FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR: HEGELIAN TRAGEDY

IN SAGA ICELAND
Christopher Crocker*
Abstract: This article explores some tragic elements in Brennu-Njls saga, a late thirteenth-century Icelandic saga. Although often described as such, there has been little elaborate discussion on precisely why
this and other medieval sagas can be and often are considered tragic literature. Interpreting the saga through
a critical lens drawn from Hegels work on classical and modern tragedies provides a great deal of insight on
this matter. More specifically, such a reading addresses just how Flosi rarson, the leading perpetrator of
one of the most villainous deeds in all of saga literature, emerges not as a villain but as a sympathetic and
perhaps even heroic character. This reading also reveals not only a great deal about the subtle artistry with
which Flosis character is drawn, but also some key insight towards the unity of the saga as a whole.
Keywords: Old Norse literature, Flosi rarson, Brennu-Njls saga, tragedy, Hegel, Iceland, sagas, blood
feud, law, narrative.

Antigone: If you help me help me lift the corpse

Ismene: Kreon says unlawful to do so
Antigone: Antigone says unholy not to1

This exchange between two sisters succinctly outlines the corporeal dilemma upon
which Sophokless Antigone is centered. The sisters brothers have died battling one
another in a civil war over the city of Thebes and its new ruler Kreon has declared that
Eteokles will be honored in death while Polyneikess body will lie unsanctified and
unburied in shame, sweet sorrymeat for the little lusts of birds.2 Antigones and
Kreons respective and contradictory intentions towards the fate of Polyneikess
corpse epitomize the conflict that characterizes the play: Kreons bearing his obligation to the law of the state, i.e., ethical life in its spiritual universality, and
Antigones to that of her family, i.e., natural ethical life.3 Widely counted among the
greatest of the classical Greek tragedies, in the early part of the nineteenth century
Hegel considered Sophokless play the most magnificent and satisfying work of art of
this kind.4
Classical tragedies, however, fail to lay sole claim to the descriptors tragedy or
tragic, and indeed the medieval Icelandic sagas have often been described in such
terms by specialists and lay readers alike. The poet Ted Hughes, for example, described the sagas as one of the great bodies of literature in the Worlds history. The
most realistic, bleakest, most formidable tragedies that any group of men have ever put
together.5 Such sentiments often appear within an unspecified context or lacking
*

Faculty of Icelandic and Comparative Cultural Studies, University of Iceland, Smundargtu 2, 101
Reykjavik, Iceland, cew1@hi.is.
1
Sophokles, Antigonick, trans. Anne Carson (Tarset 2012) 3.
2
Ibid. 23.
3
Hegel, G. W. F., Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, trans. T. M. Knox, vol. 2 (Oxford 1975) 1213.
4
Ibid. vol. 2, 1218. Aristotle, on the other hand, insisted that Euripides, even if he does not arrange
other details well, is at least found the most tragic of poets Poetics, ed. and trans. Stephen Halliwell (Cambridge, MA 1995) 73.
5
Hughes, Ted. Ted Hughes introduces Thor Vilhjalmsson at the ICA (7 June 1996),
http://ann.skea.com/ThorVilhjalmsson.htm. Presumably, Hughes is referring to the slendingasgur, the
sagas of Icelanders or Icelandic family sagas, the most popular sub-genre of medieval Icelandic saga literature, whichit should be notedis just one of several such sub-genres constructed by modern scholars
Viator 46 No. 1 (2015) 181202. 10.1484/J.VIATOR.5.103506

182

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

much elaboration, although it is unlikely that they are made at the expense of any
other particular work or body of works, including Sophokless Antigone. Questions
nevertheless remain concerning the relationship between medieval Icelandic sagas and
classical tragedies that such claims seem to imply, not least of which includes just
what outside of its classical conception might constitute a tragedy or the tragic in a
particular literary work? On what terms can the sagas be considered tragic literature?
And, what insight can be gained through an exploration of the tragic qualities of any
particular medieval Icelandic saga? In that which follows a close examination of some
of the tragic qualities of one particular saga, Brennu-Njls saga, and, more specifically, its tragic expression through the story of one of its central, and yet notably
perhaps necessarilyenigmatic characters, the chieftain Flosi rarson will address
these issues.
Flosis story is that of an esteemed chieftain that leads a band of men to commit
what seems to be the most villainous act in the saga, and perhaps the most infamous in
all of saga literaturethe burning referenced in the sagas title Brennu-Njls saga
(The saga of Njll of the Burning).6 Flosi is, however, seemingly never counted
amongst the most villainous characters in the saga, and has even been considered
amongst its most heroic.7 Although scholars have frequently acknowledged this somewhat unconventional or even paradoxical aspects of Flosis character, it has often been
noted only insofar as it is deemed useful in helping to uncover the identity of the
anonymous author of the saga.8 In those instances wherein the tragic elements of
Flosis story have been discussed at greater length, it remains that they are often
simply and brusquely mentioned, garnering much less attention that the tragic aspect
of both Gunnarrs and Njlls respective stories, and within the terms of a good man
having been compelled to undertake an evil deed. This is of course a fitting description
of Flosis story as a whole, but may be misleading in that it fails to acknowledge the
many dimensions of his torturous and ultimately tragic dilemma, and overlooks the
painstaking artistry with which this aspect of his story is dramatized leading up to the
rather than the authors/compilers of the works themselves. For further reading on these generic distinctions
and their medieval counterparts, wherein terms such as visaga, and lfssaga were likely used to describe
literary categories quite different from their modern generic counterparts, see Lars Lnnroth, Tesen om de
tv kulturerna: Kritiska studier i den islndska sagaskrivningens sociala frutsttningar, Scripta Islandica
15 (1964) 197; Joseph Harris, Genre in the Saga Literature: A Squib, Scandinavian Studies 47 (1975)
427436; and Preben Meulengracht Srensen, Fortlling og re. Studier i islndingesagaerne (Aarhus
1993) 3351.
6
References to the Brennu-Njls saga follow Einar lafur Sveinssons edition in the slenzk fornrit series, Brennu-Njls saga, slenzk fornrit XII, ed. Einar lafur Sveinsson (Reykjavk 1954); and the
corresponding translations are my own.
7
Robert Cook, Heroes and Heroism in Njls saga, Greppaminni: Rit til heiurs Vsteini lasyni
sjtugum, ed. Margart Eggertsdttir et al. (Reykjavk 2009) 8384.
8
Focusing less on how, scholars seeking to determine why Flosis character is drawn in the considerably
balanced way that it is generally draw connections between the author of Brennu-Njls saga and the
Svnfellingar familyin particular the 13th-c. magnate orvarr rarinssonthat was associated with
Flosis farmstead at Svnafell during the Sturlung period (1220ca. 1262/1264), and, presumably, during or
shortly prior to the period in which the saga was first written down. For further reading with regard to the
possible connection between the authorship of Brennu-Njls saga and the Svnfellingar, see Bari
Gumundsson, Hfundur Njlu: Safn ritgera (Reykjavk 1958) 191; Lars Lnnroth, Njls saga: A Critical Introduction (Berkeley 1976) 174187; and Hermann Plsson, Uppruni Njlu og hugmyndir (Reykjavk
1984) 97112.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

183

burning and indeed to the very close of the saga. As indicated above, however, it
seems apt to preface such an exploration with a brief discussion on the subject of tragedy to provide proper context for the subsequent analysis, which will prove essential
in understanding the full parameters of Flosis tragedy, although not in the hope of
searching out a concrete and exclusive definition, but rather to perhaps illuminate
something of a core common, by some degree, to all tragic literature.
WHEN TWO WORLDS COLLIDE
In his Poetics, an all but necessary starting point in any discussion of tragedy or the
tragic, Aristotle seems to have formulated the earliest extant attempt to outline generic
divisions amongst literary works, specifically outlining the essential characteristics of
three genres: epic, tragedy and comedy.9 However, due to the incidental loss of his
commentary on comedy, and an inclination to render his treatment of the epic as
subordinate to that of tragedy, Aristotles Poetics is primarily a treatise on classical
tragic drama.10 In this work, Aristotle describes what he considers to be the six necessary components of a tragic dramaplot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and
lyric poetry11but as prescriptive as such a model might seem, his analysis is no less
descriptive and refuses to yield a firm definition of the essence of tragedy, addressing
rather the circumstances under which it becomes a possibility. From these components
Aristotle attempts to describe the kind of elevated action towards a reversal of fortune that tragedy requires, hinging upon some certain hamartia (error), which embraces all the ways in which human vulnerability, at its extremes, exposes itself not
through sheer, arbitrary misfortune but through the erring involvement of tragic
figures in their own sufferings.12 Aristotle concludes, however, that each of the necessary components of tragic drama, along with the reversal of fortune by way of an error
that tragedy requires, remain in service to the necessary and sufficient effect of tragedy, that is, the arousal of both pity and fear in its audience, an experience that should
ultimately prove both fulfilling and pleasurable.13 In essence, in Aristotles estimation,
tragedy is characterized by certain kinds of feelingsboth pity and feargenerated
by instances of suffering, and which are perhaps not inherently tragic but are rather
rendered such according to their relationship with a particular kind of action.14
Considering its early provenance, it is perhaps surprising that the lasting impact of
Aristotles Poetics was not strongly felt until more than a millennium after its
composition, seemingly only reaching any widely tangible degree of influence during
the renaissance, continuing though through the enlightenment, and into the modern
period. However, despite its lengthy period of incubation, Aristotles work on tragedy
forms the cornerstone on which a great number of philosophers and critics have based
9
See Stephen Halliwell Introduction to Poetics, ed. and trans. Stephen Halliwell (Cambridge, MA
1995) 3.
10
For further reading regarding Aristotles possible views on comedy in relation to the 10th-c. Tractatus
Coislinianus, see Richard Janko, Aristotle on Comedy: Towards a Reconstruction of Poetics II (London
1984).
11
Aristotle, Poetics (n. 9 above) 49.
12
Halliwell, Introduction (n. 9 above) 17.
13
Aristotle, Poetics (n. 9 above) 75.
14
A. C. Bradley, Hegels Theory of Tragedy Oxford Lectures on Poetry (London 1959) 70.

184

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

their own subsequent studies of tragic dramatic literature. The nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. Hegel, for example, entered upon one of the most searching of
such analyses with his own penetrative study of tragic literature, the fruits of which
will in fact prove constructive in illuminating some of the more tragic elements in
Flosis story.15
Contrary to Aristotles analysis, which focused primarily on tragedys most potent
means of emotional effect16that is, upon the fear and pity that tragedy draws forth
from its audiencein his Aesthetics Hegel rather sought to determine the structure of
tragic literature.17 In his estimation a certain kind of action constitutes its essence,
which arises on account of a particular sort of conflict or opposition in which each of
the opposed sides, if taken by itself, has justification; while each can establish the true
and positive content of its own aim and character only by denying and infringing the
equally justified power of the other.18
In other words, Hegel contends that tragic literature necessitates a kind of conflict
of powers rightfully claiming human allegiance and tragedy arises whereupon the
observance of one should involve the violation of the other.19 In his estimation the
rightness or justification of such conflicting powers should not be considered
indicative of their particular moral qualities, but rather as a reflection of their respective self-justification in claiming some degree of rightful human allegiance. It is thus
the violation that arises from their opposition that creates the tragic fact in a piece of
literature, which is a conflict staged between competing rights rather than between
right and wrong.20
Such is the case, Hegel demonstrates, in Sophokless Antigone, wherein Kreons
command that Polyneikes, who had risen up against the state of Thebes, remain unburied contains an essential justification, provision for the welfare of the entire city. He
likewise contends, however, that Antigone is animated by an equally ethical power,
her holy love for her brother, whom she cannot leave unburied, a prey of the birds.21
Each aim is deemed rightful in itself in claiming human allegiance, but when seized
upon wholly by Kreon and Antigone in the circumstance of Polyneikess death, their
difference becomes perverted into opposition and collision,22 which constitutes the
tragic fact of Sophokless drama.
15
Some of Hegels thoughts on tragedy appear in two of his most famous works, Phnomenologie des
Geistes (Phenomenology of Spirit) and Vorlesungen ber die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte (Lectures on
the History of Philosophy), but they are perhaps most clearly and comprehensively expressed in his
Vorlesungen ber die sthetik (Lectures on Aesthetics or Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts). Hegels Aesthetics is nevertheless a somewhat problematic text in its own right. First published in 1835, four years after
Hegels death, the published work is based upon the authors own manuscript notes along with transcripts of
lectures given in Berlin and Heidelberg during the years 1823, 1826, and 18281829. The editor of the
original text, H. G. Hotho, claimed to have kept as close as possible to Hegel, but T. M. Knoxthe translator of the English editionnotes, his aim was to produce a continuous text, and this means that we cannot
be sure in detail whether some of the phraseology is his (rather than Hegels), or whether inconsistencies are
due to Hegels changes of mind after 1823; Translators Preface to Aesthetics, vol. 1 (n. 3 above) vi.
16
Aristotle, Poetics (n. 9 above) 5153.
17
Mark W. Roche, Introduction to Hegels Theory of Tragedy PhaenEx 1 (2006) 14.
18
Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 2 (n. 3 above) 1196.
19
Bradley, Hegels Theory (n. 14 above) 71, 75.
20
Rita Felski, Introduction to Rethinking Tragedy, ed. Rita Felski (Baltimore 2008) 7.
21
Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 1 (n. 3 above) 221.
22
Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 2 (n. 3 above) 1196.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

185

Hegels understanding of the essential elements of classical tragedies may prove

illuminating beyond collisions of the particular ethical powers that appear in Antigone,
or in other classical works. In fact, A. C. Bradley contends that it is just one greatness
of modern art that it has shown the tragic fact in situations hav[ing] not the peculiar
effectiveness of the conflicts preferred by Hegel, but they may have an equal effectiveness peculiar to themselves.23 If this is so then it is perhaps reasonable to consider
that a medieval Icelandic saga is capable of the same, though likewise in its own peculiar way. Moreover, Hegels own understanding of modern tragedy should not be
overlooked as it carries particular significance in the discussion of Flosis tragic story
in Brennu-Njls saga that follows below.
In this respect, Hegel sought to outline what he considered to be the key difference
between ancient and modern conceptions of tragedy, explaining that
The heroes of Greek classical tragedy are confronted by circumstances in which, after firmly
identifying themselves with the one ethical pathos which alone corresponds to their already
established nature, they necessarily come into conflict with the opposite but equally justified
ethical power. The romantic dramatis personae, on the other hand, are from the beginning in
the midst of a wide field of more or less accidental circumstances and conditions within
which it is possible to act either in this way or that.24

Although public or universal interests may provide the occasion for conflicts in modern tragic literature, they are scarcely more than background for the real subject,
which entails a similarly tragic collision within an individuals consciousness, the depiction of a personal struggle with his circumstances and over difficulties in his own
nature.25 This kind of internalized collision is far removed from the principled conflict
between Sophokles resolute Kreon and self-assured Antigone. Reading Flosis story
in Brennu-Njls saga through this interpretive lens, however, presents a different case
in that precisely such an internalized struggle is an elemental factor and perhaps even
the prevailing aspect of his characterization in the saga. In fact, Flosis tragic story in
Brennu-Njls saga is presented in a way that seems to underline the purpose with
which he undertakes many of his seemingly inevitable actions, the latter of which can
thus rather be regarded as the result of certain torturous and laborious processes that
come to define his character. An investigation of the tragic elements of Flosis story,
given his pivotal role in the latter half of the saga, also proves crucial in interpreting
several key events within the sequence that centres upon the burning at Bergrshvll,
and is also perhaps a key to gain an understanding of the unity of the saga as a whole
and its universal message. More than this, however, such a reading belies the notion
that Flosi is nothing more than a simple cog in the preordained and interminable
machinations of various legal and feuding patterns, illuminating an important aspect of
the subtle artistry with which Brennu-Njls saga was composed.

23

Bradley, Hegels Theory (n. 14 above) 87.

Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 2 (n. 3 above) 1226.
25
Bradley, Hegels Theory (n. 14 above) 77; Roche, Introduction (n. 17 above) 16.
24

186

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

A DEATH IN THE FAMILY

Brennu-Njls saga, generally considered to have been written roughly two decades
after the fall of the Icelandic commonwealth (ca. 1280),26 is a sprawling work, populated by a dizzying array of characters. Including women and men, young and old,
locals and foreigners, slaves, farmers and chieftains, many of these characters are
elsewhere historically documented while others are attested in, and perhaps fashioned
for this work alone. Its events and settings range from the private proceedings of local
farmsteadsmostly in the south of Icelandto watershed moments at the national
assembly or alingi, covering an expansivethough by no means exhaustivespectrum of medieval Icelandic society. In addition to this the saga also features several
European kings and various other noble men and women, reporting upon a number of
eventful forays through the royal courts of continental Europe, conflicts within certain
of these kingdoms, and even vast clashes amongst their leaders. This juxtaposition
seems to foster a deep-seated connection between the provincial concerns of Icelandic
farmers and chieftains and the grand stage of monumental and watershed international
affairs.27 Yet the title of this far-reaching saga refers specifically to the arsonous
destruction of a single farmstead at Bergrshvll in Landeyjar, along the south coast
of Iceland. Long before the fire is ever lit, however, the seeds of this tragic cataclysm
are cultivated and begin to sprout.
In the early part of the saga, for example, one of its chief villains, Mrr
Valgarsson, plots the downfall of Gunnarr of Hlarendi. Amidst their conflict Njll
defends the paramount importance of the legal system in resolving such disputes,
stating proverbially that me lgum skal land vrt byggja, en me lgum eya
(with law our land is built, but with lawlessness squandered).28 A subsequent legal
settlement, however, fails to hinder Gunnarrs adversaries from once again seeking
revenge and they waste no time in contriving another attempt on his life. Gunnarr survives their attack but is subsequently sentenced to a three year period of exile. He accepts the sentence but later changes his mind at the last moment, and refusing to leave
the country he is soon after slain during an ambush on his home. Njlls avowed faith
in the legal system is not necessarily undermined in the eventual outcome of this sequence, although this does appear to be an early indication of its limits, a notion that
looms large over Flosis tragic story. It seems clear in any case that not all share the
same faith nor are they willing to adhere as firmly to the law as Njll prescribes here.
26

This article will neither delve into particular issues concerning the dating of Brennu-Njls saga, nor
those of authorship (see n. 8 above), which have each been dealt with at great length elsewhere and have
little or no bearing upon the discussion nor the conclusions presented in that which follows. For further
reading on the dating of Brennu-Njls saga, see Einar lafur Sveinsson, Formli to Brennu-Njls saga (n.
6 above) lxxvlxxxiv.
27
Richard F. Allen, Fire and Iron: Critical Approaches to Njls saga (Pittsburgh 1971) 159; Theodore
Andersson, The Growth of the Medieval Icelandic Sagas (11801280) (Ithaca and London 2006) 200.
28
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 172. Various forms of this proverb are known throughout the Nordic
countries, and, in addition to its appearance in Brennu-Njls saga, it also appears in varying forms in several
medieval Nordic legal texts, notably in Frostaingslg and in Jrnsa (Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above)
172173 n. 6. Furthermore, this proverb is reminiscent of orsteinns remark in slendingabk (The Book of
Icelanders) upon declaring that the country should be Christianized, stating that, at mun vera satt, er vr
sltum sundr lgin, at vr munum slta ok friinn; slendingabk. Landnmabk, slenzk fornrit I, ed.
Jakob Benediktsson (Reykjavk 1968) 17. (It is certain that if we tear down the laws then we tear down the
peace as well.)

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

187

Indeed it soon becomes clear, that even Njlls reliance upon the rule of established
law is perhaps not as unflinching as he seems to suggest, at least not to the point where
he is unable or unwilling to manipulate the legal system to suit his own purposes.
Njlls words, however, remain an expression of one of the most important institutions
and powers in the saga and an integral component of Flosis tragic story, which is the
legal system, fallible though it may ultimately prove.
Indeed, a time later when Njll puts forth a marriage proposal on his foster-son
Hskuldr rinssons behalf, Hildigunnr, the object of Hskuldrs affection, refuses at
first and tells her uncle Flosi rarson that she will marry Hskuldr only if he acquires a goor (chieftainship). Accepting the terms Njll discovers that no chieftain
is willing to sell his goor, and so when the Alingi convenes he contrives a plan to
stall the courts, following which he suggests that a kind of appellant court, the
Fimmtardmr (fifth court), be established to resolve the matter. Under this plan several new goors are needed and one is granted to Hskuldr at Njlls behest. The
establishment of the fifth court is perhaps an innovative and sorely needed change to
the legal system and Hskuldrs equanimity, his legal acumen and respect for the law
render him well suited for his new position. The focus in this episode, however, that is
placed upon Njlls manufacture and exploitation of an artificially induced crisis to
bring about its institution cannot be overlooked. Njlls crafty, yet somewhat underhanded legal manoeuvre in obtaining Hskuldrs goor is indeed the direct precedent
for the feud that culminates in the burning. This ill-fated courtship also notably serves
as Flosis introduction into the saga and as a prelude to his tragic story.29
Like Sophokles Antigone, the tragedy in Flosis story is also hinged upon the appearance of a corpse. In this case, Hskuldr is slain one evening by Njlls sons, along
with Kri Slmundarsson and the aforementioned Mrr Valgarsson, the latter of
whom goaded the others into action. Hildigunnr soon after wakes to find her husband
missing, ominously remarking Harir hafa draumar verit ok eigi gir, ok leiti r at
honum Hskuldi (My dreams have been difficult, not good, and you go look for
Hskuldr).30 The members of the household search in vain, and only after dressing
and entering the garden do they discover her husbands lifeless body. Hildigunnr proceeds to remove his cloak, which was a gift from Flosi, and, using it to wipe the blood
29
A number of the earliest saga scholars posited that Brennu-Njls saga, in its extent form, came about
from the act of merging two existing, independent sagas: the no longer extant *Gunnars saga and *Njls
saga; see Einar lafur Sveinsson, Um Njlu (Reykjavk 1933) 812. There is, however, no hard evidence to
support the existence of these independent sagas, although Lars Lnnroth, Structural Divisions in the Njla
Manuscripts, Arkiv fr nordisk filologi 90 (1975) 6970, has noted that in the oldest manuscript versions of
the saga the episode concerning the conversion begins with an extra large initial, perhaps suggesting something of a willful bifurcation of the work. If a recent exchange between Daniel Svborg, Konsten att lsa
sagor: om tolkningen av troskiftets betydelse i Njls saga, Gripla 22 (2011) 181209, and Lnnroth, Att
lsa Njls saga: svar till Daniel Svborg, Gripla 23 (2012) 367374, provides any indication, the question
of an apparent two-fold division of Brennu-Njls saga is still very much a bone of contention amongst saga
scholars. The discussion that follows below, however, is hinged neither upon the existence nor non-existence of any such division, structural or otherwise, and the conclusions that are based upon and perhaps even
provide evidence of the saga, in the words of Einar lafur Sveinsson, as ein listarheild (Um Njlu, v) (a
single artistic whole).
30
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 282. There is a palpably firm connection between dreaming and death
in much of medieval Icelandic literature, and Brennu-Njls saga proves no exception; see Christopher
Crocker, To Dream is to Bury: Dreaming of Death in Brennu-Njls saga, Journal of English and Germanic Philology (forthcoming 2015).

188

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

from his wounds, gathers it together with all of his clotted blood and places it for safekeeping inside a chest.
The fine detail in which the narrator describes Hildigunnrs preservation, not only
of Hskuldrs cloak, but also his blood is indicative of the important role that the
blood-soaked garment will come to play later in the saga, and of the grave repercussions that are certain to issue from his slaying. When the news of Hskuldrs death
reaches Flosi it is said that fr honum at mikillar hyggju ok reii, ok var hann
vel stilltr (he was very concerned by it and angry, although he was well composed).31
Flosis ability to keep his emotions in check and to remain jovial in trying circumstances is emphasized and even remarked upon in a number of instances later in the
saga,32 although, as it later becomes apparent, he is not always capable of presenting
such a well composed and reserved disposition in the most trying of circumstances.
Flosi is, however, keen to gather support for the pending legal suit against the killers, and throughout his journey to secure allies the tension is flagrant. When he arrives
at Hfabrekka he remarks to orgrmr skrauti, at hefir n vst at hndum borit, at
ek mynda gefa til mnu eigu, at etta hefi eigi fram komit; er ok illu korni sit orit,
enda mun illt af gra (Certainly it now has come to pass that which I would have
given everything I own to avoid; when an evil seed is sown, evil will grow from it).
Flosis next stop is at Runlfr lfssons farm, whereupon Runlfr states, Ekki arf
at orum at fegra: hann hefir meir en saklauss veginn verit, ok er hann llum mnnum harmdaui, ok ykkir engum jafnmikit sem Njli, fstra hans (There is no need
to mince words: [Hskuldr] was more than innocent at his death, and he is mourned by
everyone and by no one so much as Njll, his foster-father). The two men then speak
of the legal case against Njlls sons and Kri, somewhat strangely taken up by Mrr
Valgarsson, although such dubious behaviour is entirely fitting with his character.
Runlfr then delivers an impassioned plea that Flosi gefir r reii ok takir at upp, at
minnst vandri hljtisk af, v at Njll mun g bo bja ok arir inir beztu menn
(give rest to his anger and continue on in the least troublesome way since Njll will
make a good offer and so will the best other men). Flosi then departs from the farm
with the following equivocal parting words: R til ings, Runlfr, ok skulu mikit
stoa or n vi mik, nema til verra dragi um en vera skyldi (Ride to the assembly,
Runlfr, and your words will carry great weight with me, unless things turn out worse
than they should).33
The dialogue between the two men is an overt and powerful expression of the ominous shadow that the slaying has spread over the entire region. In terms of the emotional impact of the scene, Runlfrs anguish over the guiltless Hskuldrs death is
matched only by his fear of a misstep in the prosecution of the case against the killers.
Flosi appears considerably content to follow Runlfrs plea to settle the matter with
Njll, although he also indicates that other powers might arise to derail the longed for
resolution. Not content to linger upon this puzzling remark, the narrator quickly shifts
the focus, stating that Flosi rei aan Ossab (from there Flosi rode on to Ossa31

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 287.

Ibid. 240241, 342, 419, 444, and 461.
33
Ibid. 288289.
32

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

189

br),34 to Hildigunnrs farm, and into what Carol Clover considers one of the most
vividly emotional scenes in all of saga literature.35
The scene opens as Hildigunnr is preparing for Flosis arrival and orders that the
ndvegi (high-seat) be set out for him. It turns out that the tension that presided over
his visit to Runlfrs farm is not soon relieved on Flosis departure, not least on account of his dubious parting words, and it is in fact reiterated in the stark contrast between Hildigunnrs effusive greeting upon Flosis arrival and his abrupt response:
Hildigunnr sneri at honum ok mlti: Kom heill ok sll, frndi, ok er n fegit hjarta
mitt tilkvmu inni. Flosi mlti: Hr skulu vr eta dagver ok ra san
(Hildigunnr turned to him and said: Greetings and welcome, uncle, your arrival
brings joy to my heart. Flosi said: We will eat dinner here and then ride on).36
Relations between the two continue to grow less harmonious as Flosi first casts aside
the high-seat and then a hand-towel full of holes, rather tearing a piece of fabric from
the tablecloth to clean his hands. Hildigunnr then turns to Flosi, brushes her hair from
her eyes and begins to weep, upon which Flosi says,
Skapungt er r n, frndkona, er grtr, en er at vel, at grtr gan mann.
Hvert eptirmli skal ek n af r hafa ea liveizlu? segir hon. Flosi mlti: Skja mun
ek ml itt til fullra laga ea veita til eira stta, er gir menn sj, at vr sm vel smir af
alla stai. Hon mlti: Hefna mundi Hskuldr n, ef hann tti eptir ik at mla. Flosi
svarai: Eigi skortir ik grimmleik, ok st er, hvat vill.37
(You are in sorrow now, my niece, you are weeping, but it is well that you weep over a good
man. What action or support will I have from you now? she says. Flosi said: I will pursue your case to the full extent of the law or stand by the terms as good men see it so that we
would be honored in all respects. She said: Hskuldr would avenge you if he had been
obliged. Flosi answered: Youre not short on cruelty, and it is clear what you want.)

Hildigunnr then recalls a killing, one that is mentioned only here in the saga, that Flosi
and his brothers had apparently undertaken for what she considers a much lesser offence, but Flosi continues to deflect her call to arms.
The final curtain on Hildigunnrs performance, however, has yet to fall, and its
closing act begins in a devastating fashion when,
Hildigunnr gekk fram skla ok lauk upp kistu sinni; tk hon upp skikkjuna, er Flosi
hafi gefit Hskuldi, ok eiri hafi Hskuldr veginn verit, ok hafi hon ar varveitt
34

Ibid. 289.
Carol Clover, Hildigunnrs Lament, Cold Counsel: Women in Old Norse Literature and Mythology,
ed. Sarah M. Anderson with Karen Swenson (New York and London 2002) 15; repr. from Structure and
Meaning in Old Norse Literature: New Approaches to Textual Analysis and Literary Criticism, ed. John
Lindow, Lars Lnnroth, and Gerd Wolfgang Weber (Odense 1986) 141183.
36
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 290. Although the term frndi is translated here as uncleto suggest both the honor and the affection with which Hildigunnr appears to address Flosiand is commonly
translated as kinsman, its precise meaning is perhaps even less hinged upon blood ties. Earlier in the saga,
for example, Skarphinn addresses Gunnarr with the term when he asks the latter during a hestvg (horse
fight), Villt , at ek keyra hest inn, Gunnarr frndi? (Brennu-Njls saga [n. 6 above] 150) (Do you
want me to drive [urge, or prick on] your horse, Gunnarr frndi?). There is no known blood relation between the two men, and, as noted by Sveinsson, Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 150 n. 3, in this case the
term seems to indicate a special brand of friendship rather than a true blood relation.
37
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 290291.
35

190

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

blit allt. Hon gekk innar stofuna me skikkjuna. Hon gekk egjandi at Flosa. var
Flosi mettr ok fram borit af borinu. Hildigunnr lagi yfir Flosa skikkjuna; duni
blit um hann allan. Hon mlti : essa skikkju gaft , Flosi, Hskuldi, ok gef ek r n
aptr. Var hann ok essi veginn. Skt ek v til gus ok gra mann, at ek sri ik fyrir alla
krapta Krists ns ok fyrir manndm ok karlmennsku na, at hefnir allra sra eira, er
hann hafi sr dauum, ea heit hvers manns ningr ella.38
(Hildigunnr went into a room and opened up her chest; then she took up the cloak, which
Flosi had given to Hskuldr, and in which he had been killed, and with which she had gathered all the blood. She went back into the hall with the cloak. She quietly walked up to Flosi.
Then Flosi had finished eating and the table had been cleared. Then Hildigunnr laid the cloak
over Flosi and the blood rushed down over him. Then she said: You gave this cloak, Flosi,
to Hskuldr and now I give it back. He wore this when he was killed. I ask God and good
men to witness that I urge you by the power of your Christ and your manliness and valour to
avenge each of the wounds that led to his death, or else be reckoned of each man a
ningr.)39

In response to Hildigunnrs performance, Flosi lays bare the anger, dread and fear that
he had thus far avoided or had at least been able to considerably subdue when he,
kastai af sr skikkjunni ok rak fang henni ok mlti: ert it mesta fora ok vildir, at vr
tkum at upp, er llum oss gegnir verst, ok eru kld kvenna r. Flosa br sv vi, at hann
var andliti stundum raur sem bl, en stundum flr sem gras, en stundum blr sem hel.40
(cast off the cloak and threw it at her and said: You are the biggest kind of monster and
want us to choose the course worst for all of us, and womens counsel is cold. Flosi was so
moved that his face was sometimes as red as blood, sometimes as pale as grass, sometimes
as blue as hell.)

Flosi and his men then go for their horses and promptly ride off without further comment, drawing an abrupt close to this powerful scene.
As noted above, not long after Flosi had first heard of Hskuldrs death, he metaphorically spoke of an evil seed that had been sown, and of the evil crop that will
sprout from it. His remark was of course considerably suggestive of the dire consequences of the killing, but remained somewhat enigmatic with regard to its particular
referent. During his subsequent visit to Runlfrs farmstead, the alternative to pursuing
either a legal judgement or settlement in resolving Hskuldrs slaying is never mentioned outright, but its unwelcome consequences are perhaps inferred through
Runlfrs impassioned plea that Flosi accept a offer from Njll, and also in the disquieting tone of Flosis parting words. At Ossabr, however, Hildigunnr makes it abun38

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 291.

According to Bernt yvind Thorvaldsen, The Ningr and the Wolf, Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 7 (2011) 171, the term ningr is used to refer to an abhorrent person who is devoid of honour and
disrespects the basic norms of society. The same charge or its variants appear several times in the saga. The
mother of Njlls illegitimate son, Hrn, for example, compels her brother Ingjaldr to refrain from helping
Flosi in seeking revenge against Njll, calling him almikill ningr (the greatest ningr). Ingjaldr, however, refuses to further comply with her plea to reveal Flosis plans to Njll, stating that em ek hvers
manns ningr, ef ek segi at, er eir tru mr til (Brennu-Njls saga [n. 6 above] 319) (then everyone
would call me ningr if I revealed that which they entrusted to me). For further reading on the concept of
n and the connotations of the term ningr in medieval Icelandic literature, see Preben Meulengracht
Srensen, The Unmanly Man: Concepts of Sexual Defamation in Early Northern Society, trans. Joan Turville-Petre (Odense 1983).
40
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 291292.
39

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

191

dantly clear just what the alternative is, and her dramatic call for blood vengeance is
one that Flosi appears to anticipate and to loath, his feelings expressed both verbally
and through a jarring somatic display. Culminating with his visit to Ossabr, in this
sequence there is a clear amplification that works to heighten the acute tension in
which Flosi finds himself utterly mired, notably through the escalating details of each
encounter, and also notably though the increasing intensity of Flosis verbal and emotional responses.
Contrary to early notions that the medieval Icelandic sagas constitute a body of
coldly unemotional literature, recent scholarship has shed light on the particular emotional vocabulary of the sagas, and the fact that they often are tense with emotion
barely repressed, all the more moving to the reader because they are not obsessed upon
or talked about.41 The emotions that Flosi appears to manage and subdue on first
receiving the news of Hskuldrs death seem to grow in their intensity as he moves
further west, deeper into Landeyjar, and closer to the site of the slaying. They are finally unleashed in full measure in response to Hildigunnrs dramatic performance
when the once repressed becomes irrepressible, a gradual shift from control to chaos,
which renders the sequence all the more moving. In addition, the mounting fear of a
resolution that would seem anything but peaceful is growing as the forces that come to
define the tragedy in Flosis story, the rule of law and Hildigunnrs call for blood
vengeance, are gradually yet profoundly laid bare.
It is important to note, however, that for all of his outrage, Flosi neither explicitly
accepts nor rejects Hildigunnrs call for blood vengeance. Instead he rides away from
Ossabr hastily and continues his mission to gather allies, even rebuking Grani
Gunnarsson and Lambi Sigursson when they soon make a similar demand. The tension nevertheless remains high when the two partiesFlosis and Njllsmeet at the
Alingi, and all indications point towards a failure to come to an amicable agreement
until Hallr of Sa, Flosis father-in-law, finally convinces his Flosi to accept an arbitrated settlement for the killing. Once again, the importance in resolving the case
peacefully, not only for the families involved, but for society as a whole is emphasized
in the lengthy description of and the number of important individuals that take part in
the mediating process. The abundant relief and self-satisfaction of the actors that work
to settle the issue, however, are not the only emotions that surface at the Alingi. The
scene is by no means colored in a purely positive light and only seems to darken as the
proceedings continue on to their strange and disastrous close.
After the compensation has been decided it is said that Njll akkai eim
gerina. Skarpheinn st hj ok agi ok glotti vi (Njll thanked them for the arbitration. Skarpheinn stood to the side and was silent and grinned). Njll then adds
silkislur (a silken garment) and a pair of boots to the arbitrated compensation for
reasons untold and asks his sons to do nothing to spoil the agreement, upon which
Skarpheinn strauk um ennit ok glotti mti (Skarpheinn stroked his forehead and
grinned in response).42 It is unclear precisely why Skarpheinn reacts this way in either instance, although in the sagas grinning or laughing is not always a sign of joy or
41
William Ian Miller, Emotions and the sagas, From Sagas to Society: Comparative Approaches to
Early Iceland, ed. Gsli Plsson (Middlesex 1992) 109.
42
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 312313.

192

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

amusement, and in this case Skarpheinns grins are all the more mysterious and unnerving on account of the uncertainty underlying their cause or meaning.43 However,
the emotionally charged scene that follows indicates that Skarpheinns grin symbolizes a fault that heralds the ultimate shattering of the proposed settlement.
When Flosi is presented with the settlement he is initially impressed with the considerable sum, but things quickly turn sour when he takes notice of the silkislur
sitting atop the pile:
San tk hann upp slurnar ok spuri, hverr til mundi hafa gefit, en engi svarai honum.
annat sinn veifi hann slunum ok spuri, hverr til mundi hafa gefit, ok hl at, ok svarai
engi.44
(Then he picked up the slur and asked who had offered it, but no one answered him. In
the next instance he waved the slur about and asked who had offered it, and laughed, and
no one answered).

Just as there is no explicit indication as to why Njll had added the silkislur to the
compensation in the first place,45 it is never stated outright precisely why Flosi exhibits such outrage over the silkislur. According to Einar lafur Sveinsson, the
silkislur is a feminine garment and one that Njll has added as a baugak (an extra
item) for Hildigunnr. As such, the garment is thus doubly symbolic to Flosi, both as a
challenge to his manhood and at the same time reminding him of Hildigunnrs impassioned plea for vengeance during which she had placed a similarly fine garment over
his shoulders, in fact the very cloak in which Hskuldr had been slain and which had
been a gift from Flosi.46
Apart from Flosis outrage, however, there is little evidence to suggest that this
silkislur is a particularly feminine garment. In fact, in Egils saga Skallagrmssonar
the eponymous male hero of the saga receives a gift of slur, grvar af silki
(slur, made from silk) from his dear friend without incident.47 Indeed, somewhat
contrary to Einar lafur Sveinsson, Jenny Jochens contends that although nobody
shared his opinion, Flosis initial reaction indicates that in his mind femininity was
attached to the [silkislur].48 Flosis outrage thus once again seems to offer a window on his own conflicted views on accepting the proposed settlement, and the
silkislur, in their perceived femininity, may serve as a rather innocuous catalyst for
his misdirected anger. A perhaps no less jarring nor puzzling aspect of this scene is the
wise Njlls utter silence. When Flosi next speaks, indeed he targets Njll when he
43
Miller, Emotions, (n. 41 above) 101; see also Low Soon Ai, The mirthless content of
Skarpheinns grin, Medium Aevum 65 (1996) 101108; and Kirsten Wolf, Laughter in Old Norse-Icelandic Literature, Scripta Islandica 51 (2000) 93117.
44
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 313.
45
There are, of course, a number of interpretations as to precisely why Njll has added these extra items,
whether as an act of goodwill or perhaps one of contempt. Yoav Tirosh, Vga-Njll: A New Approach Toward Njls saga, Scandinavian Studies 86 (2014) 210216, for example, has recently offered an interesting
interpretation of this scene based on the premise that Njll is intentionally sabotaging the settlement to punish his sons for having killed Hskuldr.
46
Ibid. 312 n. 4, 313 n. 4.
47
Egils saga Skallagrmssonar, slenzk fornrit II, ed. Sigurur Nordal (Reykjavk 1954) 213.
48
Jenny Jochens, Before the Male Gaze: The absence of the Female Body in Old Norse, Sex in the
Middle Ages: A Book of Essays, ed. Joyce E. Salisbury (New York and London 1991) 11.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

193

tells Skarpheinn, at er mn tlan, at til hafi gefit fair inn, karl inn skegglausi
v at margir vitu eigi, er hann sj, hvrt hann er karlmar ea kona (in my estimation [the silkislur] was offered by your father, the beardless mansince many dont
know by looking at him whether he is a man or a woman).49 Skarpheinn responds
by casting a pair of brkr blr (blue trousers) at Flosi and suggests that he could use
them, adding ef ert brr Svnafellsss, sem sagt er, hverja ina nundu ntt ok geri
hann ik at konu (if you are the bride of the Svnafell troll, as it is said, and every
ninth night he uses you like a woman).50
Following this spirited round of insults the proposed settlement is finally and irreparably shattered when Flosi hratt fnu ok kvazk engan penning skyldu af hafa
ok sagi, at vera skyldi annat hvrt: at Hskuldr sklydi vera gildr, ella skyldi eir
hefna hans (Flosi then toppled the money and then said that there would be no compensation money and said one of two things would happen: that Hskuldr would be
uncompensated or they would avenge him).51 A short time later he extends this sentiment to its apparent logical conclusion, stating v vil ek heita Sigfssonum at
skiljask eigi fyrr vi etta ml en arir hvrir hnga fyrir rum (I will promise the
Sigfssons this, that this issue will not be decided until one side has been defeated by
the other).52
The implications of Hskuldrs death are as far reaching as that of any other in the
saga, and though it signals the end of Hskuldrs story, it is in many ways the real
beginning of Flosis. Through Flosis protracted journey to seek allies in its wake,
punctuated by his successive visits to several farmsteads along the way, the crucial
importance of the manner in which Flosi pursues restitution for his kinsmans death is
blatantly underlined. It is clear, however, that the restitution that he seeks cannot be
traced to a fixed or singular end, but may be pursued down two seemingly divergent
paths, the interplay of which indeed constitutes the tragic fact of Flosis story.
FLOSIS CHOICE
The above mentioned distinction that Hegel draws between the heroes of classical
tragedy and their modern counterparts, in his Aesthetics, is such that the fundamental
characteristic of the former is a firm and exclusive identification with a single ethical
obligation. For him, this is exemplified in Antigones steadfast conviction that her
brothers corpse receives the proper burial rights, that is, her obligation to her family
and to what Hegel termed natural ethical life. Her story becomes tragic only when
her obligation comes into collision with Kreons obligation to the state, that the same
49

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 314. Although upon his introduction into the saga Njll is described as
a man that is unable to grow a beard (ibid. 57), Hallgerr is the first character to use his beardlessness as an
insult against him (ibid. 91), and she repeats the gibe on two further occasions (ibid. 113, 229).
50
Ibid. 314. Jochens, Before the Male Gaze (n. 47 above) 1112, has argued that these blue trousers
are clearly understood to be a feminine garment, and thus even without Skarpheinns biting insult they
function as an attack on Flosis manhood. rmann Jakobsson, Masculinity and Politics, Nine Saga Studies: The Critical Interpretation of the Icelandic Sagas (Reykjavk 2013) 219 (repr. from Viator 38
[2007]191215, on the other hand, suggests that Skarpheinns use of the trousers in this scene may be
ironic in that the author is perhaps demonstrating that anything may be regarded as feminine in this highstrung society, when presented in the proper context.
51
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 314.
52
Ibid. 315.

194

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

man lay unburied as a traitor, which Hegel termed ethical life in its spiritual universality. Regardless of their particular moral qualities, he contends that each obligation
is justified in itself in claiming some certain degree of allegiance.
For Hegel, the modern tragic figure, however, is not so firmly anchored as suchat
least not in the same waybut is rather erratically affixed to a multiplicity of weights
pulling in a number of different directions. This notion resonates with Flosi described
experience in the saga, following the slaying of Hskuldr, which appears to be predominantly the story of a mind in conflict with itself.53 The conflicting obligations that
characterize Flosis internal conflict, however, are perhaps not so different from those
that Hegel contends inform the tragic calculus in Sophokles Antigone. On the one
hand, Hildigunnrs plea for blood vengeance carries much the same kind of tribal
stamp as Antigones utter refusal to allow her brother to remain unburied. On the other
hand, the many voiced plea for an arbitrated settlement seems to be informed by much
the same kind of impulse and social concern that Kreon asserts in his sanction against
Polyneikes burial. Upon close examination, in the universe of Brennu-Njls saga,
these claims each likewise appear justified in rightfully claiming some degree of allegiance, which is not, however, necessarily indicative of their particular perceived
moral qualities.
In the first explicit instance, when Runlfr expresses hope that Flosi accept Njlls
offer of compensation for Hskuldrs slaying, there is no small echo of the proverbial
warning, cited by Njll and mentioned above, that with law our land is built, but with
lawlessness squandered. In fact, the idea of seeking a compensatory settlement to
subdue rising tensions recurs throughout the saga. Flosi suggests the same when he
reprimands Hildigunnrs call for blood vengeance, declaring that she wants him to
choose the course worst for all of us. The gravity of securing a monetary settlement
also weighs heavily over the tense scene at the Alingi. This is evident, for example,
when Snorri goi says, in response to a question concerning whether he is seeking
some form of local banishment or exile for the perpetrators, Engar v at at hefir
opt illa efnzk, ok hafa menn fyrir at drepnir verit ok orit sttir (Neither since
it has often ended poorly, and men have died as a result or have fallen out).54 Furthermore, when the final verdict is decided, Hallr of Sa declares to all those present that
Skulu vr gjalda upp helminginn gerarmenn, ok skal hr allt goldit inginu. Er at
bnarstar minn til allrar alu, at nkkurn hlut gefi til fyrir gus sakir (We arbitrators will pay half [of the compensation], which will be paid in full at the assembly.
It is my entreaty to everyone here that each should give his part for Gods sake).55
Hallr, pushing the point once again, suggests that the outcome of the case will carry a
considerable impact not only for the actors directly involved in the slaying, nor their
victims, but rather for all of those present, and that even the Holy Father holds a share
in the outcome.56
53

Einar lafur Sveinsson, Njlsb: Bk um miki listaverk (Reykjavk 1943) 71.

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 311.
55
Ibid. 312.
56
For further reading on the arbitration process in medieval Iceland and the honor involved therein, see
William Ian Miller, Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law and Society in Saga Iceland (Chicago 1990)
259299.
54

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

195

The scene at Ossabr, however, one of the most striking instances of hvt (an act
of instigation or goading) in medieval Icelandic literature, seems to underline no less
powerfully the obligatory nature of such a charge. This aspect of Hildigunnrs plea for
blood vengeance is related through its multiform and complex structure, integrating a
number of different elements that each in their own right form the basis of particular
hvt in this and in other sagas.57 These five elements, (1) the high seat, (2) the torn
towel, (3) Hildigunnrs weeping, (4) the bloody cloak, and (5) Hildigunnrs speech,
must be read, according to Carol Clover, as a linked series in an ascending order,
and not only as an act of instigation but equally as a grieving widows lamentation
over her dead husband.58 The emotional impact of the scene is conveyed not only
through Hildigunnrs mournful actions, tears and words, but also in the particular escalation of Flosis emotional reactions to her performance. Beginning with Flosis curt
greeting upon arrival, his anger in tossing aside the high-seat and the torn cloth, and a
sincere yet dismissive expression of sympathy in the face of Hildigunnrs tears, the
full impact of the scene, however, is unleashed upon Hildigunnrs retrieval and
presentation of the bloody cloak and Flosis loathful response. Hildigunnrs remarkable speech, while not presented in verse per se, incorporates certain poetic features,
including both alliteration and internal rhyme, and, according to Clover, bears the
ring of a legal incantation with sacred overtones.59 Hildigunnr is more than simply
suggesting or urging Flosi to seek out blood vengeance, she is charging him to avenge
Hskuldrs death and Flosis utter abhorrence, suggestive of the difficulty that he will
perhaps and indeed does face in rejecting her plea, bears witness to the apparent obligatory nature of her charge regardless of its certain devastating consequences.60
When Flosi is first introduced in the saga it is said that he var hfingi mikill
(was a great chieftain)61 and it is natural that such a figure carry a considerable degree
of responsibility beyond his own person and towards society as a whole. Following
Hskuldrs death, there is thus little surprise that Flosi recognizes the value in and
seems intent upon seeking out a compensatory settlement in the case against
Hskuldrs slayers. Such a settlement is subsequently remarked upon in a number of
instances and by a number of individuals as the one most likely to lead to the best possible outcome for all parties involved. Hildigunnr, on the other hand, presents a dissenting view and is rather intent on seeking out blood-vengeance for her slain husband. Hildigunnrs solution, wherein the needs of the fewperhaps just oneseem to
57

The term hvt is related to the verb hvetja, which means to whet in both the literal senseto whet,
or sharpen a sword, for exampleand the abstract sense. Whetting women feature throughout both
medieval Icelandic prose and poetic sources and are examined at length in Rolf Heller, Die Literarische
Darstellung der Frau in den Islndersagas (Halle 1958) 98122; and Jenny Jochens, Old Norse Images of
Women (Philadelphia 1996) 162203. William Ian Miller, Choosing the Avenger: Some Aspects of the
Bloodfeud in Medieval Iceland and England, Law and History Review 1 (1983) 18, notes the differences
not least in their apparent effectivenessbetween acts of hvt that resort simply to words and the ceremonial charge that included the appearance of a bloody token, a body part, or even a full corpse.
58
Clover, Hildigunnrs Lament (n. 35 above) 18.
59
Ibid. 39.
60
Miller, Choosing the Avenger (n. 56 above) 203, has written extensively on the rules of blood-feuding in medieval Iceland and has commented specifically on the ceremonial and ritualistic aspect of pleas for
vengeance such as Hildigunnrs, noting that the ceremony for charging the avenger made use of symbols
and signs already established in the lexicon of legal rituals.
61
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 238.

196

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

outweigh the needs of the many, is hinged upon the perceived obligatory and justified
nature of such an act, which is seemingly depicted as a very pressing duty and, in a
land of uncertain legal sanctions, to some extent a commendable one.62
Each of these aims is presented in such a way within the saga as justifiably claiming some degree of human allegiance, whether by the myriad remarks that favor a legally sanctioned means of resolving the case against Hskuldrs killers, or by the attention with which Hildigunnrs impassioned plea for blood-vengeance is conveyed,
the latter perhaps bringing to mind the commonplace notion that tout comprendre
cest tout pardonner [to understand all is to forgive all]. The fear and loathing that
several individuals exhibit at the thought of foregoing a legally sanctioned route in
pursuing justice on Hskuldrs behalf is thus not indicative of a universal sanction
against blood vengeance, but is rather a recognition of its very real possibility and, in
some ways, its suitability. Hildigunnr, on the other hand, parades comparable disgust
at the thought of Flosi pursuing any path other than a bloody one in seeking satisfaction for the death of her husband.
Rather than a binary opposition of objectives that can be universally regarded as
either right or wrong, the respective shortcomings of the contradictory objectives that
frame the pursuit of justice following Hskuldrs death are only fully apparent when
they are situated in opposition to one another. Contrary to the tragic fact of
Sophokless Antigone, however, wherein such opposing obligations are expressed
wholly through individual actors that necessarily come into conflict with one another,
the tragic fact of Flosis story comes about through an internal collision or self-division of such contradictory impulses. In particular, Flosis self-division is characterized
by the desire and obligation to seek out a seemingly peaceful, monetary settlement on
the one hand and a bloody resolution on the other. Flosi himself demonstrates an acute
awareness not only of the contradiction underlying these obligations, but also of their
respective shortcomings. Following upon Runlfrs entreaty that he accept a settlement for Hskuldrs slaying, Flosi seems to agree that this may be the best option
although he nevertheless seems to betray an awareness of its shortcomings, remarking
that he will put great stock in Runlfrs words, unless things turn out worse than they
should. Although Flosis unease at the thought of pursuing blood-vengenace is made
more abundantly clear during his visit to Ossabr, it nevertheless fails to fails to overshadow the intensity of Hildigunnrs own fear that her husbands death will remain, in
her mind, unatoned for. In fact, the disastrous scene at the Alingi in which the arbitrated settlement is irreparably broken seems to pay close heed to both the gravity and
potency of Hildigunnrs petition, which is perhaps the most powerful guiding force
leading to Flosis ultimate and fatal choice.
This tragic collision, the above mentioned self-division, that characterizes Flosis
role in this part of the saga appears to be resolved in the aftermath of the pivotal scene
at the Alingi. The tragic fact of Flosis story is this very inner discord, which is, however, only a transitional phase and not the nerve of the mans character itself.63 In
fact, galvanized rather than paralysed by the experience, Flosis nerve is in fact put to
62
63

Denton Fox, Njls saga and the Western Literary Tradition, Comparative Literature 15 (1963) 310.
Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 2 (n. 3 above) 1229.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

197

the test when he soon after leads a large band of men to lay siege against Njll and his
sons, culminating in perhaps the most villainous act in all of saga literature and the act
that gives this tragic story its name, which is the burning at Bergrshvll.
ON A BOAT TO NOWHERE
As Flosi looks upon the farmhouse, after Njll and his family have retreated inside, he
reports to his men that their siege, it appears, has reached a turning point and that,
Eru n tveir kostir, ok er hvrrgi gr: s annarr at hverfa fr, ok er at vrr bani, en hinn
annarr at bera at eld ok brenna inni, ok er at str byrg fyrir gui, er vr erum
kristnir sjlfir. En munu vr at brags taka.64
(Now there are two choices, and neither is good: the one that we turn back and that will get
us killed, and the other that we set fire to and burn them in, although it is a great responsibility before God, as we are Christians ourselves. Still we will take this step.)

With this the fire is lit and Njll, his wife, and his sons all die in the ensuing conflagration, an act which Flosi himself later describes as an act that Bi munu menn
kalla strvirki ok illvirki (Men will call both a great deed and an ill deed).65 It is
important to note that Kri survives the fire, having managed to escape the burning
building undetected.
In both the moments directly preceding the burning and those following upon it,
Flosi demonstrates remarkably lucidity and firm nerve in his recognition of the dire
consequences that the action will invite. In fact, what remains of the saga follows a
protracted revenge sequence carried out by Kri against the band of burners. Of Flosi,
however, the narrator of the saga maintains a remarkably balanced perspective, noting
that Flosi had never bragged about the deed, that no one sensed any fear in him, and
that he was allra manna glaastr ok beztr heima at hitta, ok er sv sagt, at honum hafi
flestir hlutir hfingligast gefnir verit (of all men the most cheerful and the best of
hosts, and it is said that he was endowed with the greatest leadership qualities). Even
in the midst of Kris trail of vengeance the narrator remarks that Flosis account of
the burning before Sigurr, the Earl of Orkney, was so fair and sober that all of those
present believed it.66
Flosis reputation as a moderate and just man, even in the wake of the burning, is
conveyed not only through the narrators voice, but also through Flosis words and
actions, most clearly through Flosis seeming recognition that his and his fellow perpetrators suffering is, just as Hegel describes the lot of the tragic hero, a consequence
of their own deed which is both legitimate and, owing to the resulting collision,
blameworthy, and for which their whole self is answerable.67 In fact, just before Flosi
recounts his own account of the burning to Earl of Orkney, Kri appears and decapitates one of the burners, Gunnarr Lambason, who had just finished recounting his own
distorted version of the event. The Earl then calls for Kris head, but before the death
64

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 328.

Ibid. 334.
Ibid. 444.
67
Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 2 (n. 3 above) 1198.
65
66

198

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

sentence can be carried out Flosi intervenes, stating that Ekki geri Kri etta fyrir
sakleysi; er hann engum sttum vi oss; geri hann at at, sem hann tti (Kri did
not do this without cause. He has no settlement with us. He only did what he had to
do).68 A similar sentiment is expressed near the close of the saga when it is said that
Flosa stukku aldri or til Kra (Flosi never spoke [poorly] of Kri).69
In both the lead up to and in the aftermath of the burning at Bergrshvll Flosis
behaviour is very different from that of several of the more prominent villains elsewhere in the saga, the latter of whom are generally characterized by an utter lack of
restraint and often a severe disregard for others.70 Throughout this ordeal Flosi demonstrates both moderation and self-restraint several times over, which when contrasted
with his prominent role in the burning emphasizes his natural disposition as a peaceful and honorable man, one that was forced by circumstances into a disastrous
choice.71 Flosis binding choice runs concurrent with the time in which he glimpses
the silkislur atop the settlement pile at the Alingi. Although the cause for Flosis
outrage may seem somewhat obscure, perhaps intentionally so, its magnitude is fully
in line with the heavy burden that has weighed upon him since Hskuldrs death.72
The position in which Flosi finds himself, fixed at the centre of the tragic collision
between two contradictory obligations, is now no longer sustainable and the
silkislur, though perhaps neither inherently so nor universally capable of such, operate as the inevitable tipping point beyond which there is no return.
The resolution of Flosis tragic story, however, does not end with the burning, and
its denouement entails the deaths of many of his cohorts, his exile from Iceland and
absolution in Rome, and, in one of the final scenes in the saga, his full reconciliation
with Kri. Even this act of reconciliation, however, does not bring his story to a close,
but instead it is related that,
at segja menn, at au yri vilok Flosa, at hann fri utan, er hann var orinn gamall, at
skja sr hsavi, ok var hann Nregi ann vetr. En um sumarit var hann sbinn.
Rddu menn um, at vnt vri skipit. Flosi sagi, at vri rit gott gmlum ok feigum, ok st
skip ok lt haf, ok hefir til ess skips aldri spurzk san.73
(People say that in Flosis final years he went abroad, when he had gotten old, to get some
timber,74 and he spent the winter in Norway. But when the summer came he was slow in preparing. People told him that his ship was in poor shape. Flosi said, it is good enough for an
68

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 444.

Ibid. 461.
70
Einar lafur Sveinsson, Njlsb (n. 52 above) 78. Einar lists jstlfr, Hrappr Qrgumleiason,
Skammkell, and Mrr Valgarsson as the four primary villains in the saga.
71
Cook, Heroism and Heroes (n. 7 above) 83.
72
Andersson, The Growth of the Medieval Icelandic Sagas (n. 27 above) 199, posits that the lack of
clarity may well have been intended by the author and may be understood to mean that the burden of
antagonism has become so great as to overwhelm the legal machinery. No amount of goodwill and no marshaling of legal redress are adequate to control a dispute that has brought the whole nation under arms.
73
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 463.
74
It is interesting to note that in some other sagas, in Laxdla saga for example, Laxdla saga, slenzk
fornrit V, ed. Einar lafur Sveinsson (Reykjavk 1934) 7879, 215217, timber is imported to Iceland from
Norway for the expressed purpose of building a church. In that case, however, orkell is said to have
fetched kirkjuvir, rather than hsavir, and in fact earlier in the same saga lfr pi [the Peacock] returns
from Norway with a quantity of hsavir to construct an eldhs rather than a church. There is no explicit
indication of Flosis intentions for his hsavir, which are of course never realized in any case.
69

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

199

old man fated to die, and boarded the ship and set off to sea, and this ship has never been
heard from since.)

Although Flosi has been granted absolution in Rome af pfanum sjlfum (from the
pope himself)75 and has even reconciled with Krisomewhat surprisingly marrying
the widowed Hildigunnr off to himthere is no small measure of ambiguity conveyed
through his final appearance in the saga. In fact, an explicit death appears to elude
Flosi altogether, and it can only be inferred from the fact that his ship has never been
heard from since.
The reconciliation of Flosis tragic story, however, is not hinged upon his merely
intimated demise. Indeed, according to Hegel, it is not the case that every tragedy must
come to an end with the ultimate downfall of the individual participant or participants,
but rather culminates with the purging of the above mentioned particular onesidedness that characterizes the tragic conflict.76 In the case of Brennu-Njls saga,
although the event of the burning itself and its aftermath accumulate a considerable
death toll, the reconciliation of Flosis tragic story is accomplished not by way of his
own death, but rather through the establishment of a new order, one that emphasizes
the shortcomings of and ultimately invalidates the contradictory obligations that had
determined the tragic collision.77 The reconciliation of Flosis above mentioned selfdivision in fact represents the fulfilment of a decided extension of the sagas range of
values, one that began with the conversion episode in which Iceland became a Christian land.78
During this episode, which appears near the middle of saga, after the Christian missionary angbrandr arrives from Norway and begins to carry out his own recruiting
trip to gain support for the new faith, indeed it happens that fru eir [angbrandr
and Hallr] til Svnafells, ok tk Flosi prmsigning, en ht at fylgja eim ingi
(angbrandr and Hallr went to Svnafell, and Flosi was prime signed, and promised to
support them at the assembly).79 Flosis comment in taking the decision to set fire to
the farm at Bergrshvll, that the deed bears str byrg fyrir gui, er vr erum
kristnir sjlfir (a great responsibility before God, as we are Christians ourselves), is
also a poignant reminder of the new faith.80
The lengthy conversion episode thus establishes a new Christian framework within
which to observe the traditional values of the saga, the conflicting obligations, for example, between the impulse to seek legal redress for a slaying and its alternative, the
pursuit of blood vengeance.81 The instability of these traditional and conflicting ethical
obligations is placed within a sharp focus during the great battle at the Alingi after
75

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 462.

Hegel, Aesthetics, vol. 2 (n. 3 above) 1218
In this vein, Flosis pilgrimage to Rome is shortly preceded by the lengthy Battle of Clontarf episode,
nestled amongst a series of ominous portents that bothin terms of the narrative sequence, if not the narrative timeprecede and follow upon the great battle, the tone of which, Andersson remarks, serves to reinforce and universalize the apocalyptic tone of Njls burning; The Growth of the Medieval Icelandic Sagas
(n. 27 above) 200. See also Fox, Njls saga and the Western Literary Tradition (n. 61 above) 308.
78
Allen, Fire and Iron (n. 27 above) 117.
79
Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 259.
80
Ibid. 328.
81
Allen, Fire and Iron (n. 27 above) 117.
76
77

200

CHRISTOPHER CROCKER

the efforts to secure legal redress for the burning at Bergrshvll have failed. In fact,
the fighting stops only after Hallr of Sa offers to allow his son to lie unatoned in
death.82 Hallr, of course, had played a pivotal role in earlier convincing Flosi to accept
legally sanctioned compensation for Hskuldrs death, which nevertheless ultimately
failed to curb the violence. In this case, however, it is on account of Hallrs supreme
act of forgiveness, foregoing either of the traditional routes of conflict resolution, that
a settlement is reached, an act that perhaps foreshadows Flosi and Kris eventual reconciliation. This, however, does not put an end to the killing, but rather leads into and
sets the stage for the great battle at Clontarf, an apocalyptic clash in which a number
of the burners are killed and which is deemed a great victory for Christendom.83 It is
thus only after the fields have been cleared, and the evil seed destroyed in this cataclysmic battle that this world can grow anew, and this is exemplified in the ultimate
reconciliation between Flosi and Kri under the new ethos of Christian mercy.
Rather than simply stating their limits outright, Flosis tragic story functions as a
dramatization of the failure of traditional institutions, of the law, on the one hand, and
of the system of blood vengeance on the other. The respective shortcomings of these
institutions are only truly revealed when they are held against one another and meet
under a set of conditions wherein the adherence to one necessitates the violation of the
other. Their ultimate and utter failure, however, is demonstrated in light of a new set
of Christian values, which, like a number of other important aspects of Brennu-Njls
saga, is played out on a grand scale but is likewise and perhaps more poignantly
dramatized within the private and personal experiences of many of its primary characters, not least in the story of Flosi rarson.
Reading Flosis story through the interpretive lens that Hegel sets out in his analysis of tragic literature serves to emphasize the aberrant nature of his leading role in the
burning at Bergrshvll. It also reveals several nuances of Flosis regrettable yet inevitable choice and provides insight towards the manner by which this perpetrator of
such a villainous act is never considered a villain. The ultimate resolution of Flosis
tragic story, however, consists of both an internal and an external reconciliation,
providing the saga as a whole with a sense of unity on account of its subjective yet
universal character, its representation of what appear to be absolute aims.
In spite of Flosis infamous deed, however, Flosis life is not claimed in the catastrophic collision that converges upon him. Rather, the death that he seems to welcome and perhaps even to invite so openly may ultimately elude him as, at the close of
the saga, he rather appears to lie in a nebulous state somewhere between life and
death. The corpse upon which the final curtain of Brennu-Njls saga falls is thus not
Flosis own but rather the illusory and exclusionary claims of the old institutions and
values that have been consumed by the new Christian ethos. Flosi is not among the
fatal victims of this ideological death and rebirth, but he in fact remains a symbol of a
passing, now defunct and illusory age, one last seen sailing off to sea with no final
82

Brennu-Njls saga (n. 6 above) 411412.

Allen, Fire and Iron (n. 27 above) 160; Lnnroth, Njls saga (n. 8 above) 134. For further reading on
the Battle of Clontarf episode, its inter-textual relation with a similar episode from orsteins saga SuHallssonar, and its relationship to a hypothetical *Brjns saga, see Lnnroth, Njls saga (n. 8 above) 226
236.
83

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LANDEYJAR

201

destination, perhaps ultimately consumed by the waves. Although it may be more suitable to imagine that while everything else has been destroyed, Flosi alone remains
forever floating atop the northern sea, like his story and like the saga itself, as a lasting
grave-marker to a shattered world.