to prefer life to death. But here again, the traditional v-•.ray of looking at Hrafnkel's choice differs radically from what we might expect in commentaries on medieval literature. SigurOur Nordal says: "The choice which Simr offers Hrafnkell is even more difficu!t ( i. e. than the choice between killing 5. It should be noted, however, that in some of the sagas fate seems to be an active force, as indeed it is in the early heroic poetry. 6. Op. cit., p. 201. See also Brennu-lVjdlssaga, ed. Einar 01 Sveinsson_, Reykjavik, 1954, p. 332.

45 and not killing the shepherd) : to accept death or a life of disgrace, dishonour and defeat. According to the creed of the Heroic Age honour was the test of a man's '\Yorth. The sense of honour, the refusal to accept insult, these were the very stuff of the events \Vith which the sagas deal and \vhich elevated the petty quarrels into momentous conflicts. Yet, chiefly because of his sons, Hrafnkell chose life that he might bring them to a man's estate. This also suggests that he has absolute trust in his OVYTI ability to redress the balance later and thus rid himself of any stigma of shame. He chose the more difficult course in complete defiance of the heroic code of his agen .7 This simplistic way of looking at the problem of choice completely ignores the morality of the period in which the author of Hrafnkefs Saga lived. Furthermore, we kno\v very little about the code of conduct accepted by people in tenth century Iceland, and the text demands a different interpretation of Hrafnkel's behaviour. Later in the story, when their roles are reversed, Hrafnkel makes Sam the same offer and gives him the choice "to live or to be killed. If you choose to live, the terms will be solely up to me". After accepting the terms imposed by the antagonist, both Hrafnkel and Sam have to be content \vith restricted freedom. Hrafnkel loses his wealth and authority and is banished from the valley he had settled, and Sam becomes Hrafnkel's subordinate for the rest of their lives, "and you can be sure your position will be lo\ver than ever before". When Hrafnkel is evicted from .A.dalbol, his freedom is curbed in several ways, as we have seen already: by loss of pov-.-·er and wealth and by being denied the right to live west of Fljotsdale Moor. His position becomes similar to that of his fonner neighbour, Thorbjorn, \vhose freedom is circumscribed by poverty. However, Hrafnkel has the courage and 7. Nordal, op. cit., p. 49.

46

good luck to fight his way back to power and to regam his former freedom of action, but this time \Vithout the restrictive oath. Thorbjorn's freedom of action is limited by his lack of V·.tealth: "He had slender means and a large family to support". His circumstances force him to send his eldest son a\.vay to look for employment else\vhere, but Thorbjom is so improvident that he fails to \vam the boy in time. Einar appreciates that his choice has been narro\ved by this failure: "You're late in telling me this, UO\V aH the best jobs have been taken by others. I don't like the idea of getting something no one else wants". When Einar asks Hrafnkel for a job, he is told that the only \vork he can have is to herd the sheep and look after Freyfa.xi. The conditions Hrafnkel makes the shepherd, restrict his freedom of action even further, for Hrafnkel warns him on pain of death never to ride the forbidden horse. But it is finally left to Einar himself to take the irrevocable step that leads to his death. He deliberately misuses his freedom of choice when he yields to temptation and rides Freyfaxi. The shepherd)s fall is no sudden impulse but a premeditated act, 8 and he is brutally made to pay the ultimate penalty for it. The romanticists, however, interpret the shepherd's tragedy in terms of fate; their attitude is summed up by SigurOur Nordal: "In the main Einarr Thorbjamason is presented to us as a pa"vn of fate". 9 ~e\nd \.vhen he has dealt \vlth the shepherd's murder, Nordal remarks: "The despotism of the Fates has been revealed". 10 G. Turville-Petre concurs with 8. Nordal has obviously failed to realize how important it was from the author's point of vie\V that Einar's decision to take the forbidden horse ,.,.as a deliberate act: "Occasionally quite superfluous explanations of men's actions and innermost thoughts are recorded". (op. cit.) .As an example of this fault Nordal mentions the sentence "(Einar) kept thinking how much more ground he could cover by riding than by walking". 9. Nordal, op. cit.~ p. 46. 10. Ibid., Zoe. cit.

47 this interpretation: "Malevolent fate led Hrafnkel's shepherd to ride the horse ... Fate causes Einarr to ride the forbidden horse".1 1 But there is not the slightest hint in the story itself that fate is to blame for \vhat happens, and it has been suggested that the shepherd's tragedy may have been inspired by the story of the Fall in Genesis, \vhich in medieval times \Vas used to exemplify moral problems connected with the freedom of the will, temptation and disobedience. .e\s in the Biblical model: the tempted is warned on pain of death not to touch the forbidden thing, but apart from that he is given a \vide choice. 12 The similarities bet\veen Hrafnkel's Saga and Genesis can hardly be a mere coincidence: Some ten or t\.velve other horses go \\rith Freyfaxi and you're free to use any of them ... I vvant you never to ride this horse . . . I've s\vom an oath to kill anyone who rides him.

y·ou may indeed eat of all the trees in the garden. Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die. 13

Einar accepts the terms Hrafnkel imposes on him, as the choice offered seems wide enough. He "said that he would never be so wicked as to ride the one horse \.vhich was forbidden to him, particularly since there were plenty of other 11. Origins of Icelandic Literature, Oxford 1953, p. 241. 12. In suc'h a situation, the tempted is free to resist: "The truth is that ho\vever a man may be pressed by temptation, whether from ·within or from \vithout, his will, so far as concerneth choice, \vill be ahvays free; in as much as, in spite of everything, it \vill be free to decide in the matter of its own consent". St. Bernard of ClairvatLx Concerning Grace and Free Will, transl. by W.W. \Villiam. London: 1920, p. 60. • 13. Biblical quotations are taken from The Jerusalem Bible (Darton, Longmand and Todd) 1966.

48 horses at his disposal". A.nd just as in the Bible, the tempted is questioned about his act of disobedience after he has succumbed to temptation and taken the forbidding thing: Why did you ride this one horse ""·hich y.,ras forbidden to you, \vhen there were plenty of other horses you were free to ride?

liave you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat ... What is this you have done?

In Hrafnkel's Saga the death threat is taken literally, and the shepherd's master carries it out without any hesitation it seems. But the shepherd's transgression in no way exculpates Hrafnkel from the guilt of murder, as he himself had created the situation by swearing the fatal oath, \vhich it was his duty to break, as I have already shown. After the murder Hrafnkel offers to alleviate Thorbjorn's misery and relieve him of the restrictive bonds of poverty \vhich forced him to send his son away. We are clearly shown that Thorbjorn had no choice but to act as he did, though he could have warned his son sooner: "The reason is, I can run the farm \vith the help of my other children, and a man of your ability should find it easy enough to get a job. It's not for any lack of love that I'm sending you a\vay, I love you more than my other children, but I have been driven to this by my poverty and lack of means". But Hrafnkel wants to see to it that Thorbjom and his family \vill never again have to suffer such hardships: I'm going to show how much worse I consider this killing than all the others I've done: I'll supply your household with plenty of milk in the summer and meat in the autumn, and I'll keep on doing this every year for as long as you choose to live on

49

your farm. I'll also provide for your sons and daughters to give them a good start in life. And from now on you need only tell me if there's anything in my possession \vhich you want and you'll have it and never have to do without. You can keep on farming for as long as you like, but move over here and stay with me \vhen you tire of it, and I'll look after you for the rest of your life. Thorbjorn's decision not to accept an offer which would remove the restrictions of poverty will be discussed in a later chapter, but it should be mentioned here that he is criticized for the choice he makes. A moral act involves the agent's will and intention, and the author of Hrafnkefs Saga is usually careful to make this explicit. The verb of volition ( vilja) and the cognate noun ( vili) are often used to show people's inclinations. The motivation behind many individual acts is made clear, as for example in the confrontation scenes where t\vo opposite attitudes are argued. Even Hrafnkel is capable of reminding his servant of her dubious motives when she urges him to kill Eyvind: "Your motives hardly do you credit". Thorkel, on the other hand, defends Thorbjom \v~ho has hurt Thorgeir's sore toe; on the ground that some acts are involuntary and there can be extenuating circumstances for them: "People's actions are often \vorse than their intentions, and they find it particularly difficult to pay full attention to everything when they have a lot on their minds ... He didn't mean to take it out on you ... but he came at you harder than he intended and for that you can only blame his feeble eyesight". It is of course in complete agreement >vith Christian ethics that the intention is more important than the resultant action. Thorkel also makes the point that "it's necessity and not greed that makes (Thorbjorn) take legal action over the killing of his son". In Thor-

50 bjom's case: necessity is obviously a mitigating factor and must be taken into account \vhen vve consider the moral nature of

his actions. 14 14. For a discussion of the moral problem considered in this chapter see :Etienne Gilson The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, pp. 30423.' The classic text fo; the doctrine of free will is of course Ecclesiasticus 14 : "(The Lord) made man in the beginning, and then left him free to make his OY...'ll decisions".

Justice

Each of the characters in Hrafnkefs Saga has: as we have seen, his proper place in the social hierarchy, but this order is alterable, and some of them lose their status, temporarily or permanently, through demotion ( Einar and Hrafnkel), promotion (Sam), or death (Einar and Eyvind). A disturbance of the social order can be described as an act of injustice, a failure to exercise "the virtue by \vhich each man is given his due", to quote St. Augustine's definition of one of the cardinal virtues. 1 Hrafnkel is the principal exponent of injustice, but he has the greatest power of all the characters to give others their due. The description of him as a young chieftain leaves no doubt as to his lack of justice: Hrafnkel \vas a bully despite his many qualities, and he forced the men of Jokulsdale to submit to his authority. He was kind and considerate to his ovvn men, but harsh and ruthless to his enemies and to them he showed no justice. Hrafnkel fought many duels, but refused to pay compensation for the men he killed, and no one got any redress for the \vrongs that Hrafnkel committed. The last sentence quoted here is later echoed by Thorkel when he tries to persuade his brother to help Sam and Thorbjorn in their struggle to bring Hrafnkel to justice: "He commit5 one crime after another and, whatever he does, he refuses to pay compensation". 1. The Problem of Free Choice, trans. Dom 1.fark Pontifex, London 1955, 62.

52 But apart from these general remarks on Hrafnkel's_ inequity, the story describes particular acts of injustice committed by him.2 The first of these is the killing of Einar. The shepherd is guilty of a minor offence, but I-Irafnkel decides to take revenae and kills him.3 As an act of punishment this is brutally exces~ve, and later in the story Hrafnkel is condemned for killing an innocent person. Ho\v·ever, he tries to make up for the crime by offering to take care of the victim's father and his family, and it is not his fault that the offer is rejected. The point about Hrafnkel is that he sho\vS only justice to his own men to whom he is "kind and considerate", but he refuses to ~ive others their due. The second part of the story deals as we have seen in the chapter on structure, with the puni:hment meted out to Hrafnkel for the shepherd's murder. This is carried out in three stages. First, at the Althing when he is sentenced to outlawry. The reaction of the people there reminds us of certain well-known passages in the Bible: Many people were delighted that Hrafnkel had been so humiliated for they called to mind all the injustice he had shown to others on previous occasions. This could be compared with the Book of Job dealing with wicked people: "At the sight of their ruin, good men rejoic:, and the innocent deride them: See how their greatness is brought to nothing" ..A.nd later in the same book this is said about the v·.ricked man: "His downfall is greeted with applause". It should of course be noted in this connection that Hrafnkel is alluded to as a wicked man: "One must always 2. The difference bet\veen Hrafnkel and his victims is of_ course an important consideration. "For there is one justice . according to th,: obligation of the doer, another according to the ment of the sufferer Hugh of St. Victor, op, cit., 147. . 3 Ever since Abel was killed by his brother (Genesis 4), herdsmen hav~ been treated as obvious victims of brutality and injustice, and

53 watch out for the \vicked", is the advice the Thjostarssons give Sam after Hrafnkel has been evicted from Adalbol. This warning seems to be an allusion to Ecclesiasticus: "Beware of the scoundrel and his evil contrivances". ( 1133). The second stage in Hrafnkel's punishment is the torture inflicted on him by Sam and his helpers. Both the Thjostarssons argue that this is a just act: "We've heard about how little mercy you've shown to your opponents, and it's only fair you should be made to feel the pain now'', (Thorkel). "You're getting just what you deserve", (Thorgeir). Finally, Sam deprives Hrafnkel of all his possessions, his estate and his authority, and then banishes him from the district. But the Thjostarssons urge Sam to put Hrafnk.el to death and warn him of the consequences of sparing his life. Sam is clearly motivated by pity for Hrafnkel as the father of young sons and the provider for a large household, but this pity is misplaced. To kill a wicked ruler could be regarded as a kind of duty and even an act of justice, as one great medieval authority, John of Salisbury, has stated: "It is not merely lawful to slay a tyrant, but it is even right and just. He that taketh the sword is worthy of perishing ¥.rith the sword''. 4 There can hardly be any doubt that the author of Hrafnkel's Saga must have seen the problem in the same light, considering that it is Thorkel who warns Sam: "I can't understand \vhy you're doing this. Einar Thorbjarnarson is not the only shepherd in the Icelandic sagas to suffer a violent death. Laxdcela Saga (chapter 55) describes how Bolli is attacked in a shieling. His shepherd saw his enemies approaching and tried to warn him, but one of the attackers "outran the others and managed to catch the boy. He lifted him off the ground and flung him do\vn so violently that the boy's backbone snapped". (Penguin Classics, 1969, p. 186). 4. John of Salisbury, Policraticus. The quotation is taken from J.B. Pike, Frivolities of Courtiers and Footprints of Philosophers, The University of Minnesota Press, 1938, p. 211. The difference between Hrafnkel and his victims is that he deserves death, \vhereas they are unjustly killed by him.

54 You'll have good reason to regret you've spared Hrafnkel's life". But it is left to Thorgeir to criticize Sam for his mistake tovvards the end of the story: "It's turned out exactly as I expected when you spared Hrafnkel's life: I thought you'd live to regret this bitterly. \.Ve urged you to have Hrafnkel killed-that seemed the sensible thing to do----but you insisted on having it your O\VIl way)).5 The failure to kill a tyrant has then cost Sam his brother)s life. When Hrafnkel realizes that the shepherd has ridden Freyfaxi, his reaction is a rni"Xture of pain and lust for revenge: "It grieves me to see how you have been treated, my fosterling ... and this shall be avenged". The killing of the shepherd is not to be regarded as punishment, but rather as an act of vengeance, as is Hrafnkel's second killing \vhen he is spurred into action by his malevolent servant. HrafnkePs warped sense of justice is made clear when he argues that Ey-vind's death was nothing more than Sam deserves. Hrafnkel is totally indifferent to the merits of his victims, for neither of them had done anything to justify his killing them. His attitude is to some extent shared by Thorgeir \vho praises Hrafnkel for having out\vitted Sam by killing Eyvind. _,\nd in the confrontation scene at the .t\lthing, it is their different attitudes to,,.,.·ards justice that mark the contrast bet\veen Thorkel and Thorgeir. Thorkel condemns the chieftains \vho "have refused to help these men, which only sho\vs hov.r small-minded they really are''. It is the obvious duty of the chieftains to guard the integrity of the la\\' and protect the \veak from oppression. The author of Hrafnkel's Saga may have intended Thorkel's remark as an allusion to Ecclesiasticus: "Save the oppressed from the hand of the oppressor, and do not be mean-spirited in your judgments". But Thorgeir sees things differently, and agrees \Vith those who refuse to fight 5. In this context one is tempted to quote the Book of Job: "You did not execute justice on the \Vicked". ( 36 17 ).

55 Hrafnkel on the grounds that everyone who has tried to proseeute him has ahvays ended up '\vithout the least satisfaction to his honour". Here, as \vi th Hrafnkel, personal honour counts for more than justice. In his conduct Thorgeir is guided by a sense of self-preservation and expediency, but Thorkel is a man of high moral principles and regards justice as an absolute duty. It is quite in keeping "'·ith Thorgeir's attitude at the Althing that he uses the following argument as he refuses to help him the second time: nwe've no \\.'ish to have anything more to do with your bad luck and we are not so eager to clash with Hrafnkel again that \Ve want to risk our position the second time". As I have already mentioned, Sam fails in his duty when he refuses to put the despotic Hrafnkel to death~ and elsewhere the nature of his actions can be appraised in terms of justice. To begin \\.'ith, he sho\vs a similar reluctance to Thorgeir about helping a poor needy man, and only agrees to aid Thorbjom after his courage has been called in question. Sam is evidently motivated by personal ambition and lust for gain. ('And there's a good deal of money involved too)). But his real failure lies in the fact that he does not live up to his promotion to the level of chieftain. By flouting the advice of the Thjostarssons to destroy Hrafnkel, he puts his elevated status at risk. However, he lets himself be guided by their \vords of \visdom when they tell him how he should conduct himself as a chieftain: The Thjostarssons advised him to be kind, generous and helpful to his men and to support them in anything they needed.

Sam enjoyed his high position for si.x years. He \vas \Yell liked by his supporters, for he didn't forget the advice the brothers gave him and was quiet and gentle and ready to solve everyone1 s problems.

56 The advice given by the Th jorstarssons is probably an allusion to Ecclesiasticus: "My son, be gentle in carrying out your business, and you will be better loved than a lavish giver". At the same time, Hrafnkel's chastisement has given him a stronger sense of justice and his attitude towards others shows a change for the better: "Hrafnkel was a changed man now, and much better liked than he used to be. He could still be as helpful and generous as before, but he'd become gentler and quieter in every way". It is only Y.ihen his servant rouses his desire for revenge that his newly acquired sense of justice is so much blunted that he sets out to kill an innocent man.

Self-knowledge and pride

According to medieval ethics everyone should have a true estimation of his ov..rn vvorth, and he who places himself above his proper level is guilty of pride. The classic text for this moral precept is Ecclesiasticus 138: "My son, be modest in your self-esteem, and value yourself at your proper \vorth". In order to attain the ideal standard of conduct, people must not only know themselves fully but also be guided by that knowledge in everything they do. The concept of self-knowledge (gnothi seauton, nosce teipsum, know thyself) is of course much older than Christianity, but its derivation from Greek philosophy does not concern us here; \.vhen it occurs in medieval Icelandic literature it must derive from Patristic or later Christian writings-1 i\s \Ve are about to consider this problem as it affects Hrafnkel's Saga, it will be useful to quote a brief passage from Hugh of St. Victor: "To know his own condition and place? what he ov.'es to things above him and beneath and to himself, to understand \vhat he has been made, how he should conduct himself, what he should do and not do--in this for man consists self-knowledge".2 Two of the characters in Hrafnkel's Saga exemplify the error of not observing their proper places in the social order: Thorbjom by insisting on arbitration \vhen he deals with his superior~ and Sam by raising himself to the unmerited status of chieftain. Hrafnkel reacts to Thorbjon1's proposal precisely in 1. Etienne Gilson devotes one chapter to the problem of selfkno\'.·ledge in his work on The Spirit of Aiedieval Philosophy, London 1950: "Self-knowledge and Christian Socratism", pp. 209~228. 2. Quoted by Gilson, op. cit., p. 216.

58 the way one would expect in a medieval narrative concerned with moral problems : "Then you consider yourself my equal, and we can never be reconciled on those terms". Thorbjorn has clearly failed to let himself be guided by the advice given in Ecclesiasticus ( 134) that one should be careful in dealing with an influential man: "Do not affect to treat him as an equal". But it is left to Thorbjorn's brother Bjarni to deliver the most significant homily on this problem in Hrafnkel's Saga: Bjarni replied that he for one didn't consider himself to be Hrafnkel's equal. 'It's true that I'm a man of some property, but that doesn't mean I should take it on myself to quarrel with Hrafnkel, for it's a true enough saying that he's a wise man who knows himself.3 Hrafnkel has been known to crush wealthier opponents than me. In my opinion you've acted very stupidly, refusing his generous offer, and I'll have nothing to do with this matter'. Bjarni's criticism of his brother's action consists of three main points: Thorbjorn is guilty of 'comparing himself with his superior', he is lacking in wisdom, and lastly he fails in his duty to know himself. When St. Augustine defines the four cardinal virtues. he says that prudence consists in the knowledge of what to seek and what to avoid,4 which is precisely what Thorbjorn lacks. But Bjarni is not the only one to accuse Thorbjorn of stupidity; Sam remarks when he has agreed to take Hrafnkel to court: "In my opinion I'm helping a fool in helping you". Before this Sam had advised him to show humility: "We must approach Hrafnkel humbly and ask him 3. The moral precept "know thyselP' occurs in several medieval Icelandic writings, including H ugsuinnsmal ( a rendering of The Distichs of Cato ) and GytJinga Saga ("History of the Jews" ) , see p. 11 above. 4. The Problem of Free Choice ( tr. Dom Mark Pontifex ), p. 61.

59 if his original offer still holds". But it takes Thorbjorn nearly a year to realize his error. At the Althing when he and Sam are finding it difficult to enlist the necessary help from chieftains to back them in their fight against Hrafnkel, they "were disheartened and feared they would not only lose their case but also be ashamed and humiliated because of it". Then, one morning, Thorbjorn insists on giving up and riding back home, "for it is obvious that humiliation is all we can expect here". He has at last seen the light and grasped the seriousness of his folly. Again it seems not inappropriate to quote a passage from Ecclesiasticus ( 1311 ): "Take care that you are not hoodwinked and thus humiliated by your own stupidity". But Sam is determined to go on with the case and reproaches Thorbjorn for getting him involved in it. "When Sam had spoken these words Thorbjorn was so moved that he wept'', is how the saga describes his conversion from pride. Here, as elsewhere, it is through grief and sorrow that self-knowledge is attained.5 Thorbjorn has at last come to terms with himself and taken the first step toward humility. When Sam agrees to take Hrafnkel to court he is clearly motivated by pride, a desire to raise himself above his proper level. Like Thorbjorn, Sam is criticized for his lack of prudence "Now it's clear how much shrewder Hrafnkel is than you'', is Thorgeir's verdict in the last chapter when Sam appeals for help to fight Hrafnkel the second time. From the time that Thorbjorn starts persuading him to take on the case, Sam is aware of the risk this entails : "In what way will it benefit you, if I take over the action and the two of us are humiliated?" And Thorgeir gives them a similar warning as he promises to help them: "You'll then reap something from your stubbornness, one way or the other, either some comfort or else even greater humiliation, disappointment and 5. See Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, The Steps of Humility tr. George Bosworth Burch, Cambridge Mass. 1942, pp. 55-57.

60 disgrace". However, six years pass before Sam's pride is curbed and he is forced to become Hrafnkel's subordinate. As Hrafnkel humiliates Sam, he gives him a warning: "Don't let your pride be your downfall". This is clearly an echo from the Bible: "Pride comes before a fall". The difference between Sam and Thorb jorn lies among other things in the fact that Thorbjorn attains a degree of humility through grief and contrition, whereas Sam suffers an unmitigated humiliation imposed on him by his antagonist. Hrafnkel's Saga has been called "an essay in guilt'',6 and pride is the moral fault at the root of the error. Hrafnkel's pride has already been dealt with in connection with his lack of justice, but a few words may be added here on the humiliation he suffers. After he has been tortured and been offered the chance to live, Hrafnkel says that "Most people would prefer a quick death to such a humiliation". And later, when he has been demoted and deprived of his elevated status, there is much rejoicing at his humiliation: "There was a great deal of talk about this, how his arrogance had been deflated, and many people called to mind the old saying that "Short is the life of the proud". The proverb quoted here seems to be a variation on a sentence in the Book of ]ob: "Brief is the triumph of the wicked". Christian ethics makes a distinction between pride, which is internal, and boasting, which is external. Of all the characters in Hrafnkel's Saga, Sam is the one to indulge most in excessive boasting. His uncle Thorbjom tells him: "I think men like you are despicable; you consider yourself a good lawyer and are keen on petty lawsuits, but you refuse to take on this case, urgent though it is. You'll come in for a great deal of criticism over this, and not without reason, for you're the most conceited of all our kin". Sam's conceit is later borne out at the Althing. When Thorbjorn has broken down and wants to give 6. See my Hra/nkels Saga og Freysgyolingar 1962, p. 92.

61 up the case, Sam reminds him of his previous remarks: "You questioned the courage of all of us who were reluctant to help you with this lawsuit. That's the reason why I'll never give up until it's utterly past hope that I could achieve anything at all". Sam does not want to lose this opportunity to show what a fine lawyer he is, and when he is questioned by Thorkel about the case he replies: "We're bringing a lawsuit against Hrafnkel the Priest ... We can depend on my pleading all right as long as we have the benefit of your support". Later Sam reiterates his self-confidence: "As I was saying earlier this morning .. . I can conduct the actual pleading myself". Sam proves himself a good lawyer and he gloats over his triumph when Hrafnkel has been sentenced to outlawry: "Sam remained behind at the Althing and went about with a swagger". But he is so unrealistic about his achievement that without the intervention of the Thjostarssons he would have been content to let events take their course, though it would have been a very hollow victory indeed. External pride is manifested by the way people dress, and it is in keeping with Sam's conceit that he "hired a groom to accompany him on a journey. They had three horses, one of them carrying Sam's clothes". Thorkel is also elegantly attired: "He was wearing a leafgreen tunic and carrying an ornamented sword in his hand". And Eyvind and his companions "wore coloured clothing and carried bright shields". There is finally an element of pride in Eyvind's attitude when he refuses to flee and save his life. He is oblivious of the warning in Ecclesiasticus: "The discreet man sees danger and takes shelter".

Pain and compassion

It is one of the striking features of realistic fiction in medieval Iceland that many of the characters are highly vulnerable, and that the social status of the pain-bearer matters often less than the nature of his suffering. This is a humanistic element vvhich has often been sadly overlooked or misinterpreted by the romanticists, who insist on treating the sagas as heroic literature and are more concerned with action than passion. Since a good deal of what happens in the sagas involves death, injuries or other kinds of suffering, it seems obvious that we should not only study the characters in terms of what they do but also what is done to them. In any given situation, a character who contributes significantly to the pattern of events tends to belong to one of four categories, in relation to pain. In the first place there are the tormentors themselves, who \vilfully inflict pain on people, and then there are those \vho cause others to act as tormentors, \vhom \.Ve could call instigators. In the third category are the people 'A-~ho bear the pain, the sufferers) and lastly there are the mitigators \vho try to alleviate the pain inflicted on others. The tormentors are often powerful chieftains, such as the eponymous heroes of Killer-Glum)s Saga and Hrafnkefs Saga) or ruthless killers like Thorgeir in The Blood-Brother/ Saga. Notable among the instigators are some of the most striking \Yomen in the sagas, as for example Hallgerd in Njal's Saga and Gudrun in Laxdada Saga. Gudrun's famolis confession "I \vas worst to the one I loved the most'' does not only allude to \vhat she did to Kjartan herself but also what she made others do to him. The instigators are often minor characters who act as catalysts; a good example

63 is the servant in Hrafnkel's Saga \vho eggs her master into killing Eyvind. Her role \vill be considered in the next chapter. The instigators are usually motivated by sheer malice, envy, jealousy or lust for revenge. The sufferers tend to be the victims of injustice, and they are not only liable to be injured or killed themselves, but also to have to bear the agony of losing a friend or kinsman. Occasionally there is a hint of the martyred saint in the death of a sufferer; in this connection one may mention Hoskuld in 1Vjal's Saga and Kjartan in Laxdada Saga. The shepherd in Hrafnkel's Saga belongs essentially to this type; he confesses to his transgression and makes no attempt to defend his life, and later in the story much emphasis is laid on his real innocence. The mitigators are invariably endowed with a strong sense of justice or compassion, and also with moderation, but these virtues tend to be missing in the typical tormentors and instigators, though the tormentors are not necessarily lacking in the other cardinal virtues, those of fortitude and prudence. The outstanding mitigators in the Icelandic sagas are of course Njal in Njal's Saga and Olaf the Peacock in Laxdcela Saga. Thorkel is the principal rnitigator in llrafnkefs Saga. In the more sophisticated of the sagas, we find that some of the characters are very complex personalities, and this becomes very obvious when they change from one role to another. 1 The mitigators often end up as sufferers, as they are particularly sensitive to pain and more vulnerable than most. The eponymous hero of Gretti.Ys Saga takes on three of these roles, and the mode of that story changes accordingly. In llrafnkefs Saga the theme of pain is given a particularly 1. Hrafnkel acts both as a tormentor (in his role as a killer and a bully) and a sufferer (when he is physically tortured); Sam and Thorgeir are reluctant to act as mitigators, and both are also sufferers: Sam after his brother has been killed, and Thorgeir 'When his sore toe is hurt. Einar, the first tormentor, becomes the first victim.

64 sophisticated treatment; suffering is ruthlessly administered and bitterly felt. The first pain-bearer is the horse Freyfaxi,2 which Einar rides a long distance, "from dawn to mid-evening". The narrative makes it clear that the shepherd has given the horse a rough time: Freyfaxi was all running with s\.veat, and every hair on his body \.Vas dripping. He \.Vas covered in mud and panting \.vith exhaustion. He rolled over a dozen times, and then neighed loudly and started to race down the path. Einar chased after him, hoping to catch him and bring him back to the mares, but the horse \vas so wild that Einar could not get an)'\-vhere near him. Freyfaxi galloped down the valley without a pause, all the way to Adalbol. VVhen Hrafnkel goes out and sees his favourite horse, all covered in mud, he realizes what has happened and expresses his compassion: "It grieves me to see how you have been treated, my fosterling", which reminds us of the famous \vords used by Gunnar of Hlidarend in 1Vjafs Saga when his enemies attack the dog he \A/as given for protection: "You have been harshly treated, my fosterling". Elsewhere in the sagas we meet people who are sensitive to the sufferings of animals, and the outstanding example of this is Grettir's Saga. As a boy Grettir had no compunction about torturing the geese his father told him to herd, or mutilating the mare Kengala, but later he shows real pity for the ewe in Thorisdale and the ram on Drang Isle after he has killed the rest of the flock. The lone outlaw knO'-''lS what solitude means, so he is able to sympathize with the dumb creatures \vhen their mates have been killed. Hrafnkel is moved to pity when he sees the suffering horse he loves. 2. St. Augustine discusses questions concerning "the pain and distress in animals" in The Probleni of Free Choice (ed. cit.), pp. 210~12.

65 The principal exponent of pain and suffering in Hrafnkefs Saga is the destitute crofter, Thorbjorn, \.Vhose favourite son is murdered by his neighbour Hrafnkel. These two men are not only contrasted in terms of social position and wealth, but also by the object of their love.3 Thorbjorn is very fond of his son, but Hrafnkel is moved by a passionate love for the god Frey and the horse Freyfaxi: "He loved Frey above all the other gods and gave him a half-share in all his best treasures ... Hrafnkel had one treasured possession \.vhich he held dearer than anything else he O\.vned. It was a pale-dun stallion, vvith a black mane and a black stripe down the back. He called the horse Freyfaxi and gave his patron Frey a half-share in it. Hrafnkel loved this horse so passionately that he swore a solemn oath to kill anyone who rode the stallion without his permission". This emotional difference between the two opponents is closely related to the theme of pain. Hrafnkel kills the son Thorbjorn loves so dearly, and as a result Hrafnkel himself loses the god and the horse that \.vere so dear to him. But whereas Thorbjom suffers an irreparable loss in the death of his son, Hrafnkel gains by losing the objects of his love: \.Vithout Frey and Freyfaxi he becomes a freer man than before. He sums up his relief when he learns of Freyfaxi's death: "I think it's a vain thing to believe in the gods".4 And after that he has nothing to do with Frey or the other gods.5 3. This difference sharpens the contrast between them. St. Augustine tells us that "the moral problem is not whether one should love but what one should love . . . 'Love, but be careful \.vhat you love"', Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine, London 1961, p. 135. 4. Hrafnkel's remark has an unmistakeable Biblical ring about it, and may contain an allusion to the Book of Job. See my note in Skfrnir 1968, 68-72. 5. The story of Hrafnkel's conversion is of course not to be taken literally as evidence for religious life in pagan Iceland, about \.vhich very little is kno'A'I1 \.Vith any certainty. Frey is a cultural symbol in the story and the author w-as free to discard it \.vhen it had served its purpose.

66

Thorbjom's grief is aggravated by several factors, as I have already discussed: his poverty and pride and lack of self-knowledge. These combined factors make Thorbjorn a particularly vulnerable man, and in addition he fails to bring Hrafnkel to justice. When Sam tries to enlist the help of chieftains to take Hrafnkel to court, they withhold their aid, and as the result of that disappointment, Thorbjom breaks down and wants to give up the fight. He has become the typical object of pity, a decrepit, old man, half-blind and helpless, and it is just after his contrition when Thorkel turns up and takes a sympathetic interest in his plight.6 But Thorkel is not in a position to give him active help, so he advises Thorbjorn to inflict a physical pain on Thorgeir to prepare him for giving the help: 'Go across into his booth right away. The people there are still asleep. You'll see two hammocks near the inner gable of the booth; I sleep in one of them, and my brother Thorgeir has the other. He's had a great boil on his foot since he came to the Althing, so he's slept little at night, but early this morning the boil burst and the core's out. He's been sleeping since, and now he's stretched his foot from under the bedclothes and on to the foot-board, to ease the inflammation in the foot. 'The old man had better go into the booth first and in along the floor-he looks half-blind and decrepit to me. When you, old man, come up to the hammock you're to stumble heavily and fall on to the foot-board, catch hold of the bandaged toe and jerk it towards you. We'll see how Thorgeir responds to this treatment'. 6. The pathetic picture of Thorbjorn has an interesting parallel in Ale-Hood (Hrafnkel's Saga and Other I celandic Stories, Penguin Classics, 1970, 82-93). Like Thorbjom, Ale-Hood finds himself at the Althing in a helpless situation, and he breaks down and weeps. But just then an unexpected helper turns up and saves his case.

67 Sam thinks this unwise and fails to see the purpose of the exercise, but Thorkel insists that Thorbjorn must do as he tells him: Sam and Thorbjorn walked over to the booth and went in. All men inside were still asleep, and they could see where Thorgeir was lying. The old man was in the lead, stumbling heavily, and when he came to the hammock he fell across the foot-board, snatched at the ailing toe and pulled it hard towards him. Thorgeir woke up with a start, jumped out of the hammock and asked who these clumsy people were trampling on the feet of the sick. Sam and Thorbjorn could think of nothing to say. This advice has perplexed the romanticists 7 but in terms of medieval humanism it makes excellent sense. Thorkel is trying to engage his brother's sympathy for Thorbjom, and in order to achieve this he tries first to establish a bond of fellowsuffering between him and Thorbjorn. It is by sharing in other people's pain that we are moved to compassion and pity. In this connection though there is hardly any need to do so, one may point out that Greek sympatheia and Latin compassio meant originally "fellowship in feeling'', but the meaning of "pity" is a later development.8 7. Nordal, op. cit., pp. 53-4. 8 . As an example of how fellow-suffering is recommended, see Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, op. cit., pp. 133 and 135: "The healthy do not know how the sick feel, nor the full how the hungry suffer. But sick sympathize with sick, and hungry with hungry, the more closely the more they are alike. For just as pure truth is seen only with a pure heart, so a brother's misery is truly felt with a miserable heart. But in order to have a miserable heart because of another's misery, you must first know your own; so that you may find your neighbour's mind in your own and know from yourself how to help him, by the example of our Saviour, who willed his passion in order to learn compassion".

68 But as it turns out, Thorgeir is callously impervious to this argument,9 although Thorkel tries to explain to him the significance of the exercise:

\

__

Then Thorkel stepped into the booth and said to his brother Thorgeir, 'Don't be so quick to lose your temper over this, kinsman, for you'll come to no hann. People's actions are often \vorse than their intentions and they find it particularly difficult to pay full attention to everything when they have a lot on their minds. Your excuse, kinsman, is that your foot is tender and it's given you a lot of trouble. That's a pain only you can feel. It could be that an old roan won't feel any less suffering over the death of his son~ particularly since he has no means of redress and is completely helpless. That's a pain only he can feel. It stands to reason that a man with so much on his mind can't be expected to pay full attention to things'. Later the theme of pain is resumed when Hrafnkel is tortured in order to bring home to him the sufferings he has caused other people in the past:

I

Thorkel said, 'We've heard about hov.' little mercy you've shown to your o\vn opponents; and it's only fair you should be made to feel the pain now'. They they got hold of Hrafnkel and his men and tied their hands behind their backs. After that they broke open the storehouse and took some ropes down off the pegs. Then they drew their knives, cut through the prisoners' heels behind the tendon, pulled the rope through the holes, strung the eight men together and hung them from the clothes beam. 9. "He feels no pain for anything but his own body, makes no lament, save for his ov.•n life" The Book of ]ob, 14 .

69 'You're getting just \vhat you deserve, Hrafnkel', said Thorgeir. 'You must have thought it very unlikely you'd ever be so humilated by anyone as you are now.' Hrafnkel is thus given a harsh lesson in compassion, and the experience of pain makes him milder and gentler to begin \Vith, but when his servant urges him to take revenge his sense of pity is easily blunted. After Hrafnkel has killed Eyvind, he argues with some justification that Sam has suffered no more in the death of his brother than Hrafnkel himself when he \vas tortured: I don't believe the killing of Eyvind \Vas any worse than the torture I \vas made to suffer, nor was the death of his companions any worse than the maiming of my men. Thus the author keeps equating the tv..'o different kinds of suffering: physical pain and mental anguish. The two exponents of pity, Thorkel and Eyvind, show active compassion: Eyvind in his treatment of his servant boy, and Thorkel in helping Thorbjorn and Sam. This is how Eyvind treated his servant: There were five men riding together; the sixth was Eyvind's servant-boy, who \vas an Icelander and closely related to Eyvind and Sam. Eyvind had saved this boy from utter poverty before he left Iceland, and taken him abroad and treated him just like himself. T·his noble gesture brought Eyvind a great deal of credit, and everyone agreed that there were fev.' men like him. This seems to echo Ecclesiasticus ( 721 ) : "Love an intelligent slave like your own self, and do not deny him his freedom".

Heroic attitudes

In the preceding chapters I have tried to show that the purpose of Hrafnkel's Saga v.;as not so much to describe life in pagan Iceland as to exemplify certain moral problems which were relevant to the authoes own times and environment, the Christian society of thirteenth century Iceland. For the purpose of analysing the meaning of the story, the moral act must be reo-arded as a basic constituent element, and this should be 0 done in terms of action and passion, rather than in terms of personalities. When the author fails to indicate his approval or disapproval of the characters' intentions, words and deeds, we must seek the interpretation in medieval ethics. It should be noted, however, that most saga critics seem to disagree with this approach, and it is generally believed that Christian morality plays a very minor role in the Sagas of Icelanders. 1 The sagas are usually treated as heroic tales, to be appreciated in a similar manner to, for example, the Sigurd poems and other narrative poetry in the Edda, 2 and it is often assumed in saga criticism that the author's sympathy must lie \Vith the principal hero. There can be little doubt that one of the main pur1. In his useful and readable introduction to the Sagas of Icelanders, Peter Hallberg makes a typical remark on this point: «The ideology \vhich is delineated in the speech and actions of their characters is of pagan origin; the traces of Christian ethics are insignificant. Formally, at any rate, there prevails an almost complete freedom from moral value judgment". The Icelandic Saga, translated by Paul Schach, Lincoln 1962, p. 2. A grossly distorted picture of this aspect of the sagas is drawn in :IYL C. van den Toorn, Ethics and Moral in Icelandic Saga Literature, Assen 1955. 2. See e.g. Oskar Bandle, "Isliindersaga und Heldendichtung", Afmrelisrit J6ns Helgasonar, Reykjavik 1969, pp. 1-26.

71 poses of stories about famous kings and legendary heroes was to praise them for their outstanding qualities and great achievements. But this laudatory element is less prominent in the Sagas of Icelanders, \vhose heroes are drawn from lo\ver social levels. However, there is a strong tendency in some of the sagas to idealize the hero, to raise him above the status of Icelandic farmers and mark him out from everyone around him. This is done by assigning to him exceptional qualities, or making him associate \Vith royalty. Thus Olaf the Peacock appears as the grandson of the King of Ireland, \vho generously offers him the throne after Olaf has sho\•in what an outstanding warrior he is! But Olaf resists the tempting offer and goes back to Iceland to become a farmer there. Other characters in Laxdcela Saga, such as Kjartan and Bolli Bollason, are endowed with aristocratic features which serve the purpose of bringing them closer to the hero-ideal. Njal's Saga shows the same predilection for giving a touch of royal splendour to some of the characters, particularly in the description of Gunnar of Hlidarendi. These heroic traits are most noticeable in episodes set in Scandinavia or else\"ankar um sitlfra:l5i Hrafnkelssogu", Skirnir cxxxix ( 1966), pp. 65--82. Siegfried Gutenbrunner, "Ein Traumstrophe in der Hrafnkelssaga?" Arkiv for nordisk filologi !xviii ( 1953) , 177-8. Stefan Einarsson, "Sma:lki ur !slendingasogum" S kirnir cxxvii ( 1953) 210-15. ' '

81 Pierre Halleux, A spects lit teraires de la Saga de Hrafn~el ·. .. ~Biblio­ theque de la Faculte de philosophie et lettres de 1 Uruvers1tet de Liege, vol. clxix ), Paris 1963. . . . ... "Hrafnkel's Character Re-interpreted'', Scandinavian Studies xxxviu ( 1966), pp. 36-44. ,, ... - "Some Aspects of Style in Hrafnkels saga , lb. xxxviu, 98-107 · Aslak Liest0l "Freyfaxi", Maal og Minne xxxvii ( 1945 ), pp. 59-66. Knut Liest0l,'"Tradisjonen i Hrafnkels saga Freysgo15a". Arv ii ( 1946), pp. 94-110. . . , Sigur