Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Blaðsíða 89

Skömm er óhófi œvi
87
THE HRAFNKELLS
BAD HRAFNKELL GRAY HRAFNKELL GOOD HRAFNKELL
I. Oath
II. Transgression
III. Punishment
IV. Arbitration
V. Recruiting
VI. Trial
VII. Enfiorcement
VIII. Restoration
IX. Return
X. Revenge
XI. Self-Judgment
XII. Appeal
The diagram tells us that segments I—III, VI, and X depict a bad Hrafnkell.
Segments V and IX, when modified, perform the same function. All the other
segments, those in italics to the right in the diagram, soften this portrait. While
such a programmatic assault on the saga might offend some readers, it does, I
think, have the merit of making clear which parts of the saga those readers who
believe in an unregenerate rogue leave out of their consideration. In short, the
evil that Hrafnkell performs in the first three segments lives long after in the
memory of these readers and blots out any virtues shown in the other segments.
Now while it is true that sagas tell the stories of some pretty unpleasant
characters — Gísli, Grettir, Egill — none gets away with murder, which is what
some readers are more or less claiming for the saga. Hrafhkels saga is ill-constructed
if the hero is bad throughout. I think we can safely reject a kind of attitude that
has popped up occasionally over the last twenty years: we are unjustified in
imposing our notions of structural unity on a saga written in an age that may or
may not have shared our aesthetic standards.9 We can reject such a notion because
5 Dietrich Hofmann (1976:31), allows that “werkimmanente oder andere Gesamtinterpretatio-
nen” may be applied to Hrafhkeb saga. But he continues: “Allerdings sollten sie nicht so
“immanent” sein, dak man die Tatsache vergifit oder ausklammert, dafi der Verfasser kein
freischaffender Kunstler war. Er gestaltete Stoffe neu, die andere vor ihm gestaltet hatten, wenn
auch nur miindlich-vergánglich. Es waren Stoffe, die er als Geschichtswissen betrachtete und
deren inhaltliche Aussagen er nicht willkiirlich verándern konnte und wollte. Im iibrigen ist bei
der Interpretation der Saga naturlich zu beriicksichtigen, dafi es sich um einen mittelalterlichen
Autor handelt, der fiir ein mittelalterliches Publikum schrieb. Einem solchen ist nicht jede uns
einleuchtend erscheinende Möglichkeit einer ideologischen oder ásthetischen Gesamtschau
zuzutrauen. Das ist manchmal vergessen worden.” (“Of course, they [the interpretations] should
not be so formalistic that they forget or ignore the fact that the author was not an original artist.
He gave new form to material that others had previously shaped, if only orally and thus