Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Page 92

90
Fredrik J. Heinemann
that Freyr is a bad god in the way he tricks Einarr into riding Freyfaxi. The sheep
disappear and then miraculously reappear after Einarr has searched for them in
vein. AJl the mares which Einarr is permitted to ride flee, and Freyfaxi stands
ready to be mounted, as if he were rooted to the earth. Freyfaxi himself is a type
of bad Lassie, an animal-agent that tempts Einarr to ride him and then betrays
him to Hrafnkell after he has done so. Freyr seems intent on having a human
sacrifice, and Einarr falls into the trap.11 Other sagas replace paganism with
Christianity, but Hrajhkels saga stops short of this option, perhaps on chronolog-
ical grounds (Andersson 1967:282-83).
III. The Punishment. And thus the shepherd meets his sad end. The essential
ingredient here is that Hrafnkell’s act appears unjust and the result of his rash
oath. Whatever the causes of his other killings might have been — and the saga
suggests that his sole motivation is that they are all men of Jökulsdal and thus his
enemies — he kills Einarr only because of the oath. Even in committing the act,
Hrafnkell is perfectly conscious of the rashness of his oath. He does not want to
commit the reprehensible deed, regrets it immediately, and blames it on his oath
— and thus his faith in the gods.
If we regard the saga’s treatment of Hrafnkell in the first three segments, he
loosely fits Aristotle’s defmition of the tragic hero as “a man not pre-eminently
virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice
and depravity but by some error of judgement” (Aristotle 1988:50). Hrafnkell’s
tragic flaw is his paganism and the pride he takes in the protection he falsely
believes Freyr provides him. What he does not recognize — and all classical tragic
heroes possess incomplete knowledge — is the unreliability of this belief system.
His remorse at killing Einarr and his humiliation at the hands of his enemies teach
him this bitterlesson. Hrafnkell’s experiences “purge” (Andersson 1967:282) him
of the debilitating pride that brought him low. But such judgments really cannot
be made at this point in the saga. Much is left to come.
IV. TheArbitration. This segment characterizes Hrafnkell favorably and Þorbjörn
negatively during their unsuccessful arbitration of Einarr’s death. Initially amen-
able, Hrafnkell makes an offer but then breaks off negotiations when Þorbjörn
demands that the case be submitted to public arbitration.
This scene portrays the breakdown as occurring not because Hrafnkell offers
too little but because Þorbjörn demands too much, namely social equality with
Hrafnkell {þáþykkiskþú jajhmenntr mér, 106). Þorbjörn desires the honor to be
11 This is a point that emerged in a seminar discussion at the annual Viking Society meeting for
students on March 7, 1992, held at the University of Leeds. Participating at this point in the
discussion, if memory serves me correctly, were Diane Whaley, Richard North, Peter Orton,
Bernard Standring, and myself. The insight developed as a joint effort, each of these speakers
adding a bit as the discussion progressed. Another point was made later by a Leeds student who
suggested that Freyr was testing Hrafnkell, saying, in effect, “you made the oath to kill anyone
who rides the horse, well, then, prove your devotion to me”!