Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Page 95

Skömm er óhófi œvi
93
him to judge the outcome himself, shows why being offered sjálfdœmi rather than
taking it oneself sometimes confers honor on the recipient.14
If we ignore the minor dissimilarities in the two scenes — Gunnarr the guilty
party seeks out Otkell the plaintiff, whereas Þorbjörn the injured party visits
Hrafnkell the defendant at home; Otkell has an advisor, while Þorbjörn acts alone
— we can concentrate on the similarities that show us that Þorbjörn commits
the same mistake that leads Otkell to disaster. Otkell/Skammkell keep forcing
Gunnarr to back down until they eliminate all the chances to reach a negotiated
settlement on their own terms. Þorbjörn does much the same thing: he puts a
settlement negotiated between Hrafnkell and himself out of reach by proposing
third-party arbitration, and must seek justice in court. He is eager to receive public
acclaim, and when Hrafnkell refuses, Þorbjörn has no choice but to summon
him. The main difference between the situations of Otkell and Þorbjörn is that
Hrafnkell is much touchier than Gunnarr. Otkell and Gunnarr are socially and
politically on the same level, whereas for Hrafnkell it is unthinkable that one of
his þingmenn be regarded as his equal. He does not seem to mind admitting a
wrong as long as he can be seen as the author of his own generosity. While he
seems genuinely to regret killing Einarr,15 he has not yet renounced his fatal flaw
responsible for this act.
suit. Equally clear from Skammkell’s indisposition at the Alþing, he is at the end of his wits and
has not considered how to achieve a court decision against Gunnarr and, perhaps more
important, how to enforce such a verdict.
Gizur the White desires Gunnarr to accept sjálfdami because Gizur has learned of Hrútr’s plan,
as the latter outlines it: þú [Gunnarrjskaltskora á hólm Gizuri hvíta, efþeir bjóðaþéreigisjálfiUmi,
en Kolskeggr Geirigoða (131). There are two reasons why Gunnarr receives so much honor from
being oífered sjálfdæmi at this point. First, he was originally the guilty party in the dispute and
has had all his attempts to reach a honorable settlement humiliatingly rejected. Now, however,
through the stupidity of his opponents the suit has reached the point where they beg him to
decide what penalty he will assess against those he originally wronged. Second, everyone can see
that Gizur oífers sjálfdæmi to avoid humiliation and injury or death. Obviously, he is not
thinking of committing suicide by accepting Gunnarr’s challenge to a duel, should matters go
so far. What he fears is having publicly to back down where it finally counts the most, when
two opponents must leave the clever wrangling to lawyers, take sword in hand, and shed blood.
In contrast, Gunnarr’s ofFer to Otkell was made under no physical duress whatsoever and in
order to repair a wrongdoing committed by his wife, a notoriously difficult woman. In a very
informative article William Ian Miller (1986:32) states that “Otkel gains no prestige if Gunnarr
freely grants the power of self-judgment.” Is it not true that Gunnarr is not really making the
offer freely, and can this not be the reason why Skammkell urges Otkell to refúse it? Likewise,
is it not because Njáll and Gunnarr freely offer each other self-judgment that they do each other
honor? As Miller so cogently observes (1984:117) “the exact significance of self-judgement
depended on the context.” Among many insights, I am also indebted to Miller for the term
third-party negotiation or arbitration.
15 Óskar Halldórsson (1976:80) alleges that Hrafnkell’s statement that the killing is worse than
his others “er fúllskýrð ef haft er í huga að víg Einars var fyrsta misgerð hans gegn “sínum
mönnum”” (“is perfectly understandable if we keep in mind that the killing of Einarr was the
first against “his own men”169). While this point is legitimate, Halldórsson believes that
Hrafnkell experienced no real sense of regret, maintaining that “under the surface [Hrafnkell’s]
character remains unchanged” (73). Those who disagree about Hrafnkell’s change in character
disagree about almost everything he does.