Gripla - 20.12.2010, Page 217

217
that the story of Ljótr’s death was relatively well known. A mention by
Þórhaddr Hafljótsson of Ljótr’s killing and the subsequent compensation
in Þorsteins saga Síðu-Hallssonar (ÍF XI, 305) suggests that the existence of
Ljótr was an established part of the tradition surrounding Hallr’s family.21
The potential tension of the prophesied three visits to the Alþingi is not
exploited (Ljótr is in fact killed on his second visit). Nor is there any
emphasis placed on the potential symbolism of this killing. For example,
the spear is reminiscent of the spear of Longinus piercing Jesus, but it also
resembles the pagan tradition of Baldr being killed by the blind Hǫðr (see,
for example, Faulkes 1988, 46). In the case of Ljótr, the blindness of the
religious/mythological models has been transferred to the anonymity and
accidental nature of the killing. Both the Christian and pagan traditions
involve the killing of an innocent at a moment or period of social or moral
disintegration and (certainly in the case of Christian tradition, but perhaps
also in the pagan) through this death the redemption of that society is
brought about. All of this – the killing of the innocent, the social disintegra-
tion, and the redemption or resolution – could be easily applied to the
death of Ljótr in Njáls saga. None of these themes or analogies, however,
are brought to the fore in Njáls saga. Ljótr is a peripheral character in Njáls
saga, of relevance only through his relationship to his father, who is him-
self only indirectly linked to the central conflicts. The author probably
knew the story of Ljótr from elsewhere (either written or orally), where it
was told in more detail perhaps exploiting either the dramatic tension or
symbolic resonance to greater effect and placing Ljótr closer to the narra-
tive centre. The author chose only to use the outline of these events and
place Ljótr as one of the many peripheral casualties of the increasing social
catastrophe of the events surrounding the killing of Njáll and his family.22
Hallr’s part in this history is now all but at an end. I know of no con-
temporary accounts of Hallr’s death. Given this lack of information and
21 In fact Þórhaddr stresses how Hallr did not get (missa) compensation, but I assume this
is a deliberate misremembering or reinterpretation of established facts in order to anger
Þorsteinn. Þorsteins saga is dependent upon Njáls saga (and indeed mentions it), and the
author of the former clearly felt that his readership would be sufficiently familiar with the
story of Ljótr to recognise the allusion in Þórhaddr’s goading.
22 Ljótr is mentioned in Geirmundar þáttr Heljarskinns where some of his descendants are
listed (Jón Jóhannesson et al. 1946, I, 10).
SÍÐU-HALLS SAGA OK SONA HANS