Gripla - 20.12.2006, Blaðsíða 140

GRIPLA138
perhaps the most famous.19 Laughter sometimes carries a similarly oblique
power, heroic laughter in the face of fate or danger offering audiences an op-
portunity to pinpoint the time at which a character perceives the overall mean-
ing of the events in which he/she is caught. It is this sense of a character’s
recognition that gives to laughter the features of secondary authorship:
laughter can express a crystallisation in a character’s perception of his/her for-
tunes (G. Clark 1994:184, for instance, suggests that Hallgerðr’s laughter in
Brennu-Njáls saga represents her assurance that Þjóstólfr must die).20
To sum up: Much of the drama of the sagas comes when characters make
major decisions or when characters respond conspicuously to the events around
them. In such moments, saga authors are given an opportunity to place his-
torical events in the context of directly expressed reactions. This not only adds
an intensity and an insightfulness that are difficult to achieve by an exterior
perspective; it provides the opportunity for the audience to view events with
sympathy, empathy, and with a sense of the drama that is unfolding. In such
moments, characters perform a secondary authorship; that is, while they may
not express directly an author’s view of the events of the saga, characters are
themselves engaged in a kind of authorial activity and thus may offer an in-
sight into saga authors’ ideas of authorship and its limits. Thus, a discussion of
19 Lönnroth’s study of Brennu-Njáls saga, for instance, makes it clear that the author of that
saga was well-read, and that such comments as this one by Gunnarr, and Njáll’s beautiful ex-
pression of his grief at the loss of Hƒskuldr — ‘when I heard that he had been slain I felt that
the sweetest light of my eyes had been put out’ (Cook 2001:207) — indicate something of his
reflections of how Christian writing might be used in a local context (see Lönnroth 1976:
153-157 concerning connections with Grœnlendinga saga and Alexanders saga, 102-105 on
a clerical influence, esp. 116-126 regarding the influence of Romance literature on Gunnarr’s
characterisation; see also the note to Cook 2001:332).
20 For Clark’s argument for dynamic characters in the sagas, see especially 175-176. Consider,
too, how much is captured by Snorri Sturluson’s response to Hallveig Ormsdóttir in Íslend-
inga saga: „En þat var Hallveig Ormsdóttir er þá var féríkust á Íslandi. Snorra þótti hennar
ferð heldr hæðileg ok brosti að” (Sturlunga saga 1988:284-285); ‘And it turned out to be
Hallveig Ormsdóttir, who was then the richest woman in Iceland. To Snorri, her mode of
travel seemed rather ludicrous, and he smiled at it.’ Sturla Þórðarson, the author of this
account and Snorri’s nephew, could well have enjoyed this story, and the rather amusing
reflection of Snorri’s wit that it suggests. The story is given added bite by the fact that Snorri
is outdone by Sturla Sighvatsson in the quest for Solveig – „þótti mönnum sem hann [Snorri]
hefði til annars ætlað” (286; ‘it seemed to men as if he [Snorri] had other plans’ for a union
with Solveig) — and by Snorri’s eventual partnership with Hallveig: „Hafði Snorri þá miklu
meira fé en engi annarra á Íslandi” (290) – ‘Snorri then had much more property than anyone
else in Iceland’ (my translations). On Snorri’s relationship with Hallveig, see Jochens
1994:459. On laughter in the sagas, see also Le Goff 1992.