Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Qupperneq 88

86
Fredrik J. Heinemann
more powerful, he finds favor among his underlings. Sámr, on the other hand,
despite his willingness to help his þingmenn, is still a bit of a dandy (skartsmaðr
mikilt). He holds himself above water primarily because he practices the good
advice the Þjóstarsynir gave him (“Be generous to your þingmenn) and not
because he inspires his followers. The chapter prepares us for the coming storm
by suggesting that natural forces are at work to restore the old order. Everything
in the chapter favors Hrafnkell and thus must be deleted.7
The “Return” and “Revenge” are the only exceptions to a wholesale revamping
of virtually all of the last segments of the saga. In portraying Eyvindr’s return to
Iceland, we might wish to play down the pomp which occasions it, for it suggests
that, like Sámr, Eyvindr appears to be a skartsmaðr mikilL, but this section can
remain. So, too, can Hrafnkell’s revenge killing, his reclaiming of his chieftaincy,
and his assurances to Sámr that he cannot expect generous treatment in the future.
These segments bring us full circle to the situation that existed at the beginning
of the saga: a contentious bully imposing his will on weaker opponents and
making them lump it. Naturally, we would have to alter Hrafnkell’s settlement
terms, which are more generous than those Sámr granted Hrafnkell, and we might
wish to have Hrafnkell gloat a bit, deliver a few choice insults about Sámr’s lack
of grit, and even imply that his failure to dispatch Hrafnkell stems from his
deficient manhood, but if the revised saga were to end here, we would have a
“well-rounded treatment” of the bad Hrafnkell. Of course, the saga does not
conclude here, but moves on to Þorgeirr’s affirmation of Hrafnkell’s conduct and
his denunciation of Sámr’s. Surely, we would not wish to let such praise of the
hero stand!
Now the question this exercise in rewriting the saga raises is, if the saga is not,
in fact, well disposed towards the hero, what are those elements that flatter
Hrafnkell, or at least do not condemn him outright, doing in the saga? Why, for
example, does Hrafnkell regain power in exile, when since Nordal nearly everyone
regards this element as highly unrealistic?8 Why does his chief adversary, Þorgeirr,
praise him and come down so hard on Sámr? And, finally, why does Hrafnkell
triumph and live happily (although briefly) ever after, leaving his sons rich and
powerful? These questions will receive treatment below, but for now we can once
again represent the conclusions reached in the above discussion by a diagram:
7 It is only when Hrafnkell renounces Freyr that we see that, in fact, the pagan gods have quite
limited power over human beings. Freyr can cause trouble, apparently, for anyone foolish to
resign their reason and swear foolish oaths to him, but his power is limited. Nothing unfortunate
happens to Hrafnkell after he renounces Freyr.
8 See, for example, Jón Jóhannesson’s acceptance of Nordal’s conclusions, ÍF, XI, p. xlvi-xlvii.
But see Óskar Halldórsson (1976:21), who recounts Nordal’s arguments but then states that
they need not necessarily be true. I appreciate Gísli Sigurðsson’s calling my attention to this
point.