Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Síða 84

82
Fredrik J. Heinemann
As we can infer from the diagram, the plot gives concrete form to the more abstract
level of the segment. We can illustrate this principle fiirther by fabricating an
alternative plot for a segment without altering its semantic deep structure:
NARRATIVE SEGMENT: (II. TRANSGRESSION)
I
PLOT
(*Einarr returns Hrafnkell’s lost sheep/*Einarr seduces
Hrafnkell’s servant girl /*Einarr rides Freyfaxi to impress his lover)
As the reconstructed version demonstrates, it matters little which details lead to
the one indispensable element, Hrafnkell’s killing Einarr. Thus we can invent any
number of plots for the saga without altering its semantic deep structure. But if
we remove Hrafnkell’s oath, his killing Einarr and Eyvindr, his fall, and his final
humiliation of Sámr, we make much more drastic transformations in the saga. If
we remove any of the links in I—XII, then the chain, and of course the saga, take
on quite a different appearance.
In one other way the narrative segments are also independent of the plot. While
numbering them from I to XII suggests that they summarize the plot, we should
think of them, in fact, as devoid of narrative content: like plot details, they could
just as well consist of other events. Thus, if we assume that Hrafhkels saga depicts
the hero’s fall as initially caused by his paganism and his subsequent rise to even
greater heights as a consequence of renouncing the gods, then the precise oath he
swears to a god is as irrelevant as the god to whom he swears it.4 It is only necessary
that Hrafnkell kills an innocent person. We can also illustrate with a diagram how
changing the contents of a segment as well as the plot does not alter the saga’s
semantic deep structure :
NARRATIVE SEGMENT (I. OATH)
I
PLOT
(*Hrafnkell builds temple and become Freyr’s Priest/*Hrafnkell
vows to kill anyone who bathes in *Freyá/Hrafnkell hires Einarr)
4 No doubt in the past all commentators have made the mistake, to some degree or another, of
assuming that Hrafnkels saga has a meaning and of attempting to explain the saga in light of
this assumed meaning. I do not wish to suggest that the saga depicts Hrafnkell’s fall as being
wholly caused by his adherence to a pagan religion. His pride, arrogance, complacency, and
imagined self-sufficiency all play a role in his fall, and his rise owes much to his own efforts,
luck, having the “right stuff,” and simply being superior to all other men in the saga as a leader.
On the other hand, it would be equally foolish to deny, as I used to do, that the religious element
is absent from the saga. Hrafnkell is better off without his devotion to Freyr, and the saga seems
to be generalizing that it is advisable for everyone to give up belief in these gods.