Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Qupperneq 106

104
Fredrik J. Heinemann
cancelled by the torture Hrafnkell and his men suffered; additionally, no com-
pensation for Einarr because Sámr has benefited for six years frorn Hrafnkell’s
wealth and power. That Hrafnkell apportions blame and retribution in this way
demonstrates how dispute settlement functions in the feud. Normally, arbitration
walks the tightrope between two competing demands: to restore the plaintiff’s
honor by punishing the defendant, but not so heavily that it sets off the
defendant’s violent reaction. As a consequence, restraint in a settlement usually
occurs when two equally matched parties threaten each other with the blood feud.
Obviously, where one party has a foot on his opponent’s neck and fears no reprisal,
as here, moderate behavior constitutes a temptation to which few succumb. In
the end we are left to determine Hrafnkell’s motives for ourselves. Either he wants
to put all strife behind him once and for all with one final strike into the
opponent’s camp, or he waits for an opportunity where he will seem more sinned
against than sinning to repay his adversary, or he has taken to heart what his
humiliation has taught him, that he can gain more with persuasion than with the
sword. Whatever the proper interpretation, and presumably Hrafnkell has coun-
tenanced all these possibilities, he emerges frorn the saga as the dominant figure,
stronger, wiser, and more moderate than his adversaries and his own unregenerate
self. He has managed to arrive at a pinnacle where by treating his opponent in a
manner whose aptness wins general approval, he delivers him an insult almost
but not quite preferable to a heroic death more honored in song than in reality.
XI. TheAppeal. No praise is more gratifying or more persuasive than that of one’s
opponents, especially when it serves as an epitaph. R. George Thomas allows even
that “[the sons of Þjóstar] have no desire to take on the new Hrafnkell and this,
the author implies, is the true measure of Hrafnkell’s successful rehabilitation”
(1973:430). Thus Þorgeirr’s words provide a fitting conclusion to my discussion:
“Þóttumsk vér allvel í hendr þér búa, áðr vér gengum frá, svá at þér hefði hægt verit
at halda. Hefir þat farit eptir því, sem ek ætlaða, þá er þú gaft Hrafnkeli líf, at þess
mundir þú mest iðrask. Fýstum vit þik, at þú skyldir Hrafnkel af lífi taka, en þú vildir
ráða. Er þat nú auðsét, hverr vizkumunr ykkarr hefir orðit, er hann lét þik sitja í friði
ok leitaði þar fyrst á, er hann gat þann af ráðit, er honum þótti þér vera meiri maðr.
Megum vit ekki hafa at þessu gæfúleysi þitt. Er okkr ok ekki svá mikil fyst at deila við
Hrafnkel, at vit nennim at leggja þar við virðing okkra optar. En bjóða viljum vit þér
hingat með skuldalið þitt allt undir okkarn áraburð, ef þér þykkir hér skapraunarminna
en í nánd Hrafnkeli.” (132—133)
For many readers this passage proves that the saga’s central figure has not really
changed, that he is the same ruthless figure at the end of the saga as he was at the
beginning. Of course, we cannot ignore such testimony in weighing up our
responses to the hero’s career. But because he has changed in the manner the text
makes explicit does not mean that he has become soft in the head nor that he has
forgotten that he owes Sámr a thrashing nor that he does not live in a violent age