Draft version of article published in The Hero Recovered: Essays on Medieval Heroism in Honor of George Clark,ed James Weldon and Robin Waugh, Medieval Institute Publications: Kalamazoo, MI, 2010, 127-41

PROVERBS AND PROVERBIOUSNESS IN HRAFNKELS SAGA FREYSGOĐA

Jón Jóhanneson, the editor of Íslenzk Fornrit vol. 11, rightlycomments that more has been written about Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða than about any other saga from the Eastfirths, long or short.1 There has been a long-running debate as toits historical and geographical plausibility, to which isattached a dispute as to whether it derives from a long process of oral transmission, or is a product of deliberate literary art (Nordal 1958, Macrae-Gibson 1975-6, Kratz 1981). Its overall point has seemed very clear to some, with Theodore Andersson declaring that “We need not look for the moral in this story; it is contained in the old proverb skömm er óhófs ævi” [short is the life of pride] (Andersson 1970: 585, see also Halleux 1966: 42). To others, though, the proverb certainly draws a correct moral from the events leading up to Hrafnkell’s downfall,but has no bearing on his successful revenge, for it is hard to see the killing of Eyvindr as ethically satisfying – though the attempt has been made, see Heinemann 1974,1975a, 1975b, responded to by Hallberg 1975a and 1975b. Other writers have accordingly seen the saga as essentially about power rather than morality (Thomas 1973, Óskar Halldórsson 1976), while Robert Fulk has come closest to expressing what seems a very general unease: does the eventual triumph of Hrafnkell, who remains the same cold-blooded killer at the end of the saga that he is at the beginning, not bring one to “the

1 Jón Jóhannesson 1950: xxxix, “Um Hrafnkels sögu hefir meira verið ritað en nokkra aðra sögu af Austurlandi, langa eða skemma.”

distasteful conclusion that the saga celebrates lawlessness” (Fulk 1986: 2)? Fulk argues that such celebration is not the case, and that the saga does indeed offer a “moral system,” but the doubt remains. JanGeir Johansen goes further in claiming that “Hrafnkels saga demonstrates that men of quality, such as Hrafnkell, cannot be suppressed by those of lesser mettle, like Sámr,” a moral which he concedes is “not a modern, democratic one,” but no less plausible for that (Johansen1995: 283, 284).

Meanwhile, even individual characters and individualscenes in the saga have been given quite opposing interpretations. Old Thorbjörn, who is regarded as a foolby all his relatives, and who gives way to shameful tearswhen his ambitions fail, has nevertheless been defended by a whole succession of sympathisers (notably Slater 1968: 41 and Dubs 1977: 470). In the incident with the griðkona, Hrafnkell is seen as acting spontaneously by Slater, but politically by Fulk, and once again cold-bloodedly by Hallberg. W.F. Bolton writes off the “heart of Hrafnkatla,” that is to say the strange and unparalleledincident of Thorgeirr’s toe, as a “charade” (Bolton 1971:43), but Hermann Pálsson sees it as demonstrating a point“in complete accordance with Christian ethics” (Pálsson 1971: 50). And as Johansen also points out, there are those who regard Hrafnkell as “an arrogant and overbearing man chastened by adversity,” and those who regard him as “proud and cruel from start to finish,” (1995: 205), while Johansen himself makes a case for regarding Hrafnkell as reasonable and admirable within his own value-system, and indeed “the hero of the saga that bears his name” (1995: 206). One may sum up by saying that the whole saga is at once opaque and provocative, with a further suspicion that modern

critical sensibilities are perhaps not the best tools foropening it up.2

There is, however, at least one point on which thereis general agreement: the use of proverbs in the saga is very important. Sigurður Nordal commented long ago that they were numerous and skilfully used (Nordal 1958: 41), they are seen as having “pervasive thematic importance” by Slater (1968: 49), both Andersson 1970 and Halldórsson1976 note a possible relationship to the Eddic wisdom-poem Hávamál, while both Bolton 1971 and Heinemann 1975b note the particularly proverbial quality of Thorkell’s discourse in the scene with Thorgeirr’s toe, though as one might by now expect they take different views of it. In this essay I look more closely at the proverbs of Hrafnkels saga, and to add to the discussion a further thought and a new concept, rather alien I fear to the minds of highly literate modern critics: that of “proverbiousness.”

Neither “proverbious” nor “proverbiousness” is recognized by the Oxford English Dictionary, but this may be a defect in English specifically. German scholars, for instance, have long made a distinction between the Sprichwort and the Denkspruch, the former being, one may say, a proverb in general use and widely accepted, the latter something which sounds like a proverb but which may arise from a particular occasion and have a known individual originator. Clearly this distinction is not a hard-and-fast one, for a Denkspruch which is admired and repeated may eventually acquire the status of a Sprichwort;and in any case there is a further category noted by HugoGering as far back as 1915, that of sprichwörterliche Redensarten, or “turns of speech which sound proverbial” –

2 Maria Bonner and Kaaren Grimstad have, however, recently applied the tool of modern pragmatic linguisticsto four of the saga’s early dialogs (Bonner and Grimstad 1996).

to use my term, “proverbious expressions.” Telling the proverbial from the proverbious is admittedly a highly subjective exercise, as indeed is identifying the proverbial. In section B of the “Introduction” to his website on proverbial materials in the sagas,3 “ConceptualBackground of Paremiology,” Richard L. Harris notes several statements about the difficulty of defining a proverb; and while Harris lists eighteen proverbial expressions in the “Concordance” to Hrafnkels saga on the same website, Hermann Pálsson lists thirty-one in the chapter “Spakmæli og önnur kjarnyrði” [Aphorisms and other pithy expressions] in his book Mannfræði Hrafnkels sögu og frumþættir (1988). Very probably our uncertainty here ispart of the set of problems which arise when a highly literate and literary culture confronts one which, while certainly literate, retains and appreciates oral and aural skills which our culture has increasingly neglected.

To begin, however, with what is certain, there are three sayings in the saga which are identified by their speakers or by the saga narrator as orðskviðar, or þat er fornkveðit er, “old sayings” or proverbs. Hrafnkell emphasizes his warning that Einarr should not ride Hrafnkell’s horse Freyfaxi, near the start, with the words “Ger nú sem ek mæli, því at þat er forn orðskviðr, at eigi veldr sá, er varar annan,” [Now do as I say, because it is an old saying, that he who warns another isnot responsible.]4 Later on the saga-author reports that after Hrafnkell’s downfall “minnisk nú margr á fornan orðskvið, at skömm er óhófs ævi” [many now remember the old saying, that short is the life of pride]. Near the end of the saga the serving-woman who runs in to report

3 The website is called “Concordance to the Proverbs and Proverbial Materials in the Old Icelandic Sagas,” and canbe found at http//www.usask.ca/English/Icelanders: accessed on 8th July 2004.4 All references to the saga are to Jón Jóhannesson 1950.

the approach of Eyvindr urges Hrafnkell to action with the scornful words, “Satt er flest þat, er fornkveðit er,at svá ergisk hverr sem eldisk” [It’s quite true, the oldsaying, that every man grows soft as he grows old]. The third of these self-declared proverbs meanwhile shares anopening with Bjarni’s reply to his brother Thorbjörn, when the latter tries to persuade him to join in the caseagainst Hrafnkell. Bjarni says that they are not equal tothis, and adds, “er þat satt, at sá er svinnr, er sik kann” [it’s true, that he is a wise man who knows himself]. The words er þat satt, like satt er, indicate that the speaker is quoting something also said by others, while Bjarni’s words also have the verbal concision and general application expected of the proverb. Finally, andwith a slightly greater degree of subjectivity, the two Thjóstarrsons each close a relatively extensive speech with a clinching statement which again has the generalityand symmetry of proverbial speech, without being overtly flagged as such. Urging his brother to action, Thorkell says that defeating Hrafnkell would much increase their reputation, while being defeated would lose little: his last words are, “Hefir sá ok jafnan, er hættir.” Literally this means, “he who risks usually receives,” but the brevity and finality of the statement have led all recent translators to render it proverbially: two optfor the familiar “Nothing venture(d), nothing gain(ed)” (Jones 1961: 106, O’Donoghue 2004: 212), while Terry Gunnell prefers the now well-known motto of Britain’s Special Air Service, “Who dares wins” (Gunnell 1997: 271). In similar style Thorgeirr and Thorkell jointly conclude their advice to Sámr, after the latter has rashly allowed Hrafnkell to live, with the words “vertu varr um þik, af því at vant er við vándum at sjá” [watch out for yourself, because it’s necessary to look out for the wicked]. This clinching statement once again has summary force, and also, like many proverbs, exhibits thealliterative symmetry of Hrafnkell’s first fornkviðr.

There are then half-a-dozen sayings in the saga, allgeneral, all used forcefully, none more than six words long, which can readily be classified as proverbs. Aroundthese, however, there is a penumbra of remarks which sound as if they could be worked up into proverbs, or as if they are alluding to proverbs, or possibly as if they are denying proverbs. What is one to make, for instance, of Thorkell’s placatory remark to his brother after Thorbjörn has wrenched his inflamed toe? Thorkell tells Thorgeirr not to be so angry with Thorbjörn, because “mörgum teksk verr en vill” [for many a man, things go worse than he means]. The remark is perfectly sensible incontext, of course, but it is also much the same as the clinching line of Hávamál 40, “mart gengr verr, enn varir”[much goes worse than one expects]:5 both Harris and Pálsson include it in their lists. Very different in terms of concision is Hrafnkell’s long semi-apology to Thorbjörn after the killing of Einarr, in which he explains in effect that he wishes he had not made the vowto kill anyone who rode Freyfaxi: “vit munum opt þess iðrask, er vit erum of málgir, ok sjaldnar mundum vit þessa iðrask, þó at vit mæltim færa en fleira” [we must often regret it when we have said too much, and seldom regret it even if we said less rather than more]. This ismore than three times the length of any saying quoted so far, but the careful opposition opt …sjaldnar indicates thatit is in a way a double saying, while the recommendation to taciturnity is once again easy to parallel from Hávamál6, “At hyggiandi sinni / scylit maðr hrœsinn vera, / heldr gætinn at geði” [A man must not be boastful of his thought, rather reserved in temperament]: Harris and Pálsson both list the two halves separately.

Hrafnkell, meanwhile, seems to allude to the presence of proverbial wisdom much later in the saga, when he says of the choice he is offered by Sámr between death and shame, that “Mörgum mundi betr þykkja skjótr 5 All references to Hávamál are to Neckel/Kuhn 1962.

dauði en slíkar hrakningar” [To many a man a quick death would seem better than such disgrace], for Wiglaf makes precisely this point in gnomic form in Beowulf 2890-91, “Deað bið sella / eorla gehwylcum / þonne edwitlif” [Death is better for every warrior than a life of shame],6

and Pálsson lists a dozen expressions of the same sentiment in sagas, though with different wording. Significantly, Hrafnkell disagrees with Wiglaf and with the sentiment, choosing shame before death, but he signals his awareness of the opposite opinion and its general acceptance. The advice given to Sámr shortly afterwards by the sons of Thjóstar, that “hann skyldi vera blíðr ok góðr fjárins” [he should be cheerful and generous] by contrast echoes Hávamál 15, “glaðr ok reifr /scyli gumna hverr” [every man must be glad and cheerful],if without its harsh coda, “unz sinn bíðr bana” [until heendures his death]; the gist of their advice at this point, that Sámr should build up gratitude in advance, against the time when he needs it, furthermore parallels the gnomic saying of Beowulf 20-25, that a young man should buy loyalty while his father is still alive, looking for support in the future. As a last example, noted by neither Harris nor Pálsson,7 one may wonder whether there is not a tacit appeal to proverbial awareness in the two short sentences describing the sudden descent of Sámr and the Thjóstarrssons on Athalból: “Váru þá liðin rismál. Eigi var fólk upp staðit” [The time for rising was past. The people had notgot up]. There is no “but” in the text, but it seems 6 All references to Beowulf are to Dobbie 1953.7 They are of course quite right not to note the passage,for the appeal, as said here, is a tacit one which does not reach verbal expression. I suggest only that in a culture saturated with proverbial expression, an unexplained contradiction like that between the two sentences quoted is likely to provoke, and to have been intended to provoke, a predictable and readily available response.

strongly implied. The moral of this – and of course of the later descent by Hrafnkell on Athalból, when Sámr in his turn is caught in his bed – is once more well expressed by Hávamál 58, “Ár scal rísa, / sá er annars vill / fé eða fiör hafa” [he must rise early, who means to have another’s life or goods]. It is true that no-one says it, but the thought is all but provoked.

Other examples could be provided, and some importantones will be discussed later, but the first point is thatboth the characters in the saga and the saga-narrator himself clearly think, speak, and write within a proverbial milieu to which they are very ready to appeal.The second point, though, is that a living proverbial culture may well use “old sayings” in a rather different way from us. In our highly literate culture, many proverbs remain of course well known (and some continue to be invented). They are, however, for the most part fossilized: their form is fixed, there is only one way tosay them, and they have only one meaning. They are in consequence not highly regarded as intellectual tools, and are very generally written off as cliché or banality,devices for the avoidance of thought rather than the development of it. In an oral culture which still values them, however, they may be varied, challenged, reversed –in a phrase, made context-sensitive. Hrafnkell’s first and self-declared proverb is a good example. “Eigi veldr sá, er varar annan,” says Hrafnkell, “He who warns another is not responsible.” We find the proverb in very similar form in Njáls saga ch. 41 (see Einar Ól. Sveinsson 1945: 106), but its circulation must have been very much wider. In the Anglo-Saxon poem Genesis B, itself translatedfrom an Old Saxon original, the poet comments on the Fallof Man, saying regretfully: “bið þam men full wa / þe hine ne warnað / þonne he his geweald hafað” [It’s very sad for the man who does not take warning when he has theopportunity] (Genesis B 634-5, in Krapp 1931: 22). The alliterating words are cognate with the alliterating

words in the much later and far-removed Icelandic saga, and the thought is in a sense the same. But it is also ina sense reversed, or perhaps one should say “obversed”: the point remains the same, but it is seen from a different angle. Hrafnkell says that the one who gives warning is not responsible, while the Saxon poet says that the one who does not take warning is responsible – a thought implicit in what Hrafnkell says, but not actuallystated. Meanwhile, in the Fall of Man context, one might well think that the Saxon poet also means the obverse of what he says, namely that if Adam and Eve are responsiblefor not taking their warning, then no blame attaches to God, who gave them warning. In both cases the user of theproverbial statement expresses the politer or less provocative half of what the statement means, knowing full well that the other, unstated half will also be understood. Hrafnkell might have said to Einarr, “if you don’t take my warning, then your death will be your own fault,” which is certainly what he means. Saying “I’ve given warning, so my hands are clean” is, however, slightly less aggressive. Using a proverb at this point may also have a politeness function, in that the speaker is declaring, in effect, “I am not saying this myself, I am only pointing out what is generally said.”

Tactical considerations of this kind, allowing various shades of meaning and degrees of obliquity, are part of the utility of proverbs in a “proverbious,” rather than proverbial culture. Arguably this has something to do with “the heart of Hrafnkatla” itself. The gist of the “charade” which Thorkell so unexpectedly organizes around his brother’s inflamed toe is surely clear enough.8 It is agreed by all concerned that

8 Though I have to concede that, as with so much in the saga, there are different views of the incident. Johansenfor instance thinks that the whole episode reveals “the deviousness and irresponsibility of [Thorkell’s] character” (1995: 280).

Thorbjörn has been foolish in challenging Hrafnkell and rejecting his offer, and Thorkell has to make some kind of explanation for this in order to get his brother to agree to help. He does it by trying to draw a kind of parallel between the two. Just as Thorgeirr cannot help reacting angrily when someone wrenches his foot, so Thorbjörn could not help reacting angrily when he suffersa more serious injury. His reaction, then, has not been foolish so much as instinctive. The way Thorkell puts this is to say, “Er honum þetta nauðsyn, en eigi seiling,þó at hann mæli eptir son sinn” [It is necessity in him, not greed, when he takes up the case for his son]. The word nauðsyn is one which is used elsewhere in the saga, and one moreover which carries a good deal of proverbial weight. Thorkell has already said to Sámr “mér þykkir œrin nauðsyn til at mæla eptir náskyldan mann” [it seems to me necessity enough to take up the case for a close relative]. But Hrafnkell had said much earlier, to Einarr, that he was not to mount Freyfaxi, “hversu mikil nauðsyn sem þér er á” [however great the necessity on you].

Now, necessity is something which is proverbially inescapable. Even now, “necessity knows no law.” The saying has old roots, for it is found repeatedly in Middle English, as for instance in Piers Plowman B xx 10, “nede ne hath no lawe.” Even earlier, the Old English Durham Proverb 36 runs, “Seo nydþearf feala læreð” [Necessity teaches much]. There is a ruder form of this in the Early Middle English poem The Owl and the Nightingale, line 638, “node makeþ old wif urne” [need makes an old woman run], paralleled by the modern Icelandic saying, “nauðin kennir naktri konu að sitja” [need teaches a naked woman to sit]. Most relevantly, another Icelandic saying still current declares bluntly, “Nauðsyn brytir lög” [Necessity breaks law], just as in modern and MiddleEnglish. A variant of this from the medieval period is “Nauðsyn er lögum ríkri” [Necessity is stronger than

laws].9 In view of the age and wide dispersal of such sayings, it seems very likely that Thorkell in particularis meant to be seen as speaking with proverbial authoritybehind him. Returning to the case of Hrafnkell, though, was it need or necessity which drove Einarr to ride the stallion? The answer must be, no, it was merely convenience; and it is a common error to mistake what is convenient for what is absolutely essential. There is a potential response, therefore, to the whole of Thorkell’sstaged little playlet, and to the body of proverbial lorewhich backs it up: namely, that instinctive responses canand should be overridden. The point is made proverbially,and coincidentally with reference to boils on the foot, by Gunnlaug Wormtongue. Asked why he is not limping in spite of the fact that pus is oozing from his foot, he replies, “Eigi skal haltr ganga, meðan báðir fætr eru jafnlangir” [one must not limp while both legs are the same length] (Foote and Quirk 1974: 31). Pain, in short, is not necessity, whatever Thorkell may say. One proverb can be answered by another. And even those who use proverbs, like Hrafnkell, may not be convinced of the truth of them. While Hrafnkell reinforced his warning to Einarr with an unimpeachably proverbial statement, in hislater offer of compensation to Thorbjörn he shows that hedoes not after all regard this as a totally satisfactory excuse.

I would suggest, then, that not only are there such things as “proverbious” statements, there are also “proverbious” people. If a proverbious statement is one in which something proverbial has been adapted so as to be context-sensitive, then a proverbious person is one

9 For references to the three English works see, respectively, Schmidt 1995: 346; Arngart 1981: 294; Stanley 1960: 68. The two modern Icelandic sayings were given to me by native speakers, while the version from the Mariu saga, MS evidence for which goes back to the 13th century, is cited in Cleasby-Vigfusson 1957: 446.

who has the wit, and the authority, to manipulate the proverbial corpus to suit his or her own purposes – and to convince hearers that the adaptation has a force similar to that of the genuine forn orðskviðr. Not everyone who uses a proverb, however, or who hears one, is necessarily in this sense proverbious; and there may be very severe sanctions against those who pretend to wisdomwithout having it. In my view (see Shippey 1995), the “heart of Hamðismál” consists of Erpr setting his two half-brothers a proverb-test, which they fail, with fatalconsequences for all three. In the Old High German Hildebrandslied also, Hadubrand hurls what appears to be a very traditional proverb at his father, which however betrays the fact that he does not understand the situation, once again with fatal consequences.10 One may say that in a culture with a living proverbial tradition,using or appealing to proverbial wisdom raises the stakes: if it is accepted that you have used it rightly, you gain prestige, if not, you may be reclassified as foolish, or (the term is an inappropriate one, as stemming from our literate culture) lacking in “authority.”

Are we invited to judge characters along these linesin Hrafnkels saga? If one considers the six uses of fairly certainly identifiable proverbs in the saga, it seems to me that no clear blame attaches to the uses made by Hrafnkell, Bjarni, and the narrator – though I have already conceded that Hrafnkell himself seems later unsure of the exculpatory force of his own saying, while the “many people” who remember “short is the life of pride” might have to rethink slightly after later events.But the most interesting proverbialists are the sons of Thjóstarr, Thorkell and Thorgeirr. In the saga as a wholethere are some 23 conversations reported, almost all of 10 In lines 37-38 of the poem. There is a long discussionof this Sprichwortgipfel and analogous cases in Gutenbrunner 1976: 59-62.

them dialogs, though there are three cases where there are three speakers (one usually subordinated to the othertwo), and three more where the respondent is left silent,or response is only reported. Of these conversations, twoare much the longest: that of Sámr and Thorkell, when theformer attempts to engage the latter’s support at the þingand, immediately following, the conversation of Thorkell and Thorgeirr (Sámr remaining almost completely silent), as the former again attempts to win the latter over.

In these conversations, and especially in the second, when he is talking to his brother, Thorkell certainly sets out to be a proverbious speaker. He appeals twice to nauðsyn, as stated above. He sets up the “charade” or “playlet” of the toe in order to make the statement about “things going worse than one means,” and following that, with marked generalizing force, “verðr þat mörgum, at þá fá eigi alls gætt jafnvel, er honum er mikit í skapi” [it happens to many a man, not to manage everything equally well, when he has a lot on his mind]. Thorkell then attempts to define drengskapr, and ends, as already stated, with a clinching proverb.11 The intention is clear, but does it work? None of the above seems to have any effect on Thorgeirr, who proposes to give up hisgoðorð rather than agree. What does affect him is the

11 Eight of Pálsson’s 31 proverbious citations in fact come from Thorkell’s persuasion of Thorgeirr. Besides thefour mentioned above, Pálsson lists Thorkell’s “Muntu þess mest á þer kenna” [You will feel this most], to which he compares the proverbial “Sitt mein þykir sárast hveim” [Everyone thinks his own pain worst; “sá maðr gæti eigi alls vel, er mikit býr í skapi,” which repeats something already quoted; Thorkell’s remark about the death of a son (sons’ deaths are proverbially painful); and a second clinching remark, “má mér þat, sem yfir margan gengr” [what happens to many can happen to me], for which he finds several parallels. For the recognitionof proverbs, the intuition of a native speaker is invaluable.

concealed threat from his brother, “Kann vera, at Þorkellleppr komi þar, at hans orð verði meir metin” [It may be that Thorkell Lock will go where his word is valued higher]. This is an aggressive statement expressed with the characteristic obliquity of Norse culture, the plainmeaning – “do as I say or I will leave you” – moderated by the subjunctive verb komi, the modal Kann vera, the use of the third person. At this point Thorgeirr takes over, with Thorkell speaking only twice again, neither time significantly.

Thorgeirr’s speech is not as evidently proverbious as his brother’s, but contains hints of similar awareness. As already noted, the sons of Thjóstar jointlyadvise Sámr to be “cheerful and generous,” but this repeats the advice already given, rather unexpectedly, byThorgeirr alone, when he tells Sámr and Thorbjörn at the þing, “vera kátir,” [be cheerful], immediately after pointing out to them what a risk they are running. The same speech, ascribed to “the sons of Thjóstarr,” thoughfor some time Thorgeirr has been doing all the talking for both, ends with the proverb about “watching out for the wicked.” Thorgeirr, however, unlike his brother Thorkell, speaks both authoritatively and at times sardonically. It is he who predicts what Hrafnkell will do after his humiliation at the thing, and he who points out that the humiliation will lead to nothing unless it is followed up. When Sámr tries to bluff the situation out by declaring that he is not afraid, Thorgeirr’s reply, “Hraustr maðr ertu” [You are a bold man], could besarcastic: it has already been demonstrated that boldnessis no use without strength. After Sámr has spared Hrafnkell, Thorgeirr says correctly and prophetically, “Muntu þessa mest iðrask sjálfr, er þú gefr honum líf” [You will regret this most yourself, that you are giving him his life]. Thorgeirr also has the last word in the saga, refusing to help Sámr a second time, because he thinks Hrafnkell is – at least in terms of practical

ability – the better man: “Er þat nú auðsét, hverr vizkumunr ykkarr hefir orðit” [It is now easy to see whata difference in judgement there is between the two of you]. In brief, Thorgeirr is the dominant member of the pair of brothers. Yet Thorkell is the one who makes the vital decision.

One way to resolve this apparent contradiction is tosay that the two men represent the old and traditional contrast between sapientia and fortitudo, found in many literatures.12 A chieftain ought to have both qualities, in appropriate balance. Fortitudo without sapientia produces aByrhtnoth or a Skarphethinn; sapientia on its own leads to a Hrothgar or a Njáll. Both qualities remain admirable, but singly they may be disastrous. It is easy for Thorkell to produce traditional statements in favour of courage or drengskapr; but it is up to Thorgeirr to weigh them carefully and with his characteristic detachment. One may recall at this point Robert Fulk’s suggestive analysis of the saga (Fulk 1986) in terms of an opposition between “ideologues” and “pragmatists,” in which the former group (Thorkell, Eyvindr, Sámr, Thorbjörn) are set to their disadvantage against the latter (Thorgeirr, Hrafnkell). With this I would agree, with the proviso, however, that even the heroic ideology,in so far as it can be reconstructed from epic and eddic texts, may contain a strong element of wary pragmatism, while even arch-pragmatists may acknowledge the forces ofhonor and shame.

This last point raises the question of one of the saga’s most enigmatic, unexpected, and clearly proverbialscenes: the one in which the griðkona, seeing Eyvindr riding by, rushes in and abuses Hrafnkell for failing to take revenge. The most wounding part of what she says, evidently, is her opening orðskviðr, “ergisk hverr sem eldisk.” Gwyn Jones’s translation of this (1961: 117) is “Grow old and grow afraid.” Terry Gunnell more recently 12 As discussed, for instance, in Kaske 1958.

offers (1997: 277) “the older you get, the wetter you become,” and Heather O’Donoghue (2004: 219) “an aging mangets more like an old woman.” The sting in this, as pointed out by both Ström 1973 and Sørensen 1983, is thedouble meaning of ergjask: it can mean “grow afraid,” but it can also mean “to lose male potency.” The former meaning is implied by context, but when the word is used by a woman to a man, it carries a strong suggestion of sexual contempt. A suitable double-meaning translation might therefore be, as used above, “the older a man gets,the softer he gets.” But is the washerwoman’s accusation of cowardice true?

Opinions vary on this. Fulk, for instance, implies that it is true by arguing that it is this verbal assaultwhich forces Hrafnkell to act, to maintain “credibility at home” (Fulk 1986: 21). Without it, in his new and moderate guise, he would have let the matter rest. Heinemann meanwhile argues that the whole thing is Eyvindr’s fault for contemptuously provoking Hrafnkell, “[Eyvindr] brings his problems on himself” (Heinemann 1974: 112, repeated in modified form in Heinemann 1994): once again, Hrafnkell is seen as responding to events rather than dictating them. A contrary view is however expressed within the saga by Thorgeirr. He sees the killing of Eyvindr as final proof of Hrafnkell’s superiorjudgement, and as something which Hrafnkell had planned from the time of his humiliation, for – and this follows directly on from his words to Sámr quoted just above – the vizkumunr between the two men was shown, “er hann lét þik sitja í friði ok leitaði þar fyrst á, er hann gat þann af ráðit, er honum þótti þér vera meiri maðr” [when he let you sit in peace and only attacked when he had gotout of the way the one who he thought was a better man than you]. If Thorgeirr is correct in his suppositions – and as far as we can see he always is – then Hrafnkell was waiting all along for Eyvindr’s return, with the fixed intention of killing him. He has grasped an element

of the situation which everyone else had forgotten, including most readers (Eyvindr has not been mentioned since the start of chapter 3). And the griðkona’s words, proverbial though they are, are neither true nor necessary, and not at all context-sensitive.

Using proverbs, in short, does not make one a proverbious person, and the washerwoman may even be intended as a comic parody of one. The remainder of her speech is verbose and somewhat disorganized, but it contains recognizable elements of traditional wisdom. Hávamál 18 and 5 both comment on the value of foreign travel in characteristically “obverse” style, the one remarking that only those who travel fully understand human temperaments, the other that those who travel take the risk of having their lack of understanding exposed: the washerwoman agrees with the former. Meanwhile her claim that honor acquired early can nevertheless be forfeited repeats the gist of Hrothgar’s famous “sermon” in Beowulf 1700-84, with special reference to Heremod. What she says is true enough, but in the first place she has misunderstood the context, and quite failed to read Hrafnkell’s mind, and in the second place she does not have the personal authority required to use traditional wisdom. There is indeed a powerful irony in the whole scene. If Thorgeirr’s reading of Hrafnkell is correct, hehas sat quiet for six years, enduring the gossip of the neighbourhood, including the wiseacres who repeat “skömm er óhófs ævi” and the growing sense that “ergisk hverr semeldisk,” in exactly the same way that he endured torture and humiliation in his own farmyard, and with exactly thesame intention. Hrafnkell perhaps remembers yet one more proverb: “Þræll einn þegar hefnisk en argr aldri” [a slave takes vengeance at once, a coward never].13 But in between “at once” and “the right moment,” even a hero may

13 It is used in ch. 15 of Grettis saga Ásmundarsonar, see Guðni Jónsson 1936: 44.

look like a coward – to wiseacres and washerwomen and show-offs like Sámr.

In short, the saga mulls over and illustrates three overlapping qualities, which one may call chieftainship, proverbiousness, and honor. All three are in theory fixed, like the fixed form of a modern proverb, but in practice and in traditional culture strongly affected by circumstance. Failure to understand this last fact is oneof the things which disqualifies one from true wisdom. Thus, old Thorbjörn has a very strong sense of honor, butonly disgraces himself (by his tears) when he is forced to realize that wanting it is not the same thing as getting it. Sámr would very much like to be accepted as achieftain, and he manages at least the appearance of one,for a while, and with the support of the sons of Thjóstarr, but he lacks foresight: Thorgeirr told him to “look out for the wicked,” but like his nephew Einarr he did not understand the warning proverb, or forgot it. Thorkell has proverbial ambitions, and he understands onething well enough, which is that proverbious remarks like“mörgum teksk verr en vill” and statements about nauðsyn work much better if dramatized; but without his brother’sbalancing good sense, or pragmatism, he is only half a chieftain. In the background of the saga there are what Ihave called wiseacres, male and female, who may well havea store of oral wisdom but do not see into the heart of men like Hrafnkell, and so use their sayings inappositely; they are poor judges of honor, and have no chieftainship qualities. The best hope for them, like Sámr’s father Bjarni, is to stay out of trouble. Einarr and Eyvindr, to be brief, are honorable men without political insight or proverbious ambition, which may be what makes them tragically vulnerable. One might note that Eyvindr’s skósveinn tries to persuade him to flee by reformulating a proverb with the words “Er þá alls gætt, ef þín er” [Everything is safe if you are], to which Pálsson compares “Alls er gætt ef eins er” [All’s well if

one is]; but Eyvindr rejects the argument for fear that flight would appear hlœgiligt, laughable.

That leaves Thorgeirr and Hrafnkell, both of them successful chieftains, with or without a formal goðorð. Are they honorable men? By modern standards, only partly.Hrafnkell kills the unarmed Einarr and uses superior numbers against Eyvindr. Thorgeirr has no urge to gain honor in the way that his brother recommends, does so only under pressure, and refuses point-blank to try twice. Nevertheless both make themselves respected, or feared, and that is one requirement of honor. One trait that links them is their somewhat dégagé attitude to proverbial statements. Hrafnkell is not sure of the meritof his own “veldr sá, er varar,” responds only sardonically to the washerwoman’s “ergisk hverr sem eldisk,” is aware that people say “death before dishonor”but prefers to make his own decisions. Thorgeirr is unmoved by his brother’s staged argument about nauðsyn, bythe heavily proverbious speech which accompanies it, and by thoughts like “who dares, wins.” Both men use proverbial statements and allude to them, but are not bound by them. It may be significant that they are the only two people in the saga with a sense of humor (Eyvindr, see above, only fears a sense of humor). Hrafnkell, however, twice finds Sámr’s unaided attempts to make a case against him hlœgiligt (which it would be without Thorkell’s intervention). After their success at the þing, Thorgeirr asks Sámr hlæjandi how he thinks matters are going. His amusement must come from the fact that Sámr has not grasped the fact (he never does) that, to use a modern gnomicism, things are not over till they’re over. Like Hrafnkell, Thorgeirr can see the difference between ambition and reality, between words and the deeds that must back them, between wisdom in the mouth and wisdom in the heart. And like Hrafnkell, he hasno ambition to be a nice person. If Hrafnkell’s master

saying is “he who laughs last laughs longest,” Thorgeirr’s might be “stone-dead has no peer.”

LIST OF REFERENCES

Andersson 1970 Theodore M. Andersson, “TheDisplacement of the Heroic Ideal in the FamilySagas,” Speculum 45: 575-93.

Arngart 1981 Olof Arngart, “The Durham Proverbs,”Speculum 56, 288-300

Bolton 1971 W.F. Bolton, “The Heart of Hrafnkatla,” Scandinavian Studies 43: 35-52.

Bonner and Grimstad 1996 Maria Bonner and Kaaren Grimstad, “Munu vit ekki at því sættask: A Closer Look at Dialogues in Hrafnkels saga,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 111: 5-25.

Cleasby-Vigfusson 1957 Richard Cleasby and Gudbrand Vigfusson, eds., An Icelandic-English Dictionary, 2nd edn. with supplement by Sir William Craigie (Oxford: Clarendon Press)

Dobbie 1953 Elliott V.K. Dobbie, ed., Beowulf and Judith, ASPR 4 (New York: Columbia UP).

Dubs 1977 Kathleen E. Dubs, “The Discourse of Persuasion in Hrafnkatla,” Scandinavian Studies 49: 464-74.

Einar Ól. Sveinsson 1954 Einar Ól. Sveinsson, ed., Brennu-Njáls saga, Íslenzk Fornrit 12 (Reykjavik: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag).

Foote and Quirk 1974 Peter Foote and Randolph Quirk, eds., Gunnlaugssaga Ormstungu, rev. edn. (London: Viking Society for Northern Research).

Fulk 1986 “The Moral System of Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða,” Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 22/1: 1-32.

Gering 1915-16 Hugo Gering, “Altnordische Sprichwörter und sprichwörterliche Redensarten,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 32: 1-31.

Gunnell 1997 “The Saga of Hrafnkell Frey’s Godi,” trans. Terry Gunnell, in Viðar Hreinsson, ed., The Complete Sagas of Icelanders, 5 vols. (Reykjavik: Leifur Eiríksson Press), 5: 261-81.

Gutenbrunner 1976 Siegfried Gutenbrunner, Von Hildebrand und Hadubrand: Lied, Sage, Mythos (Heidelberg: Carl Winter)

Guðni Jónsson 1936 Grettis saga Ásmundarsonar, Íslenzk Fornrit 7 (Reykjavik: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag).

Hallberg 1975a Peter Hallberg, “Hrafnkell Freysgoði the New Man – A Phantom Problem,” Scandinavian Studies 47: 442-47.

----- 1975b “Hunting for the heart of Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða,” Scandinavian Studies 47: 463-6.

Halleux 1966 Pierre Halleux, “Hrafnkels Character Re-interpreted,” Scandinavian Studies 38: 36-44.

Harris 2004 Richard L. Harris, “Concordance to the Proverbs and Proverbial Materials in the Old Icelandic Sagas,” http//www.usask.ca/english/icelanders

Heinemann 1974 Fredrik J. Heinemann, “Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða and Type-Scene Analysis,” Scandinavian Studies 46: 102-19.

----- 1975a “Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða: the Old Problem with the New Man,” Scandinavian Studies 47: 448-52

----- 1975b “The Heart of Hrafnkatla Again,” Scandinavian Studies 47: 453-62.

----- 1994 “Skömm er óhófs ævi: Immoderation in Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða,” Skáldskaparmál 3: 80-107.

Hermann Pálsson 1971 Art and Ethics in Hrafnkels Saga (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).

----- 1988 Mannfræði Hrafnkels sögu og frumþættir (Reykjavik: Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs).

Johnasen, Jan Geir 1995 “The Hero of Hrafnkels Saga Freysgoða,” Scandinavian Studies 67 (1995), 265-86

Jón Jóhannesson 1950 “Hrafnkels Saga Freysgoða,” in Jón Jóhannesson, ed., Austfirðinga sögur, Íslenzk Fornrit 11(Reykjavik: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag), 96-133.

Jones 1961 “Hrafnkell the Priest of Frey,” in Eirik the Red and other Icelandic Sagas, trans. Gwyn Jones (London: Oxford University Press), 89-125.

Kaske 1958 “Sapientia et Fortitudo as the Controlling Theme of Beowulf,” Studies in Philology 55: 423-56.

Krapp 1931 George P. Krapp, ed., The Junius Manuscript, ASPR 1 (New York: Columbia UP).

Kratz 1981 Henry Kratz, “Hrafnkels saga: Thirteenth Century Fiction?” Scandinavian Studies 53: 420-46.

Macrae-Gibson 1975-6 O.D. Macrae-Gibson, “The Topography of Hrafnkels saga Freygoða,” Saga-Book of the Viking Society 19/2-3: 239-63.

Neckel/Kuhn 1962 Gustav Neckel, ed., Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern, 4th edn. rev. HansKuhn, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).

Nordal 1958 Sigurður Nordal, Hrafnkels Saga Freysgoða, trans. R. George Thomas (Cardiff: University of Wales Press).

O’Donoghue 2004 Heather O’Donoghue, Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: A Short Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell).

Óskar Halldórsson 1976 Uppruni og þema Hrafnkels sögu (Hið Íslenzka Bókmenntafélag: Reykjavik)

Schmidt 1995 A.V.C. Schmidt, ed., William Langland, TheVision of Piers Plowman: A Critical Edition of the B-Text, rev. edn. (London: J.M. Dent, and Vermont: Charles Tuttle).

Shippey 1995 “Speech and the Unspoken in Hamthismál,”in Prosody and Poetics: essays in honor of Constance Hieatt, ed.M.J. Toswell, (Toronto: University of TorontoPress), 180-96

Slater 1968 Anne Saxon Slater, “From Rhetoric and Structure to Psychology in Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða,” Scandinavian Studies 40: 36-50.

Sørensen 1983 Preben Meulengracht Sørensen, The Unmanly Man: concepts of sexual defamation in early Northern society, trans. Joan Turville-Petre (Odense: Odense University Press).

Stanley 1960 E.G. Stanley, ed., The Owl and the Nightingale (London: Thomas Nelson).

Ström 1973 Folke Ström, “Nið, ergi, and Old Norse MoralAttitudes,” Dorothea Coke Lecture in Northern Studies, University College, London.

Thomas 1973 R. George Thomas, “Man and Society in Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða,” in Peter Foote et al., eds., Proceedings of the first International Saga Conference, 1971 (London: Viking Society), 411-34.

van Wezel 2001 Lars van Wezel, “On the Impossibility of Interpreting Hrafnkels Saga,” in K.E Olsen, A. Harbus and T. Hofstra, eds., Germanic Texts and Latin Models: Medieval Reconstructions, Germania Latina IV (Leuven: Peeters), 173-83

[Add a note after “…take different views of it.”

An apparently dissentient voice is van Wezel (2001), who declares “The proverbs do not give access to the meaning of the saga; they are merely embellishment…” (182). However, van Wezel’s article is really directed at the views of Hermann Pálsson, as for instance in Pálsson (1971), who sees specifically Christian references and allusions in several of the saga’s proverbial sayings. Van Wezel points out, very reasonably, that it is unlikely that many or any of these would have been noticed by the larger group of potential listeners to the

saga, even if they were so noticed by a smaller group of potential readers.