and Another thing
re/ the ergi discussion re/ drengr etcâ
I feel like whatâs really missed here when talking about cultural norms at that time is the true contrast between nĂĂ°r and either of those two other things. It was always better to be drengr than ergi, but both was better than nĂĂ°r. You canât talk about these things in a vacuum. There was more to society than whether you were drengr or ergiâthere just was.
For example, yes, drengr wasn't restricted to men; it was more of the cultural sense of what was expected of most people, and for certain, people of power and/or means. Drengr is bravery of the self. Just as honor to community didn't mean martyrdom, this courage didn't mean toxic pride nor vicious cruelty. It was self-control. It is, in essence, boundary work: consistently being able to stand up for yourself and your actions, to be appropriately assertive in your responses, and show fair play.
Ergi had those passive connotations I spoke about in my previous post, which included observational skills, often the ones that led to a variety of magic (although youâll notice the berserker-ĂșlfhĂ©Ă°nar-skipta hÇ«mum type magic wasnât considered ergi and Iâm sure you donât need to be led to why). This âhesitationâ was "cowardly,â and being on the receiving end of information was less valued that the one powering the information. This is why ergi comes into play as likening men to women, both from a social construct setting as well as, later, sexual slang (bottoming for menâmind you, topping wasnât ergiâand horniness for women, how weird they want it like a man does).
Just as men could be ergi for practicing magic (even ĂĂ°inn was called ergi!), and women could be ergi, women could also be drengr. (Shieldmaidens, anyone?) These âgenderedâ concepts were based in expectations but were not exclusive to gender. I think maybe thatâs why they went with coward in AC:Valhalla: to emphasize the cultural component over the slang. However! Letâs get back to nĂĂ°r! It was no joke. To have the status of nĂĂ°r was to be deemed shameful; a villain, avoided, reviled, and untrustworthyâa nĂĂ°ingr.
Typical causes for such disgrace included: desertion; treachery; shameful acts (such as killing kinsmen or defenseless people); breaking one's oath. When a man betrayed the trust of another man, that man would become known as a nĂĂ°ingr. This person wasnât a coward: he was a problem. You couldnât count on him to contribute to society. You couldnât rely on him as a friend or a neighbor, or a brother-in-arms. He was unpredictable, untrustworthyâuseless.Â
Okay, cool? Cool. Letâs get back to drengr/ergi. Not useless.
Sometimes, if someone had it out for you, ergi could land you as nĂĂ°r if you failed to defend yourself (failing to defend yourself when insulted? not a good look). Ergi â  nĂĂ°r; it wasnât a perfect circle venn diagram, you could be ergi without being nĂĂ°r. Drengr was a state of existing, a way of being and moving through the world, a default setting, even, if you well. People didnât call people drengskapr regularly; this was what was expected of you. To be called drengskapr outright meant you did something really noteworthy. So, what else was involved in being âmanly,â if thatâs how weâre going to code drengr?
Being a good fucking person.
No really. It wasnât just Hi hereâs my dick, fuck you, eat my swordâdrengr (as aforementioned) was about being composed of the self and an asset to community. Keeping friĂ°r, for exampleâmaintaining social contracts and bonds in a peaceful way, agreement not to cause physical harm to each other. Thereâs luck, honor, reputation, hospitalityâall key components of functioning in this society. You didnât know when you were going to be the one that needed help, so you helped where you could. Being a good viking was about interdependenceânot about toxicity.
(*At least as much as Iâve learned in all of my research.)
