Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Page 94

92
Fredrik J. Heinemann
Gunnarr begins by suggesting that the dispute be submitted to arbitration (2),
and, following the rejection of this proposal, offers to set the compensation
himself and to settle the matter then and there (3). Rebuffed again, Gunnarr then
offers Otkell sjálfdœmi (4), which is also refused. Recognizing the godsend of
having someone of Gunnarr’s stature between a rock and a hard place, Ot-
kell/Skammkell repeatedly require Gunnarr to propose a settlement that lessens
his chances of a favorable outcome and guarantees them increasing honor. In fact
the two are virtually the same thing: winning a lawsuit brought prestige, and
losing was regarded as not simply a setback but a blow to one’s standing.12 Thus,
Skammkell’s observation that public arbitration poses little threat to Gunnarr
because of his popularity is shrewd. No doubt, he would be required to pay a sum
of money that more than covered the costs of Otkell’s losses, but he would suffer
no real punishment and no loss of honor. Partly, this is because Gunnarr does not
have to submit to arbitration, but suggests it himself. Gunnarr’s next gambit,
offering double compensation, fails to satisfy Skammkell on much the same
grounds. In addition, despite Gunnarr’s offer of his vinátta, Skammkell may sense
an implied insult in the offer. He might be thinking that had Gunnarr genuinely
meant his ofifer of friendship, he would have begun with such a declaration
combined with the insistence that Otkell accept sjálfdœmi. This procedure is, of
course, the one followed by Gunnarr and Njáll when they compose the killings
instigated by their wives. And for one other reason it would seem that Skammkell
has unwittingly made the proper inference here: only a fool would willingly offer
these two scoundrels anything, let alone friendship. Besides, after Otkell refused
to sell Gunnarr hay, they were not on good terms. Whatever he is thinking,
Skammkell fmally pins Gunnarr down, so that he is virtually forced to offer Otkell
sjálfdami. Tempers are at the boiling point when Skammkell commits a tactical
mistake that results in the failure of their case. After refusing Gunnarr’s offer of
sjálfdœmi, he virtually rules out any third-party settlement that will guarantee
them more honor.13 Gunnarr’s final triumph, in which his opponents plead with
12 Ingvarsson (1970:9-10) says that honor is the most importantissueatstakein nearly all lawsuits,
not justice or financial gain. If someone committed an offence against another, then the injured
party suffered a loss of honor ifhe did not respond in some way. One way to restore one’s honor
was to punish the offender.
13 Ingvarsson alleges (1970:320), without offering any supporting examplcs, that “það þótti mikill
virðingarauki að fá sjálfdæmi í máli, meiri en koma fram refsingu samkvæmt dómi. Sækjandi,
sem átti allskostar við andstæðing sinn, tók því oft sjálfdæmi.” (“it was considered a great increase
in honor to receive self-judgment in a lawsuit, even more than to obtain punishment by court
sentence. A plaintiff who had his opponent completely in his power thus often took self-judg-
ment.”) If such a conclusion is valid, then Otkell/Skammkell are stupid indeed to refuse
Gunnarr’s offer. But it is hard to see how any victory can surpass the prestige gained from
outlawing one’s opponent, driving him into exile, and confiscating his property. Heusler
(1911:42) states: “In der Rache liegt die edelste Vergiitung fiir den Schmerz des Gekránkten,
zugleich die beste Ehrung fiir den Toten. Ihr kommt am náchsten die gerichtliche Achtung oder
der Schiedsspruch in seiner dem Kláger ehrenvollsten Form, das Selbsturteil.” It would seem
that plaintiffs sometimes accept sjálfdœmi in lieu oF going to court so as not to involve themselves
in further risk. That Otkell/Skammkell risked too much is obvious from the outcome of their