The Hero of Hrafnkels Saga Freysgoða-Jan Geir Johansen

Critics of Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða… are divided intotwo schools of thought concerning the character of Hrafnkell.One school, generally the earlier one, considers him an arro-

gant and overbearing man chastened by adversity, who, once reformed,is able to turn the tables on his adversaries. A later school of thought hasconsidered him proud and cruel from start to Wnish.

E. O. G. Turville-Petre (Origins 241), representing the Wrst group,says Hrafnkell’s oath to kill anyone who rides Freyfaxi is “ill-consid-ered” and that it is because of “overbearing” and “unchastened” pridethat Hrafnkell gets into the diYculties which lead to his humiliation.Theodore Andersson (Family Sagas 282–3) sees the roots of Hrafnkell’sdownfall in his “social inadequacy” (his “domineering behavior”) and“religious error” (his “allegiance to Freyr”). It is Hrafnkell’s “arro-gance” which leads him to forbid anyone to ride Freyfaxi and his“intransigeance” [sic] which leads him to fulWll his vow to kill anyonewho does. W. A. Craigie (38) speaks of Hrafnkell’s “rash vow,” and W. P.Ker (198) of the “cruel thing” which Hrafnkell does in killing Einarr.Stéfan Einarsson (149) says the saga was “written to prove that over-bearing tyranny does not pay” and considers Hrafnkell “an arrogantman … tamed and brought to his senses by misfortune.” JónasKristjansson describes the saga as,

a cautionary tale about [a] proud and obstinate chieftain who isbrought low by his violence, learns humility from bitter experience,and rises to honor anew through his resolution. (70)

Jan Geir JohansenAugustana University College

The Hero ofHrafnkels saga Freysgoða

… All translations are my own. A much condensed version of this paper was presented tothe annual conference of the Association for the Advancement of Scandinavian Studies inCanada (aassc), University of Calgary, June 9, 1994.

266 Scandinavian Studies

More recently Frederik Heinemann (“Type-Scene Analysis” and“Old Problem”) has agreed with this point of view. Heinemann hasseen, however, the problem which the killing of Eyvindr poses for anyinterpretation that wants to see an improvement of Hrafnkell’s charac-ter by the end of the saga. He attempts, as does Ann S. Slater (49), toavoid this problem by suggesting that Eyvindr is in some sense guilty ofan oVense against Hrafnkell. Kristjansson simply says Hrafnkell “hasnot learned his lesson well enough” (70). Some earlier critics such asKer (198) and Sigurður Nordal (105) and Hermann Pálsson (Art andEthics 50) have been puzzled by the second killing without abandon-ing the idea that Hrafnkell is a reformed man at the saga’s end.Heinemann and Slater, on the other hand, expend no eVort in examin-ing the Wrst killing to see whether it too might not have been committedfor legitimate reasons.

The second school of thought sees Hrafnkell as harsh and churlishthroughout. Thomas BredsdorV is of the opinion that the saga dealswith political (in the broad sense of human social interactions)“magtmekanismer” [power mechanisms] and portrays a “magtsamfunduden nogen ideel udsmykning” (105) [power-society without any ide-alistic adornment]. He does not believe that there is any characterdevelopment in the saga. Pierre Halleux (42–3) is of the same opinion,and W. F. Bolton, after a close reading of the so-called “heart” ofHrafnkatla (i.e. Chapter 4), calls the saga a medieval “Heart of Dark-ness” (52). Peter Hallberg, in a response to Heinemann’s article(“Phantom Problem”), also refuses to consider Hrafnkell as a reformedman at the saga’s end. For Paul Schach Hrafnkell’s transformation is acynical one, from a “ruthless…Frey worshiper into an equally mercilesspragmatic chieftain of the Sturlung Age” (136). Kratz’s reading (439–44) is essentially the same, though more subtle.

The dispute, then, is about Hrafnkell’s character at the conclusion ofhis saga; all are agreed that he is a scoundrel at its beginning. I, however,wish to suggest that Hrafnkell is presented in a favorable light fromstart to Wnish, and is the hero of the saga that bears his name.

Criticisms of Hrafnkell’s character often take as their starting pointthe narrator’s early comments that Hrafnkell was a “ójafnaðarmaðrmikill” (99) [a man of great injustice], who “þrøngði undir sik” (99)

But compare his view in “Introduction” 25–6.

Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða 267

[forced under him] the men of Jokul’s dale, to whom he was “stríðr okstirðlyndr” (99) [stern and harsh] and to whom he showed “enganjafnað” (99) [no justice]. Hrafnkell, the narrator continues, was ofteninvolved in duels but “bœtti engan mann fé” (99) [paid compensationto no man]. But in the very same passage it is also said that Hrafnkellwas well-accomplished and “linr ok blíðr við sína menn” (99) [kindlyand pleasant with his men].

On the other hand, Hrafnkell as a youth is called “mannvænn okgørviligr” (97) [promising and capable], and additionally, we are toldthat “gott var í frændsemi þeira” (99) [goodness was in their kinship],referring to that between Hrafnkell and his father after Hrafnkell hasmoved away from home. More important, however, in the action of thesaga itself (as distinct from comments in it about Hrafnkell’s characterand behavior before the saga’s action commences) Hrafnkell never actsin an unfair or harsh manner but is himself the victim of outlawry,conWscation of goods, and torture.

Moving from some of these opening epithets, critics are quick inassuming that Hrafnkell’s killing of Einarr typiWes his cruelty. Theyseem uniformly to consider that the killing is committed in cold-bloodand on “what seems to us … a very Ximsy pretext” (Kratz 440, myemphasis) and that Hrafnkell is morally indiVerent to the act. There issubstantial material in the saga’s text, however, to support the oppositeview: the killing of Einarr is for substantial reasons, and Hrafnkellnevertheless—and in contrast to the other characters in the saga—looksupon it as regrettable, as Kratz (443), notes in passing.

There are several very good reasons why a goði in pagan Icelandwould be justiWed in killing any servant of his who had acted as Einarrdid. While these reasons might not appeal to modern sensibilities or besuYcient to get Hrafnkell acquitted in a court of law today, in Icelandor anywhere else, is entirely beside the point.

There are three speciWc factors which force Hrafnkell to kill Einarr,all of them compounded by a fourth. First of all, Hrafnkell clearly felt adeep aVection for the horse, Freyfaxi. He refers to it as “garprinn” (104),[the gallant one], and “fóstri minn” (104) [my fosterling], both terms ofclose endearment. Ann Heinrichs points out that “the word fóstri …nearly always has a highly aVectionate quality, especially in direct speech”(22). Nor is the use of fóstri to refer to an animal restricted in the sagasto this single incident. Gunnar of Hliðarendi, for example, refers to hisdog, Sámr, as his fóstr, in Njáls saga (186). Sámr, slain by his master’s


enemies, has like Freyfaxi been sorely abused. It was because Hrafnkellthought so highly of Freyfaxi that he consecrated it to Freyr in the Wrstplace and swore to kill whoever should ride him without his permission(100). After Einarr has ridden him, Freyfaxi is so sweaty that perspira-tion drops from each hair (103). He is greatly muddied and exceedinglytired. In short, it is very clear that he has not only been ridden butridden too hard. When Freyfaxi appears at Aðalból he is described asextremely Wlthy and very dirty. Some of this dirt is the result of Freyfaxi’sapparently deliberate roll in the dust before he gallops home butHrafnkell cannot know this. When Hrafnkell sees Freyfaxi in such anabused condition he considers it “illa” (104) [ill, bad] and promises toavenge his friend. This speech (104) discloses Hrafnkell’s genuine lovefor Freyfaxi and his calm, barely restrained anger at the oVender.

A second factor which forces Hrafnkell to kill Einarr is that Freyfaxi,whatever Hrafnkell’s feelings, is not just an ordinary horse. Hrafnkellhas dedicated half of Freyfaxi to the god, Freyr, whom he loves above allothers. This, in fact, is one of the Wrst things the saga tells us aboutHrafnkell (99). Immediately after taking land on his own he erects agreat temple and oVers much sacriWce to Freyr (98–9). He gave half ofhis best possessions to the god (99), so that his dedication of Freyfaxi tothe god cannot be considered an unprecedented idiosyncrasy. It isbecause of his intense aVection for the god that Hrafnkell gains the titleFreysgoði (99). Theodore Andersson (Family Sagas 283) has suggestedthat “arrogance” lies behind Hrafnkell’s dedication of Freyfaxi to Freyr.But surely this is unjustiWed. It is well known that devotion to Freyrcustomarily involved consecrating horses to him. (Ellis Davidson 97–8;Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion, 20, 167–8, 249, 254). Within thecorpus of Icelandic sagas there is at least one other horse, also calledFreyfaxi, dedicated to Freyr, in Vatnsdœla saga. Aslak Liestøl defendedHrafnkell on this point by saying he had religious motives for the killing(61) of Einarr: “Hrafnkell i eigenskap av godi hadde forplikta feg til åstraffe heilagbrot dersom guden ville det” (62) [Hrafnkell on the god’sbehalf had committed himself to punish sacrilege (heilagbrot) if the goddesired it]. Einarr’s act, not only in riding the horse, but in riding it sohard that it returns muddied and lathered, is clearly sacrilege by anyobjective standard. We need not sympathize with Hrafnkell’s particularreligious aYliation to accept his belief as genuinely and devoutly held.Surely this is the author’s point in making Hrafnkell’s religious beliefsso clear at the outset. Though the saga was written well into Christiantimes, one does not detect the slightest suggestion on the part of the


author that Hrafnkell’s “allegiance to Freyr” is to be considered “reli-gious error” (Andersson, Family Sagas 282–3). The writer, presumablya Christian himself, may well have thought so, but he does not tell thestory in these terms. Neither does he indicate that in slaying Einarrbecause he has desecrated Freyfaxi and oVended Freyr “Hrafnkell’sbehavior suggests more than the usual motive of merely propitiatingthe god” (Condren 521). That Hrafnkell Wnally gives up his belief inFreyr when he realizes that the god has been unable to protect eitherhim or Freyfaxi (124) does not reXect on the honesty or depth of hisreligious belief in the Wrst part of the saga.

It is not likely that Einarr would have been unaware of Hrafnkell’sreligious beliefs or his ferocity in defending them; Hrafnkell was hisfather’s neighbor after all, and it is Hrafnkell’s general repute whichearns him the name Freysgoði. Even so, Hrafnkell is careful to tell Einarrthat Freyfaxi is not to be ridden “hversu mikil nauðsyn sem þér er á”(102) [however much necessity there seems to you to be]. This is anabsolute prohibition and Einarr responds by saying that he is not someingeWt (102) [given to malice] as to ride the one horse forbidden himwhen he has free access to any of the twelve that follow Freyfaxi (102).For what it is worth, we may note that during the exchange betweenthem when confronted by Hrafnkell (104–5) Einarr pleads neitherignorance nor mitigating circumstances. This apparently brazen dis-obedience by a servant of the only restriction placed on him by hismaster is the third factor which forces Hrafnkell to take Einarr’s life.

The fourth factor, which compounds the preceding three, is Einarr’scommission of the oVence in front of witnesses: the sauðamenn onanother shieling (103), Hrafnkell’s servant at Aðalból (104), and prob-ably the women on Hrafnkell’s shieling where Einarr works (104). Thegriðkona, who is quick to inform Hrafnkell of Eyvindr’s return andblunt about urging him to do something about it (126), shows that evenservants were far from ignorant of or indiVerent to matters of honor andreputation. And in medieval Iceland one’s reputation seems to havebeen popularly considered one’s only means of gaining immortality, asHávamál 77 makes clear:

Deyr fé,deyia frœndr,deyr siálfr it sama;ec veit einn,at aldri deyr:dómr um dauðan hvern.


(Cattle die,kinfolk die,one dies just the same:I know one thingthat never dies:good repute about each dead man.)

Njál, despite having converted to Christianity, prefers to die in hisburning house because he is too old to avenge his sons and will not livein shame. For Hrafnkell to permit a peasant’s son to get away with whathe has consistently condemned would damage his reputation and callinto question his ability to govern his servants and enforce his oaths.Not only Hrafnkell but his two sons and all his posterity would suVer asa consequence of his failure to preserve his reputation.

W. A. Craigie described Hrafnkell’s pledge to kill anyone who ridesFreyfaxi as a “rash vow” (38), and Kratz says it is “indicative of hisarrogance” (446, n35). But as C. M. Bowra remarks, the “[s]aga is quiteconsistent with a purely heroic outlook and is indeed heroic prose”(15).À Thus Hrafnkell’s pledge ought to be understood as a form ofheroic boast which might well seem rash and arrogant to modernsensibilities. As such it “bid[s] him to do precisely as he says, lest hedishonor himself.” Furthermore, the “fulWllment of a vow, no matterwhat it may be, is more important than its content” and it “was impera-tive that the oVended party, unless he wishe[d] to lose stature in the eyesof his peers, repay the oVender for his trespass” (Cherniss 46, 63, 61).Indeed the very rashness that Craigie laments can itself be a virtue in theGermanic ethical tradition, as Hávamal 127 testiWes. In this sagaHrafnkell’s capacity for quick, decisive action enables him to overcomeSámr, who quite unheroically hesitates (130–1). That the Germanicheroic values of honor and vengeance remain operative in the world ofHrafnkell’s saga enables Hrafnkell to regain the upper hand by slaying,not Sámr, but Sámr’s more renowned brother, Eyvindr (127–30). Un-der such a code of ethics it makes no diVerence whatever that EinarroVends “partly by force of circumstances and without malice”(Andersson, “Displacement” 584) or, for that matter, that Eyvindrappears to commit no oVense whatsoever.

À Bowra’s remark perhaps overstates and oversimpliWes, but clearly many “heroic modesand gestures borrowed from tradition” (Andersson, “Displacement” 593) remain aninexorable part of the saga world. In support of this see Halldórson 46–67, referred towith apparent agreement by Kratz 439.


The abuse of the horse Hrafnkell loves and has dedicated to Freyr,Einarr’s disobedience of Hrafnkell, and the public commission of theseoVenses in eVect require Hrafnkell to kill Einarr. As even TheodoreAndersson, whose view of Einarr’s killing is the opposite of mine,admits, Hrafnkell “is loath to kill” Einarr (Family Sagas 280). We havebeen told early on that Hrafnkell, whatever his other faults, was “linr okblíðr við sína menn” (99) [kindly and pleasant with his men]. WhenEinarr Wrst arrives at Aðalból Hrafnkell greeted him “vel ok glaðliga”(101) [well and happily] and seems to have a good opinion of Einarrwhen he says “ek munda við þér fyrstum tekit hafa” (101) [I would havehired you Wrst]. Just before dealing the death-blow Hrafnkell tellsEinarr that he would have overlooked this one sok [oVence] except forthe oath he has sworn (105). This is also the essence of Hrafnkell’scomment to Þorbjorn, Einarr’s father (106–7), after the killing; there itis the riding of the horse, rather than the oath, which he speciWcally citesas having forced him to kill Einarr. Taken together these two commentsnot only indicate Hrafnkell’s reluctance to kill Einarr but also conWrmour assertions as to Hrafnkell’s motives.

We ought to note that Hrafnkell is able to call on popular wisdom tojustify himself. After having originally warned Einarr, he says “eigi veldrsá, er varar annan” (102) [he is not responsible who warns another].This proverb is intended to exonerate Hrafnkell from further responsi-bility if Einarr should do what he has been warned against. The secondproverb which Hrafnkell invokes comes just before the death-blowitself: “ekki verði at þeim monnum, er heitstrengingar fella á sik” (105)[no good fortune will come to those men, who bring down curses onthemselves] by, for example, oVending against another man’s publiclysworn oaths. This proverb, interestingly, not only deWnes the conse-quences of Einarr’s oVense, but summarizes what Hrafnkell himselfmight expect if he fails to live up to his own pledge. In short, popularwisdom such as this assents to, and virtually requires, Hrafnkell’s slay-ing of Einarr.

Hrafnkell, thus, has strong motives for killing Einarr, but he isnevertheless reluctant to do so because of his customary good treat-ment of his own servants and his liking for Einarr. Popular opinion asrepresented by idiomatic proverbial expressions, moreover, supportsHrafnkell’s view of what ought to be done. Two factors also serve tomitigate even further any negative judgment we might make of Hrafnkell.Firstly Hrafnkell himself describes the killing of Einarr, not once but


twice, as worse than anything else he has done (105–6). This despite thegood reasons adduced for his doing so. Surely this is not the sign of aman who is arrogant and callous, but rather shows a becoming honestyand even humility in Hrafnkell, particularly since he makes the confes-sion to a social inferior.Ã

The other mitigating factor is the generous oVer which Hrafnkellmakes to Þorbjorn (106). Þorbjorn has a large family but little means ofsupport, and had, therefore, sent Einarr away to seek employmentelsewhere. Though Hrafnkell has no reason to suppose that Þorbjorncould force a settlement on him, he nevertheless oVers to provide hisneighbor with milk and meat for as long as he wishes to remain at Hóli,to help Þorbjorn’s remaining sons and daughters get established in life,to supply him with “allt … þú þarft at hafa” (106) [everything … youneed to have], and, Wnally, to look after him at Aðalból once he decidesto retire from farming and leave Hóli. What are we to consider this, ifit is not an oVer of compensation? Both Bjarni and Sámr consider thisan excellent oVer, and Sámr even suggests they return humbly toHrafnkell to ask if the oVer remains good. What makes Hrafnkell’s oVerparticularly impressive is our knowledge that normally he “bœtti enganmann fé” (99) [paid compensation to no man]; for him to do sowillingly here reXects well on his character. Even Sámr seems to thinkthat “[m]un honum nokkurn veg vel fara” (107) [with him (Hrafnkell)it will go well one way or another], as if Hrafnkell has a reputation forgenerosity and amenability rather than the opposite.

Hrafnkell has had such a hard time at the hand of critics despite allthis because the seriousness in medieval Iceland of what seems to us atrivial matter has not been adequately appreciated. Our sensibilities areshocked by the killing of Einarr, as well they might be. This is anargument against ordering society the way it was organized in Icelandin the Middle Ages, but not good reason for supposing that a contem-porary Icelander would have been equally shocked.

At the other end of the saga, Hrafnkell’s slaying of Eyvindr has alsoinclined critics towards a negative view of Hrafnkell. Those who seehim as undeviatingly harsh and cruel cite this, of course, as evidencethat nothing has changed with Hrafnkell. For those who support theidea that there is a moral development in Hrafnkell’s character, the

Ã The subsequent negotiations break down because Þorbjorn wants the settlement to bemade as if he and Hrafnkell are “jafnmenn” (106) [equals]. This, as Bjarni, Þorbjorn’s ownbrother points out, shows “vitlítill” (107) [little wisdom, stupidity] on Þorbjorn’s part.


slaying of Eyvindr has continually posed a problem. Craigie andAndersson do not choose to comment upon it. W. P. Ker says “the lifeof an innocent man is sacriWced in the clearing of scores” (198). FrederikHeinemann (“Type-Scene Analysis”) believes that Eyvindr provokesHrafnkell by riding by Hrafnkelsstad in all his Wnery. Anne Slater alsosees Eyvindr as not innocent because he fails “to grasp the impossibilityof refusing to participate in the aVairs of men.”(49) Peter Hallberg(“Phantom Problem” 444), on the other hand, explains the event byrecourse to the code of revenge in medieval Iceland, with which he seesHrafnkell acting in accordance. Whatever one’s position with regard toHrafnkell’s character, one cannot simply ignore the killing of Eyvindrwhile pillorying Hrafnkell for the killing of Einarr. Those who considerthat Hrafnkell develops ethically must explain why the second killing isless reprehensible than the Wrst, when Eyvindr seems more innocent ofany obvious wrongdoing than is his cousin.

We Wrst hear of Eyvindr as a “vænir … ok efniligir” (100) [fair … andpromising] man, who journeys to Norway and the continent as atrader, and Wnally ends up in Constantinople where he received “góðarvirðingar” (100) [good repute]. Much later in the saga, shortly beforehis death, he is called “vaskasti” (125) [bravest] and “fáskiptinn” (125)[reticent]. We are told of the young boy whom Eyvindr has adoptedand brought up as his own (126) to his great repute. Unlike Einarrwhose death is quiet and free of struggle, Eyvindr, we are told, “varðistvel ok drengiliga” (129) [fought well and manfully]. All of these thingscontribute to creating a favorable impression of the man.

At the same time we must note Eyvindr’s seemingly willful refusal totake heed of Hrafnkell’s approach. He is informed, immediately uponhis return from abroad, of the events which have taken place betweenhis brother and Hrafnkell. Nevertheless when he rides to his brother’s,he goes “fyrir neðan voll á Hrafnkelsstoðum” (126) [below the Weld atHrafnkelsstad], and in all his Wne, foreign apparel rides by the home ofthe man his brother dispossessed (126). When he is informed ofHrafnkell’s pursuit (which is obvious as such even to his young page),he twice (128) claims to have no idea of what is at issue.

The requirement to take revenge was largely independent of per-sonal feelings; one avenged an injury not out of personal spite but outof the necessity to restore lost honor to one’s family. It was “a matter offamily prestige and not of personal wrongdoing” (Andersson, FamilySagas 18). As a consequence “the victim had not necessarily to be the


oVender, but—even better—some more distinguished member of hisfamily” (Hallberg, “Phantom Problem” 444).Õ Additionally, a mangained more honor the longer he withheld his revenge, since suchdelaying indicated not only that he remained devoted to his familyhonor even after a long period of time but also that the slaying had littleto do with impassioned personal feelings (Steblin-Kaminskij 106-7).This, as Peter Hallberg suggests (“Phantom Problem” 444), isHrafnkell’s motive for striking at Eyvindr. We are told that Hrafnkell“hafði engi orð við Eyvind” (129) [had no words with Eyvind]. This wasbecause there was nothing to say; there was no quarrel between the twoindividuals. Hrafnkell kills Eyvindr solely because he was the mostrenowned member of Sámr’s family and so the most Wtting object ofrevenge for the injuries and humiliations which Sámr had inXicted onHrafnkell.Œ

We may discern a further reason which Hrafnkell might reasonablyhave had for killing Eyvindr: the duty of revenge being what it was,Hrafnkell would no doubt have thought that if he killed Sámr, Eyvindrwas a man of such quality and ability that he would have to be dealt withsubsequently. And since Eyvindr had proven his ability in the VarangianGuard and gained much renown for his exploits abroad, he would nodoubt appear a more formidable opponent than Sámr. Consequently,Hrafnkell decides to wait until Eyvindr returns, then strikes quickly andunexpectedly in a sort of preemptive attack to get rid of the moreformidable opponent, minimize the total amount of killing, and gaingreater glory besides.œ That this is indeed Hrafnkell’s thinking is sug-gested by Þorgeirr in his words to Sámr at the saga’s end:

hann [Hrafnkell] lét þik [Sámr] sitja í friði ok leitaði þar fyrst á, er hanngat þann af ráðit, er honum þótti þér vera meiri maðr. (133)

(he let you sit in peace, and sought you Wrst, after he got that one outof the way, who seemed to him to be the greater man.)

Õ See also Andersson Family Sagas 18–9, and Steblin-Kaminskij 107.Œ See also Thomas 416, 428. The griðkona also points this out in her “incitement” ofHrafnkel (110). Hrafnkel’s attack is not to any major degree motivated by the oldwoman’s words, who is not “meddlesome” (Kratz 443) but simply voices the ethos of hertime and place, her concern with her master’s honor illustrating how pervasive the ethoswas. Her words remind and arouse Hrafnkel and sharpen his will, “egging” or “whetting”him to do what he must (Clark 97, 101). Also, of course, in terms of plot mechanics Hrafn-kel has to be notiWed that Eyvindr is back and in the neighborhood before he can act.œ Hallberg, “Phantom Problem” 444 also suggests this possibility.


This is to Hrafnkell’s credit, because he has waited all of six years to beproperly avenged, then carries out his revenge with tactical perfection.Here, as with the slaying of Einarr, we see that Hrafnkell acts out ofproper regard for duty and honor and not because of personal vicious-ness and spite. He acts, in other words, in accordance with the moralityof his time and place; the killing of Eyvind is not simply murder (Kratz439).

To this point we have concentrated on examining Hrafnkell’s ownactions. But it is also possible to see his character in contrast to those ofhis opponents. One might reasonably expect that if the saga’s authordid not approve of Hrafnkell, if he considered Hrafnkell to be wrong,he would have opposed him to one or more antagonists who representwhat he considered to be right. But unless we are to assume that theauthor approves vanity, presumption, deceit, irresponsible ambition,lucklessness, and lack of judgment, he does not do this. In comparisonwith his adversaries, Hrafnkell stands out even more positively.

His Wrst antagonist is Einarr’s father, Þorbjorn. Modern sympathyfor Þorbjorn (and Einarr) based on his impoverished condition, pre-sumes that wealth and social status were seen in medieval Iceland asthey are seen in the present time. More likely something closer to theopposite was true: Þorbjorn’s low class status and lack of wealth wereoutward signs of his weak character as a man. Without further specula-tion on this point, however, it is Þorbjorn’s poverty, his “efnaleysi” [lackof means] and “fátœkð” [poverty] (101), the fact that he owns “fé lítit”[little wealth] but “ómegð mikla” [responsibility for many dependents](100), which forces him to ask Einarr to seek a living elsewhere. But noamount of poverty explains why Þorbjorn waits until so late in theseason to tell Einarr (101); perhaps his poverty has arisen, in part atleast, out of just such lack of judgment.

This lack can be observed once again by Þorbjorn’s refusal to acceptHrafnkell’s generous and unprecedented oVer of compensation for hisson. His refusal is not based on a sense that the oVer is inadequate or ona belief that he could do better by taking the matter to court. Hisinterest is not in having justice done or avenging his son—which could,of course, be done by slaying Hrafnkell or one of Hrafnkell’s sons. Whathe wants is to be considered as Hrafnkell’s equal; not surprisingly,Hrafnkell refuses to deal with him on that basis. Both Bjarni and Sámrcriticize Þorbjorn for his vain presumption, and both also comment


unfavorably on Þorbjorn’s foolishness in having refused Hrafnkell’sgenerosity.

It is instructive to note the vituperative tone that Þorbjorn adoptstowards his closest kinsmen when they refuse to help him. To Bjarni headdresses “morg herWlig orð” (107) [many shameful words] and it issaid that the brothers part “með lítilli blíðu” (107) [with little happi-ness]. He says to Sámr that he doubts whether anyone is as cursed as heis with such “auðvirði at frændum” (107) [worthless ones as kinsmen].He calls Sámr the most arrogant of all their kin (108). Furthermore, hesays that the reason young men, such as Sámr, do not get ahead thesedays is that they overestimate the obstacles. This is particularly ironic(to say nothing of impolitic) coming from the poverty-stricken Þorbjorn,and it betrays the same presumption which he showed towards Hrafnkell.It does not occur to him that his kinsmen are not proud or wretched somuch as they are simply right, at least not until he and Sámr are at theAlthing with a contingent of seventy men. By that time, Sámr hascommitted himself, and their pleas for help have been rebuVed. Finallyseeing the real magnitude of the aVair, Þorbjorn cannot sleep, wants togo home (110), and when reminded as to who wanted to get involvedin the Wrst place, when he is confronted with his own responsibility,bursts into tears (110). From that point on, except to play a non-speaking role, Þorbjorn is no longer a factor in the saga.

If lack of judgment is Þorbjorn’s characteristic Xaw, pride mightusefully be seen in a corresponding role with Sámr.– Among the Wrstepithets used to describe Sámr is “uppvozlumaðr (100) [a pushy orcontentious man]. There may possibly be some truth, therefore, inÞorbjorn’s description of him as “hávaðamestr” (108) [the most arro-gant] of the whole family. Only when Þorbjorn accuses him of growingfamous by tackling petty lawsuits while being afraid of taking on aserious one (107–8), does Sámr take the case from his uncle. An appealto pride coerces him into accepting a case which his better judgmenttells him to refuse.

The sort of men that Sámr recruits reXects on his character as well.Most of those whom he convinces to ride to the Althing with him areeinhleypingar (109), men without a Wxed abode and without signiWcantproperty, who make a living by casual labor. As a consequence they have

– Hallieux, (“Some Aspects”), calls him “proud and self-important,” “self-conceited” (99)and vain (100).


no stake in maintaining the orderliness of society or in preserving thelaws and traditions according to which social relations were carried out.As Magnús Már Lárusson says,

The [medieval Icelandic] free-state’s legislation strived for orderlyconditions and demanded therefore … that all should have a fixedabode.… People who did not live up to this [demand, i.e. einhleypingar],came to be considered as a lower social class. (152–3)—

Hrafnkell, on the other hand, recruits men “með þingmanna sínum”(91) [from his assembly-district], which is his proper sphere of author-ity as a goði. These men, “þingmanna hans” (99) [his thing-men], wereestablished men who owned their farmsteads on land which Hrafnkellhad given them. In contrast to Sámr’s men, these men certainly wouldhave felt obligation to society and its rules. It is revealing that the bulkof the men whom Sámr recruits are of a lower social standing and froma group less committed to the norms of an orderly society than are thosewhom Hrafnkell brings to the Althing, a point noted by R. G. Thomas(423).

When Sámr arrives at Þingvellir, he sets up camp “hvergi nær því,sem AustWrðingar eru vanir að tjalda” (109) [not at all near there wherepeople from the East jords were accustomed to camp]. This too reXectson the character of Sámr and his cause. If his cause were clearly legiti-mate and he had an authority proper to prosecute it, and if his troopwere not of such a low kind, he would undoubtedly have camped whereeveryone else did. As it was, and out of a desire to be out of the way inorder to carry out his procedures surreptitiously, Sámr stayed away.Hrafnkell, we understand, was camped in the normal place.

Sámr’s pride is much in evidence after Hrafnkell’s defeat. He strutsabout “mjok uppstertr” (117) [much swelled up with pride], though hissuccess is the direct result of Þorgeirr’s support and tactical advice ratherthan his own capabilities. This pride leads Sámr to make the error ofleaving Hrafnkell alive after defeating and torturing him, rather than tofollow Þorgeirr’s advice to kill Hrafnkell (121). Such a course of actionwould not only be demanded by the practical exigencies of the situa-tion, themselves no mean motives in such a situation, but also by thedesire to avenge Einarr and have justice done (Slater 43). Sámr is

— Cleasby-Vigfusson 121 give “vagabond” and “person without hearth or home” asdeWnitions of einhleypingr.


reveling in the enjoyment of his new-found power, and his pride pre-vents him from looking beyond the momentary pleasure to consideringpotential danger in the future. Sámr obviously believes that he will gainmore glory if a defeated Hrafnkell remains alive but inferior to him.…»

Sámr’s short-sighted pride is also the immediate cause of his down-fall. Hrafnkell, after killing Eyvindr, withdraws from Oxamyri intoHrafnkelsdalr. Sámr chases him at some distance but is unable to catchhim before Hrafnkell reaches his own territory. He hesitates to followHrafnkell and decides to return to Aðalból to gather a larger force andattack Hrafnkell the next morning (130). Hrafnkell, however, does notdelay, but goes home only brieXy to eat and get more men, then sets outfor Aðalból and surprises Sámr in bed (131). Hrafnkell’s lack of hesita-tion once the course of action has become clear contrasts sharply withSámr’s careful decision to wait. With the return of Eyvindr from abroadHrafnkell’s strategy of revenge can begin, and he acts promptly.

The Wnal evidence against Sámr comes from Þorgeirr toward the endof the saga. He refuses Sámr’s second plea for help, not only because itis clear to him that Hrafnkell has been the shrewder of the two, but alsobecause Sámr is gæfuleysi (133). This may be understood as meaning thathe is congenitally and irremediably without the gifts or talents be-stowed by fortune. One’s luck or fortune was considered an inherentcharacter trait (Hallberg, “Concept” 153, 155, 156).…… Þorgeirr’s character-ization of Sámr is thus not casual or superWcial as it might be consideredin a society which does not believe in luck, fate, or fortune. It isdamning because it attributes a serious and inborn Xaw to Sámr. Hemust be spurned in order that one’s own fortunes not be aVected by his.Hrafnkell, on the other hand, is the son of Hallfreð, who in the saga’sopening chapter is advised in a dream to move his household away fromhis second farmstead in order to receive “heill þín oll” (97) [all yourgood fortune]. He follows the advice—just in time to avoid a rock-slidewhich destroys his farm. Þorgeirr’s comment thus serves also to pointout a subtle contrast between Hrafnkell’s kin and Sámr’s in terms of this

…» Pace Pálsson, Art and Ethics 55 and Byock 203 who believe Sámr acts out of pity andcompassion for Hrafnkel. It is abundantly clear from the context that Sámr oVersHrafnkel an alternative and Hrafnkel chooses the better part of valor for the sake of hissons (and no doubt anticipating that he will avenge himself on Sámr in the future). Butthe alternative is not oVered out of any concern of Sámr for the well-being of Hrafnkel’sfamily. Kratz 441, 443 sees the situation along the lines I suggest here.…… See also Einar Haugen’s deWnition of gæfumaðr (a man who is the opposite ofgæfuleysi): “one … favored by fate because of his outstanding gifts” (102).


inherent luck.… With Þorkell Þjóstarsson, we come to the third ofHrafnkell’s adversaries, whom Kratz calls a “sympathetically depicted …happy-go-lucky wanderer” (441). Hermann Pálsson (Art and Ethics 55,66) considers him “a man of high moral principles” who “regardsjustice as an absolute duty” and “takes a sympathetic interest in his[Sámr’s] plight” and Byock describes Þorkell as acting “in terms ofchivalric ethics” (200). Bolton, Slater, and Heinemann (“The Heart”)oppose this view, quite correctly discerning the deceit with whichÞorkell operates. It is noteworthy that Þorkell, like the men who Sámrrecruited, is an “einhleypingr” (111). Like the other einhleypingar, Þorkellhas no commitment to the social stability which is the Althing’s func-tion to help preserve. Unlike other einhleypingar, however, Þorkell haswillingly chosen his status. He has surrendered his authority as a goði tohis brother in order to wander abroad unencumbered by responsibili-ties. When Hrafnkell’s enemies hold the court of conWscation, he choosesto remain standing guard over the bound Hrafnkell rather than holdingthe court because, as he says, the former is “starfaminna” (120) [lessarduous]. He is, in other words, of no practical help, perhaps because ofa distaste for responsibility and practical action. He is attracted toÞorbjorn’s cause simply out of a desire for excitement and glory.

His contribution to the conspiracy against Hrafnkell is to put theirrational pride of Sámr and Þorbjorn into alliance with the legal au-thority and practical competence of his brother Þorgeirr. This he attemptsto do by deceit and is Wnally forced to do by threatening to desert hisbrother for another goði.…À The byzantine complexity of the (appar-

… Hrafnkel’s good fortune is continued in his sons (133). Note, on the other hand, the“bad luck” of Sámr’s kinsman, Einarr. After everything has gone well for him, thirty ewesare suddenly lost. All the horses which he is permitted to ride shy away from him, leavinghim with Freyfaxi, and immediately upon his return from riding Freyfaxi in search forthem, the sheep return on their own. Freyfaxi rolls in the dust while sweaty to makehimself look even worse, then gets away from Einarr and runs directly to Aðalból to letHrafnkel know what has happened. Einarr and Sámr both belong, obviously, to the sameunlucky family.…À Both Gordon, (An Introduction 223, n 348) and Pálsson, (Hrafnkel’s Saga 49, n 12) notethat Þorkell’s claim to a third brother who was married to the niece of the widelyrenowned Egill Skallagrimsson is historically incorrect. Is it not possible, since a man sofamous as Egill is named, that this claim is put in neither as the result of ignorance on theauthor’s part nor to deceive the reader, but is intentionally wrong (and obviously so to acontemporary audience knowledgeable in genealogical matters) in order to illustratefrom the Wrst Þorkell’s vain-glory and deceitfulness, and at the same time to portray Sámrand Þorbjorn as “rubes” who are so ignorant that they cannot discern, but rather areimpressed by, the falseness of the claim?


ently) perverse plan in which Þorkell instructs Sámr and Þorbjorn, bynow desperate for help from any quarter, itself reveals the deviousnessand irresponsibility of his character. He does not deal respectfully andcandidly with his brother. The entire explanation which he provides toÞorgeirr for Þorbjorn’s action in wrenching his sore toe is false. Andone would think there might have been a real danger that Þorgeirrwould deal with an intruder in his booth, and one who painfullysurprises him at that, by resorting to his sword. Within the largerframework of deceit, Þorkell lies (or is deceived) when he says thatÞorbjorn could receive no compensation and that Einarr was killed forno reason. When Þorgeirr quite sensibly points out that there is no needfor him to suVer simply because Þorbjorn has, since he had nothing todo with Einarr’s slaying and since Hrafnkell is an extremely diYcult manto deal with in lawsuits, Þorkell appeals to ambition (114–5). He is notparticularly concerned about the outcome of the case. While honor wouldaccrue to the brothers should they succeed in defeating Hrafnkell, nodishonor would attach to them should they fail, since that is the usual fateof men who challenge Hrafnkell. In any event, it is the goði who wouldhave to bear the brunt of failure at law and any consequent disgrace. Thisposition of view has aYnities with Þorbjorn’s earlier statement to Sámrabout his indiVerence about the outcome of prosecuting Hrafnkell (108).

Þorgeirr calls his brother’s bluV by oVering to turn the goðorð over tohim so that Þorkell can do what he wants. Þorkell refuses the oVer andresponds petulantly by threatening to take his loyalties elsewhere (115).He wants the risk involved to be taken by his brother who is the goði,but he also wants to share any renown that may Xow from a successfulprosecution of the case. While Þorgeirr Wnally agrees to help Sámr andÞorbjorn he does so on his own terms after having penetrated Þorkell’sweb of deceit. Þorkell achieves the desired results but is forced to giveup his plan, to resort to playing upon his relationship to his brother, andto threatening the bonds of family.

Hrafnkell’s fourth opponent, Þorgeirr, is quite diVerent from theother three. The saga-writer establishes him as competent, both legallyand practically, to be a worthy opponent of Hrafnkell. Without Þorgeirr’ssupport Sámr and Þorbjorn would not be able to bring their case beforethe Althing and without his tactical guidance their pursuit of Hrafnkellwould be ineVectual. Þorgeirr is introduced as a de facto antagonist ofÞorkell, whom the latter must convince to take Sámr’s case. Þorgeirr’sreply cuts through Þorkell’s elaborately contrived plan, and Þorkell isforced to resort to a plea based on ambition and desire for glory.


Þorgeirr disposes of this plea by oVering Þorkell the goðorð, therebyforcing his brother to plead on the basis of the relationship betweenthem. In the exchange with Þorkell, Þorgeirr is revealed to us as able towithstand the lure of ambition at the same time as he is able to penetrateand obviate his brother’s specious arguments. Þorgeirr Wnally acceptsthe case in order to defuse his brother’s petulance and to prevent thedisruption of his family.

Once he has decided upon what he will do, Þorgeirr, like Hrafnkell,is all action. The responsibility for the management of the case, whichhas rested in one way or another with Þorbjorn, Sámr, and Þorkellsuccessively, Wnally comes to rest with him, and he issues directions tothe others for concrete action. He orders Sámr and Þorbjorn to returnto their booth, keeping silent as to what has been decided (115). He giveslegal advice to Sámr, who prides himself on his legal abilities (118),suggests that they ride to Aðalból by a secret route so as not to bediscovered (118), and that they approach Aðalból from above so as totake Hrafnkell by surprise (118). He runs the court of conWscation (120)after oVering to his brother the opportunity to do so. More crucially, hequestions Sámr as to why he allows Hrafnkell to live (121). By doing sohe reveals his own strategic wisdom, which is of the same practical kindthat Hrafnkell exhibits in slaying Eyvindr.

Yet for all his positive aspects, Þorgeirr is not the saga’s hero. For onething, he is present only in about one-third of the saga, and does notspeak until the saga is almost half over (114). His presence is clearlyovershadowed by Hrafnkell, who remains the object of everyone’sconversation and planning even while he is not personally present in thesaga. Þorgeirr is not a factor in the saga except when actually present.Also, Þorgeirr is the leader of a group of men who carry out the only actof torture recorded in the Family Sagas. As with the others, justice playsno part in Þorgeirr’s motivation even if he is more frank as to his ownmotives (and, by implication, theirs). Þorgeirr’s positive qualities serveto make him a credible legal prosecutor of Hrafnkell. They also validatehis comments at the end of the saga concerning Hrafnkell and Sámr.Þorgeirr is portrayed as competent and discerning in the saga so that hisremarks can be considered by the saga’s audience as legitimate evaluationsof those two men and reliable indications of the author’s own assessmentand sympathies (Halleux 100; Heinemann, “Old Problem” 448).

We see, therefore, that none of Hrafnkell’s adversaries except Þorgeirrare of any particular merit. And Þorgeirr’s role in the saga is too limitedand morally ambiguous for him to be considered as its hero. In their


arresting contrast to Hrafnkell, these characters conWrm our assessmentof Hrafnkell as having the sympathy of the author and meriting that ofthe audience. This favorable view of Hrafnkell is presented throughoutthe saga, and if the saga is read with care and with an understanding ofcontemporary values it is clear that we are not meant to see a develop-ment of Hrafnkell’s character in this saga.

The only real textual basis for the suggestion that we are to seeHrafnkell as a changed man at the saga’s end comes from the statementof the narrator which in many editions reads: “Var nú skipan á komin álund hans” (125) [A change was now come to his mind]. This translationis based, however, on “an unfortunate editorial emendation” (Schach136) changing land to read lund, which has “poor manuscript authority”(Quirk 28). The sentence immediately follows a description of theextent of Hrafnkell’s new þinghá; it precedes a statement that he wasmore vinsælli [popular] than before. Presumably it was this latter state-ment that prompted the emendation. But the next sentence tells us thatHrafnkell had the same gagnsemð [helpfulness] and risnu [generosity]as before (125). By reading the text as frequently emended, one is forcedinto a narrower interpretation than either context or unemended textdemand. If we are now to think that a change has come over Hrafnkellwe would have to read this passage ironically; that is, he was not helpfulor generous before and remains unchanged now, but is neverthelessmore popular—which seems inconsistent. It seems preferable to readthese lines without irony, and accept the fact that Hrafnkell had virtuesbefore, that he retains these, and that he is as well more popular, gentle,and quiet (125). No doubt Hrafnkell is somewhat sobered by his unmer-ited suVering. Reading land, which is present in all mss. but one,follows naturally from what has gone immediately before: A change inthe amount and location of Hrafnkell’s land has indeed come to passsince he was deprived of his former property.

The relative magnanimity of Hrafnkell’s settlement with Sámr oughtnot to be attributed to a change of heart. As we have seen, Hrafnkell’soVer of compensation for Einarr before his so-called “reformation” wasa generous one. Additionally, having avenged himself well by slayingEyvindr, there is no need for Hrafnkell to inXict further damage onSámr. Accordingly, he allows Sámr to return to his former home atLeikskál and to take with him everything he had brought to Aðalból,plus Eyvindr’s goods obtained abroad. Contrasted with the rejection ofHrafnkell’s oVer of compensation, the harsh settlement imposed upon


him, and the torture to which he was subjected, Hrafnkell’s treatmentof Sámr reXects his superior quality as a man. It can also be explained bythe greater honor reXected on Hrafnkell by having Sámr remain aliveonly at his suVerance—a similar motive to that which kept Sámr fromkilling Hrafnkell. In this case, because of Hrafnkell’s greater quality asa man, the motive is not foolishly inappropriate. Hrafnkell is quitesimply better than anyone else in the saga and that is why he triumphsat its end.

What, then, is the object of Hrafnkels saga? If, as I contend, it isintended neither to show how physical adversity leads to moral im-provement, nor to be a medieval, anti-heroic “heart of darkness,” whatis its point? Put simply, Hrafnkels saga demonstrates that men of qual-ity, such as Hrafnkell, cannot be suppressed by those of lesser mettle,like Sámr. Conversely, men like Sámr will not triumph for long overmen of quality: inherent defects in character make it impossible. Thelawsuit against Hrafnkell only succeeds because Sámr is able to make adesperate and totally unforeseeable alliance with an irresponsible andambitious man like Þorkell, who in turn has a brother legally able andpragmatically capable of managing a lawsuit against Hrafnkell and whovalues his relationship with his brother enough to take a risk which allreason opposes. The sheer fortuitousness of the circumstances thatcombine (and must combine) to defeat Hrafnkell emphasizes howtenuous is the case against him, and shows as well that even good menare susceptible to discrete instances of misfortune from time to time.But misfortune of this sort need not be merited (as, we have seen, it isnot with Hrafnkell) and is overcome (as Hrafnkell overcomes it) bymen of truly good quality. The Wnal success of Hrafnkell—the fact thathe dies unmolested, in bed, for example—and the quality of his antago-nists and their tactics, conWrm for us that Hrafnkell is such a man. G. W.Turner (236) describes the plot-shape of Hrafnkels saga as “an unusuallysymmetrical example” of “a double X, a disturbance of a natural order[the downfall of Hrafnkell] followed by its reinstatement [Hrafnkell’scomeback].” Sámr’s triumph and then his defeat are presented as thedisruption of a proper hierarchical balance and its rectiWcation.…Ã Such

…Ã The foregoing is consistent with the Wrst part of what Kratz (440) believes is the“lesson of the work”: “Some men are endowed with greatness and some are not. Thosewho attain a position of power without this greatness [Sámr] will in the long run not beable to sustain their greatness,” and with Hume’s more general observation (600, 605)that sagas customarily conclude with a “return of social equilibrium.”


a view is not a modern, democratic one and may displease us on thataccount, but it is very much the view of a medieval world with ahierarchical conception of the universe and of society, and we mightreasonably expect the author of Hrafnkels saga to be a man of his time.…Õ

…Õ I wish to thank Professors Richard D’Alquen and Christopher Hale, Department ofGermanic Languages, University of Alberta for their advice and encouragement. Thisessay is dedicated to my late father, Ingvald Johansen Aase.


Works Cited

Andersson, Theodore. The Icelandic Family Sagas. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard up, 1967.———. “The Displacement of the Heroic Ideal in the Family Sagas.” Speculum 45 (1970):

575-93.Bolton, W. F. “The Heart of Hrafnkatla.” Scandinavian Studies 43 (1971): 35–52.Bowra, C. M. Heroic Poetry. London: Macmillan, 1966.Brennu-Njáls Saga. Ed. Einar Ól. Sveinsson. Vol. XII Íslenzk Fornrit. Reykjavík: Hið

Íslenzka Fornritafélag, 1954.BredsdorV, Thomas. Kaos og Kærlighed. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1971.Byock, Jesse. Feud in the Icelandic Saga. Berkeley: u California p, 1982.Cherniss, Michael D. Ingeld and Christ. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.Clark, Robert G. “The Sagas of Icelanders as Dramas of the Will.” Proceedings of the First

International Saga Conference (1971). Eds. Peter Foote, et al. London: Viking Soci-ety for Northern Research, 1973. 88–113.

Cleasby, Richard and Gudbrand Vigfusson. An Icelandic-English Dictionary. 2nd ed. rev.Ed. W. A. Craigie Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.

Condren, Edward I. “On Civilizing Hrafnkell” Modern Language Notes 88 (1973): 517–34.Craigie, W. A. The Icelandic Sagas. 1913. Cambridge: Cambridge up, 1933.Einarsson, Stéfan. A History of Icelandic Literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins up, 1957.Ellis Davidson, H. R. Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin,

1964.Hallberg, Peter. “The Concept of gipta- gæfa- hamingja in Old Norse Literature.”

Proceedings of the First International Saga Conference (1971). Eds. Peter Foote, et al.London: The Viking Society for Northern Research, 1973. 143–83.

———. “Hrafnkel Freysgoði the ‘New Man’—A Phantom Problem.” Scandinavian Studies47 (1975): 442–7.

———. “Hunting for the Heart of Hrafnkels saga.” Scandinavian Studies 47 (1975): 463–6.Halldórsson, Óskar. Uppruni og ema Hrafnkels sögu. Reykjavík: Hið islenska bókmennta-

félag, 1976.Hallieux, Pierre. “Hrafnkel’s Character Reinterpreted.” Scandinavian Studies 38 (1966):

36–44.———. “Some Aspects of Style in Hrafnkels Saga.” Scandinavian Studies 38 (1966): 98–101.Haugen, Einar. Rev. of An Introduction to Old Norse, by E. V. Gordon. Scandinavian

Studies 30 (1958): 98–102.“Hávámál.” Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst Verwandten Denkmälern. Ed. Gustav

Neckel. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1962.Heinemann, Frederik J. “Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða and Type-Scene Analysis.” Scandina-

vian Studies 46 (1974): 102–19.———. “Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða: the Old Problem with the New Man.” Scandinavian

Studies 47 (1975): 448–52.———. “The Heart of Hrafnkatla Again.” Scandinavian Studies 47 (1975) 453–62.Heinrichs, Ann. “The Apposition: A Signal for Emotion in Saga-Writing.” Scandinavica

11 (1972): 21–30.Hrafnkel’s Saga and other Icelandic Stories. Trans. Hermann Pálsson. Harmondsworth:

Penguin, 1971.“Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða.” AustWrðinga Sogur, Ed. Jón Jóhannesson. Vol. 11 of Íslenzk

Fornrit. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag, 1950.


Hume, Kathryn: “Beginnings and Endings in the Icelandic Family Sagas.” ModernLanguage Review, 68 (1973): 593–606.

Ker, W. P. Epic and Romance, 1908; rpt. New York: Dover, 1957.Kratz, Henry. “Hrafnkels Saga: Thirteenth-Century Fiction?” Scandinavian Studies 53

(1981): 420–46.Kristjansson, Jónas. Icelandic Sagas and Manuscripts. Reykjavík: Saga, 1970.Lárusson, Magnús Már. “Löskarlar: Island: Lausir men, lausamenn, lausafólk.”

Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk Middelalder. 11:152–3. Copenhagen: Rosenkildeog Bagger, 1966.

Liestøl, Aslak. “Freyfaxi”. Maal og Minne 36 (1945): 59–64.Njál’s Saga. Trans. Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Pálsson. Harmondsworth: Pen-

guin, 1960.Nordal, Sigurður. Hrafnkels Saga Freysgoða: A Study. Trans. R. G. Thomas. CardiV: u

Wales p, 1958.Pálsson, Hermann. Art and Ethics in Hrafnkel’s Saga. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1971.———. “Introduction.” Hrafnkel’s Saga and other Icelandic Stories. Trans. H. Pálsson.

Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971. 7–31.Quirk, Randolph. “Textual Notes on Hrafnkel’s Saga.” London Mediæval Studies 2 (1951):

1–31.Schach, Paul. Icelandic Sagas. Boston: Twayne, 1984.Slater, Anne S. “From Rhetoric and Structure to Psychology in Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða.

Scandinavian Studies 40 (1968): 36–50.Steblin-Kamenskij, M. I. The Saga Mind. Trans. Kenneth H. Ober. Odense: Odense up,

1973.Thomas, R. G. “Men and Society in Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða.” Proceedings of the First

International Saga Conference, (1971). Eds. Peter Foote, et al. London: The VikingSociety for Northern Research, 1973. 411–34.

Turner, G. W. Stylistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.Turville-Petre, E. O. G. Myth and Religion of the North. London: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson, 1964.———. Origins of Icelandic Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953.

Documents

The Hero of Hrafnkels Saga Freysgoða-Jan Geir Johansen