Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Qupperneq 91

Skömm er óhófi <zvi
89
and by implication any other pagan deity, only has power over human conduct
when one believes in him. The saga does not deny their existence (see the
following section) but rather suggests that it is advisable to have nothing to do
with them.
Notice how our view of the oath changes if we regard the saga as history rather
than fiction. A chronicle records what took place and thus cannot fictionalize a
function for the oath or shape events to point up a moral lesson. Fiction, on the
other hand, can decide, as here, to start at the other end: to decide that paganism
inevitably leads to immoderate behavior and to use the oath as a means to
demonstrate this conclusion.
II. The Transgression. Einarr rides Freyfaxi despite his awareness of the prohibition.
The narrative texture makes clear that Einarr’s act is also psychologically unmo-
tivated.10 He does not violate the terms of his employment in order to enrich
himself or to get his own back against Hrafnkell. He and Hrafnkell would
normally not come into conflict with each other. The saga’s treatment of this event
seems largely necessitated by narrative constraints. That is, in order that Hrafnkell
commit an unjust act, he must kill Einarr, and given the oath, the boy must ride
the horse. The saga might have shown Einarr performing some other action —
seducing Hrafnkell’s favorite servant girl, say, or showing him up at some
competition — that brings the two into conflict. But the oath-ride pairing offers
at least three advantages. One, in order that Hrafnkell undergo a transformation
the saga needs to show his character in great need of improvement. This is
accomplished by showing him committing the kind of offence that has earned
him his epithet ójafnaðarmaðr mikilL Thus, a dutiful and promising boy techni-
cally violates a rash oath while remaining entirely blameless of any serious
wrongdoing. True, he tries to save time in recovering the lost sheep in order to
avoid Hrafnkell’s imagined displeasure, but after all he is just a lad. If Einarr had
mistreated a normal horse, then we could understand Hrafnkell’s displeasure and
we could imagine some punishment meted out to Einarr. But to kill a boy for
riding a horse is either insanely evil or dictated by a very curious system of belief.
Second, the saga can ultimately blame Hrafnkell’s excess on paganism and imply
that those who believe in it will come to grief. Third, Hrafnkell’s flaw must be
one that can in fact be corrected. The saga seems to say, and this is by no means
an original idea, that getting rid of a bad religion will do a person a world of good.
Only a firm belief in something flawed could force him to act foolishly, while at
the same time he does not appear to lack ethical values. That is, he cannot act
amorally but must be shown to act immorally. His system of beliefs must be shown
to be at fault and not some missing element in his character. The saga suggests
10 Hans Schottmann (1989:126) views dialogue in the saga as serving specific aesthetic require-
ments of the narrative and not the expression of feelings or desires. He further regards the
dialogue between Einarr and Hrafnkell as foreshadowing and not as an insight into either
character’s frame of mind.