Gripla - 20.12.2004, Blaðsíða 116

GRIPLA114
form. He is called ma›r ókunnr, which emphasizes his strangeness and stranger-
hood. Interestingly enough, he is never called gestrinn. Once he is referred to
as komuma›rinn, which connects him rather more loosely, if at all, to the
customs of hospitality than gestr would have, if we may judge by the hos-
pitality-related vocabulary related to the word gestr (gestrisni, gestgjafi). As a
result, he is less well-connected to the ordering and anxiety-limiting aspects of
the hospitality contract.
He appears to rub up against the konungs gestir, however. He is seated útar
frá gestum, the same phrase as in Nornagests fláttr, so though the time of year
is not mentioned, I expect these are meant to be the gestasveit. Unlike
Nornagestr, this Gestr does not benefit from comparison with them. He is so
difficult (ófl‡›r, stikkinn, uppivözlumikill) that the King instructs his men to
have few words with him (ba› menn vera fáskiptna vi› komumanninn). This
is not a promising characterization under the best of circumstances, but if it is
the gestasveit seated nearest him, the body of men whose duty it is to root out
the enemies of the King, and the King does not want even his secret police to
have dealings with this stranger, then he must be very difficult indeed.
This Gestr is the one who asks the King to tell him which ancient ruler he
would choose to be if he could. When the King expresses his admiration of
Hrólfr kraki’s more noble virtues (atfer› ok höf›ingskap), but makes clear that
he would want to retain his faith, Gestr tempts him with a promise of power:
would the King not rather be like that king who always had victory? An
attempt to tempt the King over the narrative boundary, as discussed above,
this tactic also recalls the temptation to excess embodied in the gestir in
Hir›skrá 44. Eternal victory sounds like it would count as ofrefli, and in this
case it is certainly one in which God would be óflekkt—displeased.
In this penultimate episode, the dominant senses of Gestr are as a dulnefni
for undesireables, and the common noun meaning stranger, moreso than guest,
hospitality as a frame is scarcely in play, gesterf› not at all, and any as-
sociations with the gestir in the service of the King are also not positive.
5.4 Tóka fláttr Tókasonar
At the end of this series of texts in which the primary semantic associations
with gestr have become increasingly negative we come to Tóka fláttr. It is
clearly the same kind of tale as the others in the group, but gestr appears no-
where in the text, neither as name nor common noun.The visitor is ókunnr,