Gripla - 20.12.2004, Blaðsíða 101

THE PAST AS GUEST 99
King Hálfr used to own this ring, and the Hálfsrekkar had it in their pos-
session at the time that they did something heroic, though to whom, exactly, is
unclear.6 The freeholder Lo›mundr, who gave Hnitu›r to Úlfr, seems to be no
one special however, and we know nothing of how Hnitu›r passed from King
Hálfr to this bóndi. That, at least, we can say of the genealogies of the two
treasures: that of Nornagest’s gull is clearer, with fewer steps. Sigur›r himself
has given it to Nornagestr. The saddle ring fragment is also purer gold, as the
King himself declares. More reliable claims attach to the fragment, claims
about purity of content and directness of historical trajectory. If we interpret it
as a fragment of the past, then it seems fair to see it as symbolic of pure,
direct, reliable access to or contact with that past, more specifically with Sig-
ur›r Fáfnisbani.
Sigur›’s associations are at least a partially known quantity. Sigur›r ap-
pears to be emblematic of the best of the heroic heathen past, the part that is
still worth making a claim on in the Christian era. His not infrequent appear-
ance in the ornament of stave churches may have to do with Norwegian royal
claims to Völsung lineage (Byock 1990). Sigur›r is portrayed as admirable, if
damned, and he contrasts with the cowardly regicide Starka›r in fiorsteins
fláttr skelks. In Nornagests fláttr itself, in Nornagest’s account, Sigur›r was the
foremost of his brothers, even greater than Sinfjötli and Helgi Hundingsbani,
and voru fleir umfram alla menn um afl ok vöxt. Furthermore, er mönnum flat
6 Probably Cipolla is right that j Ylfing is an error for simply Ylfing, as the word appears in
AM 62 fol. That would make this not Hálfdan at Ylfing but rather Hálfdan the Ylfingr (of the
Ylfingar, corresponding to OE Wulfingas) perhaps even the Hálfdan Ylfingr mentioned in
Sögubrot as the slayer of Ella (Cipolla 1996:176 n. 54). If we are meant to understand Hálf-
dan as Danish, then Hnitu›r might be a token of Norwegian superiority over the Danes by
virtue of its connection with Hálfr at the moment when he triumphed over Hálfdan. Hálfr
certainly embodies Norwegian superiority over the Danes in the fornöld in Tóka fláttr, as
Harris and Hill and later Cipolla have noted (Harris and Hill 1989); (Cipolla 1996:176 n. 53).
Then again, the Yflingar are at least sometimes synonomous with the Völsungar, as in the
prose introduction of Helgakvi›a Hundingsbana II, where we learn that ‘Sigmundr konungr
ok hans ættmenn hétu Völsungar ok Ylfingar’ (Neckel and Kuhn 1983: 146). Perhaps the
superiority of Sigur›’s saddle ring to Hálf’s arm ring is part of a re-ordering of Norway’s
heros. If Hnitu›r is connected to Hálfr having been superior enough to a Völsungr to extort
payment from him, then the superiority of Sigur›’s ring to Hálf’s puts a Völsungr back on the
top, comparatively speaking. When the King asks Nornagestr where he found it best to stay,
Sigur›r and the Gjúkungar make the list (mest gle›i flótti mér me› Sigur›i ok Gjúkungum),
whereas Hálfr and the Hálfsrekkar do not. It is difficult to know just what to read into the role
of Sigur›r, Hálfr, and the more mysterious Hálfdan in the stories attached to the two gold
items without forcing the Flateyjarbók text beyond the limits of compelling interpretation.