Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Qupperneq 90

88
Fredrik J. Heinemann
the saga so obviously does possess a carefully worked out structure, even if it is
not that of a modern novel, and because the universal structural laws of narrative
at issue here do not depend upon genre or period. They apply with equal force
to the Iliad, Beowulf, Brideshead Revisitedor “Little Red Riding-Hood.” In what
follows I will examine the twelve segments of the saga and argue that they develop
the thesis that whatever unjust acts Hrafnkell may have committed in his life —
and there is no denying that he committed some — these occurred at a time when
he was a pagan. All his troubles can be traced to his worship of Freyr, and when
he renounces this religion his transformation occurs overnight. Ifwe examine the
saga from this point of view, we will arrive at the unsurprising conclusion that
Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða is a well-constructed masterpiece of saga narrative art.
I. The Oath. In addition to all his other favorite possessions, Hrafnkell pledges
half of his favorite stallion, Freyfaxi, to Freyr and swears to kill anyone who rides
him. Like so much of saga narrative, this slot in the paradigm is psychologically
unmotivated. We are left to assume that Hrafnkell as a worshipper of pagan gods
hopes to enjoy Freyr’s favor in exchange for his offering. Whatever reason
Hrafnkell has for his belief, without the oath the saga lacks kindling with which
to ignite the narrative fire. Looked at in this way, the oath not only gets the
narrative going but makes clear that the saga, among its other political, ethical,
and moral precepts, condemns a belief in pagan gods. Certainly Hrafnkell can
trace all his troubles to this oath, which is emblematic of the entire belief system.
As matters fall out, Hrafnkell is the first to recognize his folly in swearing the
oath. He twice regrets it, once just before killing Einarr (þar munda ek hafagefit
þér upp eina sök, efek hefða eigi svá mikit um mcelt..., 105), and once before offering
Þorbjörn compensation for Einarr’s death (En vit munum optþess iðrask, er vit
erum ofmálgir, ok sjaldnar mundum vitþessa iðrask, þó at vit mœltim fiera en fleira,
106). Moreover, when Hrafnkell hears of Freyfaxi’s death and the destruction of
the temple, he says: Ek hyggþat hégóma at trúa á goð (124). The oath represents
not only a place at which the consequences of an action lead inevitably to a
reaction on the plot level, but in addition initiates a form of immoderation, the
kind committed in speech, that creates friction and dissension in the saga.
Simultaneously, the oath must seem so binding on Hrafnkell at the time that he
cannot refuse to carry out the punishment. Finally, the saga suggests that Freyr,
transitorily. This was material that he regarded as historical knowledge whose contents he neither
could nor desired to alter arbitrarily. Moreover, when interpreting the saga, we must, of course,
consider that we are dealing with a medieval author who wrote for a medieval reader. We cannot
attribute to this readership all ideologically and aesthetically comprehensive interpretations that
appear persuasive to us today. This has sometimes been forgotten.”) We could agree with much
of this if it were not for the fact that these assumptions lead Hofmann to regard some features
of the saga as “badly motivated” (33). Von See (1979:49), on the other hand, attempts to see
all aspects of the saga as “persuasively motivated.” I see no more reason not to use modern critical
methods to read literature from the middle ages than not to use modern linguistic methods to
analyze medieval forms of modern languages. Trying to determine how a medieval reader would
have read the saga is, of course, the subject of Andersson’s recent anicle.