‘VINR EM EK VINAR MÍNS’: Guðrún Gjúkadóttir in Gísla saga and Íslendinga saga.

Full text

1
“VINR EM EK VINAR MÍNS”: Guðrún Gjúkadóttir in Gísla saga and Íslendinga
saga.
Teodoro Manrique Antón
(Universidad de Salamanca)
Among the scholars who in the past decades have busied themselves with the
significance of the figure of Guðrún Gjúkadóttir for Icelandic literature of the
thirteenth century, Preben Meulengracht Sørensen (1988) has, as far as I know,
presented the most complete analysis. In his article “Guðrún Gjúkadóttir in
Miðjumdalr. Zur Aktualität nordischer Heldensage im Island des 13. Jahrhunderts,”
Sørensen comes to the conclusion that:
“Im Bewusstsein dieser Epoche [thirteenth-century] war das Heldenzeitalter historische
Wirklichkeit, und in seinen Personen mit ihren Handlungsweisen sah man Menschen und
Ereignisse der eigenen Zeit abgespiegelt.”
In the following pages I will approach the literary use of some motifs of the
heroic lays, specially Guðrún Gjúkadóttir, in the so called “dream-verses” of Gísla
saga Súrssonar and in Jóreiðr´s dreams in Íslendinga saga. The author of Gísla saga
was more dependent on the limitations of his sources and upon the fictional tradition
than Sturla, who, although writing about events of his own time, had a wider freedom
to include or adapt different elements of different literary traditions to suit his political
or moral standpoint.
Of all the Íslendingasögur, Gísla saga is the one where the literary traits of the
Heroic Age are more obvious and many of its thematic units were modelled after the
tragic happenings of the Nibelungen legend. Gísli´s ill-fated life, for example, is
dictated by the omnipresence of the ideas of fate, honor and family loyalty and a
direct mention of Guðrún Gjúkadóttir in st. 10 [M]1, where Gísli reproaches his sister´s
lack of loyalty, offers us another very clear point of contact between the saga and the
heroic lays which dealt with Guðrún´s tragedy, specifically Guðrúnarqviða in fyrsta
and Guðrúnarqviða önnor. This is not, however, the only stanza in the saga, which
was influenced by the Guðrún story.
Gísla saga has been the object of intense analysis since at least the beginning of
the twentieth century. Some scholars aware of its distinctiveness have tried to find the
origins of the saga in the combination of various sources, such as a local tradition
about Gísli, a poetic one probably shaped under the influence of the heroic lays, and a
disputable later Christian reelaboration of some passages. The saga as we know it
shows the traces of a conscious and deliberate process of adjustment, which would
have resulted at least two different versions of the story of the poet and outlaw Gísli
Súrsson. Attempted solutions to the dilemma of these two versions have consisted
mainly in looking at the so-called “Norwegian prologue” and by labelling it as
archetypal or artificial according to structural, thematic or stylistic features. The
differences in the poetry, however, have hardly been considered.
1 References to the stanzas and the prose as they appear in the long version [S] apply to Agnete Loth´s edition
(1960). For the short version [M] I have used Finnur Jónsson´s edition (1929).

2
Gísla saga contains thirty six stanzas attributed to Gísli, one only preserved in
the long version of the saga. Most of them are spoken by the poet, composed in the
dróttkvætt metre and thematically connected to the expression of Gísli´s emotions
about the main events of his life. The dating and authorship of the stanzas has also
been the subject of much debate among those who variously believed that they were
the work of a Christian poet of the twelfth century, the work of the author of the saga
or the work of Gísli himself. This is a question that for obvious reasons I shall not face
here. A thematic analysis of the stanzas in the saga reveals that more than half of the
total amount are dream-stanzas. They do not deal with the real world, but with Gísli´s
somnial encounter with two valkyrie-like women, who exert an enormous influence on
the poet´s spiritual struggle, from their first appearance until the day of his final battle.
St. 27 [M] is among those in the saga which have received the most attention,
mostly due to the fact that in it, one of Gísli´s dream-women overturned the prophecy
made by the other. Such an contravention represented a breach of the unspoken rule
that predictions could not be annuled unless they contained an element that allowed it,
as was the case of the spell Þorgrímr nef cast on Þorgrím´s assassin (ch. 21). The first
half of the stanza in Agnete Loth´s edition of the long version [S] in Membrana regia
deperdita2 is as follows:
Skulu þo it kvaþ skorþa
skaptkers, saman verja,
svo hefir yckr til ecka
eitr goþnurnar leitat.
You shall not, said the woman (lady of the
Vessel), abide together,
So has the poison of good love (?)
turned into sorrow for you.
An alternative wording of verse 4 is preserved in Nks. 1181 fol. and AM 149
fol. eitr goðmunar leitat, but the meaning here is equally obscure.
The variant of this helmingr in the main manuscript of the short version [M],
AM 556 a 4to, has been transcribed several times, e.g. in Konrad Gislason´s, Agnete
Loth´s or Finnur Jónsson´s editions (see below).
Skulut þit ei, kvað skorda
Skapt kers, saman vera,
svo hefir yckr við ecka
eitr gudrunar heitit,
You shall not, said the woman (lady of the
Vessel), abide together,
So has Guðrún´s poison (?)
sorrow for you promised.
The main problems posed by st. 27 therefore, concern the interpretation of line
4 and its second helmingr. Most of the scholars who have followed the different
variants of the manuscripts of the long version, eitr goþnurnar, eitr goð munar,
eitrgoð munar have not agreed as to the significance of the kenning. Finnur Jónsson´s
(Skj B I, 101) reading sva hefr goð leitat ykkr munar eitrs til ekka, “således har gud
bestemt eder glædens gift med sorg,” i.e. “God has prescribed for you the poison of
love [grief] with grief”, where he isolates goð from the rest of the kenning didn´t
convince Ernst A. Kock (1923, 42-43), who initially rejected Finnur Jonsson´s
interpretation proposing an alternative ekka eitrs, “grief´s poison”, but later (1930, 28-
29) admitted that the isolated appearance of goð could be united to eitr, eitrgoð,
2 Agnete Loth´s edition of the poetry is based on Árni Magnússon´s own handwritten copy preserved in AM 761
B 4to.

3
“bitterhetens gud,” i.e. “the god of wrath”, to refer to one of the gods of the Norse
Pantheon. Þórólfsson´s (1943, 102-3) eitr góðmunar, “the poison of the great love, i.e.
‘an extraordinary love’” does not offer a convincing explanation. Konrad Gislason´s
rendering of the line (1849, 186), “Saaledes er Gudernes Bestemmelse,” “So is the
decision of the gods”, where goð is interpreted as a plural form and the whole kenning
then as “the poison of the will of the gods [fate]” was probably based on Jonsonius´
Latin translation in Nks 1181 fol. In Jonsonius´ the noun munr acquires the sense of
‘voluntas’ (Cf. Fritzner, 1891, II, 751) and thus goðmunar is rendered as “deorum
voluntas”:
Vos faxo, inquit sustentatrix
Poculi manubriati, non conuivetis;
Quod vobis ad moerorem fatum
Venefica deorum voluntas destinavit
(quaesivit)
Potentissimus mundi rector (Odinus)
Te ex regione misit (missum vult)
Unum ex vestra domo
Ad cognoscendum alium mundum
You will not, said the holder of the
handle of the vessel, live together;
The poison of the will of the gods has prescribed
this fate for your sorrow
The all-powerfull ruler of the world
has sent you away from the land
alone from your home
to explore another world
Jonsonius´ translation reflects the idea recurrent in the prose that Gísli´s fate
was the ruling power in his life, which of course leads the translator to avoid the
Christian interpretation of allvaldr aldar, but also leaves us with the unexplained
problem of why Gísli´s future is placed in Óðinn´s hands. As we can see from the
divergent analyses of line number 4 of st. 27 in [S], its various readings do not offer an
unambiguous understanding of how Gísli´s “pitiful fate” has come into being.
The interpretations of the kenning as it stands in [M] “eitr gudrunar”, although
of a more unanimous kind, also fail in giving an explanation of how “the poison of
Guðrún” is to be understood in the context of the stanza. Konrad Gislason (1849, 176)
translated it as “Gudruns Forbittrelse”, i. e. Guðrún´s bitterness”, and admitted, that
although it was a very plausible reference to the historical Guðrún Gjúkadóttir, he
could not prove that this was the case, due to “Mangel paa bestemte Data”, “lack of
certain data”. In his edition of the short version Finnur Jónsson quoted the verses from
AM 556 a 4to (1929, 64, 104-5), but he did not mention Guðrún in his explanation of
the stanza. He insisted on translating the verse as if he were doing so from S, because
according to him, “[det] må være den ægte læsemåde”, “[that] must be the original
reading”. Agnete Loth (1956, 88-89) concluded that the stanza is of “incomprehensible
meaning”. Despite the variations of form, the message uttered by the bad woman in the
first half of the stanza seems to be that Gísli will not enjoy the future happiness that
the good woman had ‘changed into’ sorrow (leitat [S]) or ‘promissed’ (heitit [M]) him.
Basic to the understanding of the whole stanza is the reading of the second
helmingr. The differences between the two versions (S and M) are also remarkable:
Allvaldr hefir alldar
erlendis þik sendan
einn or yþru ranni
annan heim at kanna.
(God has sent you away from your home
to explore a new world)
allvaldr hefir allda
erlenndis mik sennda
enn ur öðru ranni
annann heim at kanna.
(God has sent me again far from the other world
to explore another abode)

4
In the second helmingr of the stanza in the S-version, the bad woman
addressing Gísli, announces God´s/Óðinn´s future plans for him. In M, on the contrary,
the pronoun mik, the feminine past participle senda and the adverb enn allow for a
completely new interpretation of the stanza. The bad woman is now talking about
herself, declaring that Óðinn, once again, has sent her away from her previous
dwelling to explore a new world
Bearing in mind the importance which some heroic poems played in the
conception of Gísla saga, it will not seem implausible that some clues for the
interpretation of Gísli´s stanzas might be found within them. As some scholars have
pointed out, Brynhildr´s and Guðrún´s unfriendly encounter by the river probably
served as a model for Auðr´s and Ásgerðr´s conversation in ch. 9. The enmity between
both women, Brynhildr (the alter-ego of the valkyrie Sigrdrífa as stated for example in
Helreið Brynhildar) and the ill-fated and disconsolate Guðrún, seems a very likely
source for the conception of the dream-women cycle in Gísla saga. As we will discuss
later, some of the qualities of the heroic characters were reshaped according to
Christian literary usage in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In this
way, the figure of Guðrún in Gísla saga would have acquired some traits of the “piety”
later ascribed to her, for example, by the dream in question in Íslendinga saga.
Brynhildr, on the other hand, is still represented as the gruesome valkyrie who
Óðinn (allvaldr aldar) once compelled to abandon her warlike nature, and who was
later deprived of Sigurðr´s love. According to the tradition preserved in the heroic
lays, but also in sagas contemporary to Gísla saga (such as Völsunga saga), Brynhildr
and Guðrún blamed each other for their misfortunes. In st. 13 of Helreið Brynhildar,
Brynhildr accuses Guðrún and her brothers of betraying her:
Þá varð ec þess vís, er ec vildigac,
at þau vélto mic í verfangi (Neckel, 1962, 222)
(Then I grew aware of, what I wish I had never done,
that they betrayed me in my choosing a husband)
In Sigurðarqviða in scamma, Guðrún also blames Brynhildr
ec veit gorla, hví gegnir nú: (Neckel, 1962, 211)
ein veldr Brynhildr öllo bölvi
(I know well why this is happening now:
Brynhild alone has caused all this grief)
Although the characters of the Burgundian cycle are presented from different
points of view, sometimes putting emphasis on the suffering widow, sometimes on the
injustice of Sigurðr´s murder or Atlis and Gunnar´s feeble natures, I agree with Preben
M. Sørensen (op. cit., 194) that the apparent inconsistencies in the presentation of
Guðrún in the various lays of the Edda are only due to the fact that their authors
emphasize different aspects of her personality.
The Christian author of Gísla saga´s dream-stanzas might have modelled
Gísli´s dream women on the opposite roles of Brynhildr and Guðrún. As the
personification of family loyalty, Guðrún is also given the Christian attributes of what
Lönnroth (1969) defined as a noble heathen. Brynhildr, on the other hand, appears as

5
the vindictive valkyrie that covers Gísli in human blood (strs. 28 and 29 [M]) and tells
him that ‘Guðrún´s bitter fate’, eitr Guðrúnar, will prevent them from being together.
In this way we interpret eitr, ‘poison’, as the negative force present both in Gísli´s and
in Guðrún´s destiny. The fact that the bad woman managed to oppose the prophecy of
the good one was due to her valkyrie nature and her sharing some attributes with the
norns who controlled fate. Brynhildr´s characterization in the poems as a woman
capable of foretelling the future makes understandable her knowledge of Gísli´s
destiny. A similar instance of Brynhildr´s prophetic aptitude in Völsunga saga
illustrates my point. In ch. 28 Brynhildr tells Guðrún:
Njóti þér svá Sigurðar sem þér hafið mik eigi svikit, ok er yðart samveldi ómakligt, ok
gangi yðr svá sem ek hygg
(And enjoy Sigurd now as if you had not betrayed me, although you don´t deserve to live
together, and may it happen to you as I predict)
Although Völsunga saga probably postdates Gísla saga by a few decades, a
good part of its content is nothing but a retelling of some of the lays dealing with
Guðrún´s story as preserved in Codex Regius. That both works contain motifs
belonging to the same tradition about Guðrún is not very unlikely. St. 27, as preserved
in the short version of Gísla saga, could thus be understood as a representation of
Gísli´s subjection to fate based on the example of Guðrún´s. The second part of the
stanza where the bad woman speaks about herself, offers us clear clues about her
identity. It also offers some clues about the identity of allvaldr aldar; who according
to Jonsonius´ Latin rendering of the verse, must be none other than the Potentissimum
mundi rector, Odinus.
Another example of the use of heroic-mythological motifs in Gísla saga can be
found in the controversial mention of the mythical vargr in two prose paragraphs
connected to the dreams. There is only one dream in Gísla saga that is not recounted
in poetical form. In chapter fourteen, in the prose paragraph that precedes st. 3 [M],
Gísli tells about the two dreams that he had had the nights before the murder of
Vésteinn and that had been mentioned in the first two lines of the previous chapter. In
that paragraph, Gísli recalls having had two dreams about Vésteinn´s death that offer a
clue about the identity of the assassin.
If we take into account that all of the other dreams in the saga are told in verse
and that in many cases they are introduced by a prose summary of their content, we
cannot but ask ourselves whether st. 3 is not the only remaining one of a now lost
group of stanzas. It is precisely in these stanzas that Gísli´s ominous dreams about
Vésteinn´s murder were probably put into poetic form. At the same time it is therefore
worth asking whether the whole prose paragraph before st. 3 did not originate as an
attempt to recreate the content of the second verse “biðkat draums ens þriðja,” and the
allusion to the dreams in the opening of ch. 13 [M].
The abrupt thematic change which takes place between Þorkell´s and Gísli´s
conversation about Auðr´s grief and Gísli´s announcement of his prophetic dream, also
points in that direction3. Following Gísli´s refusal to reveal the content of the dreams,
3 The long version contains a better elaboration of the scene. Þorkell´s direct question to Gísli about the content
of his dreams offers a less abrupt transition between the theme of Auðr´s grief and Gísli´s dreams, but fails to

6
although suggesting that they were quite clear, he suddenly changes his mind and
renders them in prose, adding that his previous silence was due to his desire that
nobody interpret them. After the narrator announces that Gísli had composed a verse
about it, one would expect to find attached a stanza (or more), with mythical kennings
for the wolf and the serpent that had been mentioned earlier. What we have instead is a
single stanza where Gísli expresses his relief for not having to wake up a third time
from such horrible dreams and where Gísli praises the friendship that he and Vésteinn
had enjoyed when they were together in Vébjörg.
A plausible explanation of such inconsistencies, is that the writer, influenced
by the dream-stanzas of the last part of the saga and by the mentions of the two dreams
in st. 3, and the opening of ch. 13, might have considered it acceptable to invent the
two missing dreams by using ingredients known to him from the heroic lays. If our
author´s intention was to produce a dream which pointed at the culprit of an
assassination where bloodbrothers were involved, it is not improbable that he might
have thought of Sigurðr´s and Guðrún´s tragic story. In st. 4 of the Brot af
Sigurðarqviðo we read:
Sumir úlf sviðo, sumir orm sniðo,
sumir Gothormi af gera deildo,
áðr þeir mætti, meins um lystir,
á horscom hal hendr um leggia. (Neckel, 1962, 198)
(Some a wolf did roast/ some a snake sliced/ some fed it to Guthrom/ before, prone to
evil, they met/ to lay their hands on the noble man)
Gothorm was the only one of Gjúki´s sons, who was not bound by the loyalty-
oaths sworn to Sigurðr, in the same way that Þorgrímr was not bounded to Vésteinn
after the fóstbroœðralag ceremony could not be completed. Guthorm needed to be fed
magical food to increase his courage, and Þorgrímr needed the assistance of his
namesake, the evil Þorgrímr nef, to reforge the magical sword Grásíða into a
“sacrificial” spear. In this way, the meat of the two mythological animals ingested by
Guthorm to perform the killing could have served Gísla saga´s author to create two
new dreams (the number implied in the stanza), where the two animals represented the
man responsible for Vésteinn´s slaying4, i. e. Þorgrímr.
This is not, however, the only instance where the writer of the saga decided to
add a popular mythological element to the basic plot. In the prose preface to the dream
unit composed by strs. 30, 31 and 32 [M] we find:
Einn þeira for fystr, greniannde miok, ok þottumzt ek hauggva hann sunndr i midiu, ok
þotte mer vera aa honum vargs höfud. Þaa sottu margir at mer; ek þóttumzk hafa skiölldinn i
hende mer ok veriazt leingi (Finnur Jónsson, 1929, 65)
(One of them went first, howling loudly, and I think I cut him asunder at the waist, and
thought that he had the head of a wolf. Then many warriors attacked me; I thought I had my
shield in my hand and defended myself for a long time)
explain the incongruence between Gísli´s first vil ek eigi aa kveda and the sudden Þat dreymde mik hina fyrre
nott (page 21).
4 Cf. Völsunga saga, ch. 32.

7
Rendering the content of the verses, the writer mentions the long-lasting
defence Gísli manages with his shield (st. 31 [M]), as well as the fact that he cuts a
man´s body into pieces, (in st. 32 [M] it is only one leg). Most interesting is that the
writer has found it neccesary to add “vera aa honum vargs hö”fud”. Curiously enough,
the only two mentions of the mythological vargr in the short version of the saga occur
in the prose summaries of the dream-stanzas5.
In this second case, the prose summary contains information that cannot be
found in the verses. It is also presented by an introductory prose summary, but, unlike
the other stanzas, it is in a different order. The name of one of Gísli´s enemies is
referred to in the first sentence, “at menn kæme at oss ok væri Eyolfr í faur”, although
in the verses no man is singled out, and we have only plural forms as fianndr (st. 30
[M]) or þeir (st. 31 [M]). In this case, it is very likely that our author might have
composed the prose summary following the order of the account of Gísli´s last
encounter in chapters 34-36 [M], and then later added the supernatural-mythical
element, which appears neither in the poetry nor in the chapters 34-36. Presumably
these changes were made to emphasize the wickedness of the attackers. The first to
attack Gísli, is described in the prose summary as “howling loudly and wearing a
wolf´s head”. This first attacker was no other than Njósnar-Helgi, who according to
the narration of ch. 34, accused Eyjólfr of cowardice for not daring to attack first.
When he finally attacked Gísli, although rather cautiously, the result was that Gísli
struck him in the loins and cut him down. As is evident from the adjectives used of
him in the saga, such as lafhræddr ok felmtsfullr, “very scared and frightened” (ch. 31),
Helgi did not show much wolfish courage. All in all, the first depiction of Helgi as a
dreadful warrior was nothing but an attempt, for pure dramatic effect, to invest the text
with a sense of pagan antiquity.
The appearance of Guðrún Gjúkadóttir in Jóreiðr´s dreams as depicted in
Íslendinga saga shows some traces of a similar type of treatment of the heroic
material. The words uttered by Guðrún when Jóreiðr asked her whether heathens were
coming to Iceland reveal a conscious adaptation of Guðrún´s character:
“Aungu skal þic skipta”, segir hon, “hvart ek em kristin eða heiþin, enn uinr em ek vinar
mins.”6
(That should make no difference to you, she said, whether I am Christian or heathen,
because I am a friend of my friends)
Jóreiðr´s dream-cycle is contained in chapter 190 of Íslendinga saga, although
only in the fourteenth-century Króksfjarðarbók (AM 122a [I] fol.), one of the main
manuscripts of the Sturlunga saga. The first of the four dreams is said to have
happened during the summer of the year 1255 after the battle of Þverá, one of the
many bloody encounters that took place in the first half of that century. In the first
three dreams Guðrún answers Jóreiðr´s questions about her origin and identity, and
5 St. 4 only preserved in the “norwegian prologue” of the long version contains also a reference to the vargar in
line 4 (en vargar saddir). It is though of a much different kind, since it doesn´t imply any mythological
references and only points to the fact that people had been killed and that the wolfs had thus been fed.
6 References to Íslendinga saga apply to Jón Johannesson, Magnús Finnbogason and Kristján Eldjárn´s edition
of Sturlunga saga (1946).

8
expresses herself in verse when questioned about the news from some of Iceland´s
most prominent chieftains.
The discussion about whether that chapter, and possibly the last ten in
Islendinga saga, were written by Sturla Þórðarson (1214-1284) or not, has not yet
offered any reliable conclusions. Most scholars are of the opinion that it diverges both
stylistically and thematically from the rest of the work and therefore might not be a
part of the original saga. The different types of metre used in the stanzas that contain
the kernel of the dreams, together with some inconsistencies in the relationship
between prose and verse have been presented as a proof that the stanzas originally did
neither belong together nor did they belong in the prose context where they must have
been inlaid at a later time (Sørensen, 1988, 184-85). A broader consensus seems to
reign about the fact that the main aspiration of those chapters would have been to
praise two of the most important characters of the time, Þorvarðr Þórarinsson and
Gizurr Þorvaldsson.
Although Íslendinga saga and Gísla saga were written within a few decades of
each other, their varied treatment of the same material was determined by their sources
and by the fact that they were dealing with events and characters from periods
separated by more than two centuries. Íslendinga saga was written as a historical work
with the intention of offering a trustworthy account of the present, while Gísla saga
dealt with less verifiable facts and characters of a much admired, but also idealized
past age.
Guðrún is, however, not the only figure from the past that appeared in a dream
to one of the main characters of Íslendinga saga. The appearance of Egill Skalla-
Grímsson to one of Snorri Sturluson´s relatives, Egill Halldórsson, served a purpose
similar to that of Jóreiðr´s cycle, since Egill´s dream contained Sturla´s veiled
criticism of his uncle´s greed. In that dream Egill tries to warn Snorri against leaving
his farm at Borg by reminding him of a similar event that happened to Hrólf-Kraki. By
using this device, Sturla was pointing at Snorri´s death caused by his untempered
lechery and ambition. Even though the structure and function of this episode diverge
from Jóreiðr´s episode, both demonstrate that in the minds of the Icelanders, the
literary boundary between heroic-age characters and those of the Settlement period
was permeable enough to permit their use with a political or moral agenda.
Whether Jóreiðr´s dream was written by Sturla Þórðarson or not,7 its inclusion
in Íslendinga saga suggests a certain interest in heroic lays among the learned class of
Iceland. If we have a look at what is preserved of Sturla´s poetical activity, it comes as
no surprise that Sturla shows himself to be well-informed in ancient Norse lore, having
benefited from the literary inclinations of his erudite uncle Snorri Sturluson, as well as
from a similar education as his brother Óláfr hvítaskáld. The use of mythological
references in some of the dream stanzas of Íslendinga saga as well as in some of his
well-known poems, such as Hákonarkviða or Hrafnsmál, is one of the many witnesses
to the re-evaluation of the pagan literary heritage that took place in Iceland from the
7 Cf. Kjartanson 1992, 274. Having such a great control over his material, it is most unlikely that Sturla might
have fallen into considerable errors, as the one contained in Jóreiðr´s last dream. In it Guðrún declares that she is
going to chastise Eyjólfr for mistreating Hallr, while in previous chapters Sturla had said that all of Gissur´s sons
had perished in the burning.

9
end of the XII and most part of the XIII and XIV centuries8. The parameters of the
literary genre where these old heroic and mythological motifs or characters were
included clearly determined its shape and the nature of its representation.
Taking this into account, it should not come as a surprise that Guðrún, as
represented in Íslendinga saga, arises as hybrid figure, both with pagan and Christian
features, even if some of this figure´s literary components were but distant echoes of
her original characterization in the heroic lays. In Jóreiðr´s four dreams Guðrún
answers the girls´ questions both in prose and in verse, although it is mostly in the
prose where we find information concerning her identity and disposition. In the prose
Guðrún is given the external appearance of a powerful valkyrie coming from the realm
of the death (násheim), riding a large grey horse (as in Gísla saga) and dressed in the
dark colours of the place she comes from (Hon var þá í bláum klæðum, ok sýndist
henni konan mikilúðlig). Guðrún´s irregular depiction throughout the chapter is not
easy to explain, without aluding to the author´s implicit intention of reconfiguring the
most famous literary representative of Germanic family loyalty with a new christian
apparel.
In some of the stanzas (especially 88 and 90), in the introductory prose and in
the final dream, Guðrún is portrayed as the vindictive and loyal woman of the old lays
(e.g. st. 9 of Guðrúnarqviða önnor: “þitt scyli hiarta hrafnar slíta”). In other instances
she acquires a nearly pious appearance. By labelling the men responsible for the
burning of Flugumýr as “wicked bearers of paganism”, and by the half-hearted
rejection of her paganism, the author is offering us a clear backing for her surprising
final statement “þat er ok eigi síðr, at góð er guðs þrenning”. Guðrún´s explicit
profession of faith would serve the purpose of validating her previous judgements
about the main characters of the saga. The author´s apparent freedom to modify
conflicting elements of an ancient literary tradition, to include them in dreams about
events of his own time is more understandable if we appeal to their literary and moral
function. The presence of Guðrún in Jóreiðr´s dreams would stress the importance of
the values she stands for, loyalty and strength of character, in such a tragic era as the
Age of the Sturlungs.
To sum up, the inclusion of different motifs and characters of the heroic poems
in Iceland´s thirteenth century literature was subject to both the author´s agenda and
the literary character of the text into which they were inserted. Gísla saga´s unusual
wealth of heroic motifs, its abundance in dream-stanzas (their habitual literary
environment) makes it possible that some obscure points in their presentation can be
clarified by interpreting them in the light of the material contained in the Heroic Lays.
The fact that the author of Gísla saga included the heroic-mythological ormr and
vargr in his attempt to reproduce the possible loss of a few stanzas, and in his
characterization of one of Gísli´s enemies, suggest that heroic-mythological characters
and motifs were still in use in the Christian period when most sagas were put into
writing. Their inclusion in dreams-stanzas or in connection to them can thus be
interpreted as a clear sign that although they were not to be considered a part of the
real world, they were capable of exerting considerable influence on it.
8 Cf. st. 4 of Íslendinga saga (1946, 251). After the battle of Víðiness, a man from Skagafjörður dreamt that he
came to a very large house where two women covered in blood were rocking to and fro as if rowing. They
identify themselves as the valkyries, Guðr and Göndul, and said that they were on their way to Raftahlíð.

10
Bibliography
Edda, Die Lieder des Codex Regius, 1962, ed. Gustav Neckel, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag,
Heildelberg.
Gísla saga Súrssonar, 1929, ed. Finnur Jónsson, Gyldendalske Boghandel, København.
Gísla saga Súrssonar, 1943, ed. Björn K. Þórólfsson, Íslenzk Fornrit, VI, Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag,
Reykjavík.
Gísla saga Súrssonar, 1956, ed. Agnete Lothe, Ejnar Munksgaard/Dreyers Forlag/Svenska
Bokförlaget, København/ Oslo/Stockholm.
Fornaldarsögur Norðurlanda (Völsunga saga), 1943, ed. Guðni Jónsson and Bjarni Vilhjálmsson, I,
Bókaútgáfan Forni, Reykjavík.
Ordbog over Det gamle norske Sprog, 1891, ed. Johan Fritzner, II, Den norske Forlagsforening,
Kristiania.
Gordon, Ida L. 1950, “The Origins og Gíslasaga”, in Saga-Book of the Viking Society, XIII, 3, 183-
205.
Kjartansson, Helgi S., 1992, “Fjögur bréf um Jóreiðardrauma. Helgi Skúli Kjartansson og
Bergljót Soffía Kristjánsdóttir”, in Skáldskaparmál, 2, 270-280.
Kristjánsson, Jónas, 1988, “Íslendingasögur og Sturlunga”, in Sturlustefna, ed. Guðrún Ása
Grímsdóttir og Jónas Kristjánsson, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, Reykjavík, 94-111.
Lexicon Poeticum antiquæ linguæ septentrionalis: Ordbog over det norsk-islanske skjaldesprog,
oprinelig forfattet af Sveinbjörn Egilsson, 1931, ed. Finnur Jónsson, Møller, København.
Lönnroth, Lars, 1969, “The Noble Heathen, a Theme in the Sagas”, in Scandinavian Studies, 41, 1-29.
Membrana regia deperdita, 1960, ed. Agnete Loth, Munksgaard, København.
Mundal, Else, 1974, Fylgjemotiva i norrøn litteratur, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
------ 1991, “Sagalitteraturen og Soga om Gisle Sursson”, in Soga om Gisle Sursson, Norske samlaget,
Oslo, 79-116.
Nordal, Guðrún, 2000, “Samtíminn í spegli fortíðar”, in Heiðin minni: Greinar um fornar bókmenntir,
ed. Haraldur Bessason og Baldur Hafstað, Heimskringla Háskólaútgáfa Máls og menningar,
Reykjavík, 71-90.
Notationes Norrœnæ, 1923-1936, ed. Ernst A. Kock, I-IV, Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, Gleerup,
Lund.
Sigurmundsson, Sigurður, 1963, “Draumar Jóreiðar”, in Andvari, 88, 33-38.
Skjaldedigtning, 1912, ed. Finnur Jónsson, B I, Gyldendalske Boghandel/Nordisk Forlag, København
og Kristiania.
Sturlunga saga, 1946, ed. Jón Jóhannesson, Magnús Finnbogason og Kristján Eldjárn, I-II,
Sturlungaútáfan, Reykjavík.
Sørensen, Preben Meulengracht, 1988a, “Guðrún Gjúkadóttir in Miðjumdalr. Zur Aktualität
nordischer Heldensage im Island des 13. Jahrhunderts“, in Heldensage und Heldendichtung im
Germanischen, ed. Heinrich Beck, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 183-197.
------ 1988b, „Historiefortælleren Sturla Þórðarson“, in Sturlustefna, ed. Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir og
Jónas Kristjánsson, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, Reykjavík, 112-126.
Turville-Petre, Gabriel, 1944, “Gísli Súrsson and his poetry, Traditions and Influences”, in Modern
Language Review, 374.
Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni, 1849, ed. Konrad Gislason, Kjøbenhavn