Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Page 97

Skömm er óhófi œvi
95
essentially comic, even parodic. Its function is to characterize the motives of
Hrafnkell’s opponents. Þorkell hopes to make his mark on the domestic scene,
having won honors abroad. Þorgeirr reluctantly agrees to go along in order to
help his brother achieve his goal. Þorbjörn and Sámr are desperate in their attempt
to win the unwinnable lawsuit. This comic treatment is essential if we are not to
lose sight of the fact that Hrafnkell’s opponents are conducting a feud against
him, as opposed to seeking some abstract notion of justice in law, and that we
must judge the conduct of the players according to the rules of this game and not
some other one. Like all games, this one is played to be won. Thus, when the first
half is over and Hrafnkell has been humiliated, tortured, and banished, we expect
him to counter in the second half. Making Sámr comic prepares us for his reversal.
We cannot understand Hrafnkell’s response after six years if we insist that he has
committed some inexplicable crime by killing Eyvindr. According to the rules of
the feud, no matter how imperfect they may appear to some modern readers,
Eyvindr is a player like all others in the game.
VI. The Trial. Perhaps the least complex of the segments, it begins with the
sentence, Nú sitja þeir, þar til er dómar fiara út (116) and ends with Mörgum
mönnumþykkir vel... at hann hefir mörgum ójafhaðsýnt (117). Ifwe concentrate
on the trial alone, we might get the impression that Hrafnkell has been treated
unjustly because he had no chance to defend himself against the charges brought
by Sámr. But we are not meant to sympathize with Hrafnkell nor are we meant
to perceive Sámr’s actions as unjust. The narrator’s comment at the end of the
trial makes clear that Hrafnkell received his just deserts. Sámr has taken over the
eptirmálaccording to Þorbjörn’s request — and following his taunts — and seems
to have conducted the suit in an exemplary fashion.
Heusler mentions that a court summons was usually considered an insult in
itself and cites, among others, the case of Gunnarr of Hlíðarendi discussed above
(in IV. The Arbitratiori). For Gunnarr, to have the power of the state mix in his
afifairs insults his honor, especially in a matter like his wife’s crime that easily lends
itself to a settlement between men of honor (Heusler 1911:100). Thus the
contrast of Hrafnkell’s reaction (/Hannj spyrrþetta okþótti hLegiligt, er Sámr hefir
tekit mál á hendr honum, 108) to being sued is additional evidence of his ofii that
stems from his belief in Freyr.17 Hrafnkell cannot believe what is happening to
him until it is too late.
“is conceived in comic terms, as he must be if we are to take the central action of Hrafnkell’s
downfall and recovery with any seriousness”; suggests that “Sámr . . . is presented throughout
with an edge of comedy; his special function in the saga is to underline rather heavily Hrafnkell’s
natural qualities as a born leader of men” (427); observes that “the long exchange between Sámr
and Þorkell Lock has its elements of comedy” (423); and recognizes that Þorbjörn “occupies an
apparently more central place [than Bjarni] to provide comic relief’ (426). He also observes that
Sámr “has not really changed during his stay at Aðalból: he is no Hrafnkell who develops in
adversity” (428).
17 Halldórsson (1976:54-55) puts the matter thus: “Víg Einars er því trúarlegt og sýnir að á þessu