Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Page 99

Skömm er óhófi œvi
97
allt lið þitt ok haf þá eina fémuni, er ek skef þér, ok mun þat harðla lítit, ef ek skal taka
staðfestu þína ok mannaforráð allt. Skaltu aldri tilkall veita né þínir erfmgjar. Hvergi
skaltu nær vera en fyrir austan Fljótsdalsheiði, ok máttu nú eiga handsöl við mik, ef
þú vilt þenna upp taka.” (121)
Reactions to Sámr’s sparing Hrafnkell’s life have been various.18 If the reactions
of Þorkell and Þorgeirr are any indication,19 then Sámr acted unwisely here. But
nowhere in the saga does any character explain why he saves Hrafnkell’s life, and
it remains for us to supply the reason. It seems that Sámr lets Hrafnkell live so as
to provide a living token of his victory. There is, of course, not much textual
evidence for my conjecture, but this interpretation fits Sámr’s character.
VIII. The Restoration. See the discussion above, pp. 84-86.
IX. The Return and X. The Revenge. These segments comprise the major crux for
those of us who regard him as in some way reformed. Indeed, von See’s comment
that there does not seem to be a very satisfactory explanation for Eyvindr’s
presence in the saga (1979:46) is plausible ifwe assume that the saga author creates
the saga out of whole cloth. Why would an author committed to a reformed
Hrafnkell have him kill the attractive Eyvindr? Why not simply allow Eyvindr to
live out his days abroad? Von See’s interpretation of the saga is neat, comprehen-
sive, and tidy, but only because he ignores the author’s assurances that Hrafnkell
does change (we should remember Miller/Andersson’s caveat above). I assume,
however, that this segment belongs to the core of the saga, one of the elements of
the traditional story that an author writing at the time the present saga took shape
could no more have changed than could the author of Vólsunga saga have provided
Brynhildr with a happy marriage. Naturally, in the case of Hrajhkels saga, we lack
the source material from which the author of Vólsunga saga worked, but given
the guise of the narrator as a reticent purveyor of reliable information and given
18 Hermann Pálsson believes (1966) that in giving Hrafnkell life Sámr wins his greatest victory,
shows his humanity, and practices Aristotle’s advice in Alexanders saga to temper justice with
mercy. Later (1971:53-54, 55) Pálsson faults Sámr, citing patristic sources as an authority for
judging his conduct. While at liberty to change his mind, Pálsson reveals the weakness of his
critical method — a version of the Patristic School pioneered by D. W. Robertson, Jr. — by
citing two authorities outside the text to support contradictory interpretations of the same point.
At its worst the patristic method assumes that finding a medieval opinion on x outside a given
work can be used to confirm a reading of the work, whether this reading does violence to the
text or not. Neither of Pálsson’s interpretations is convincing in itself because in superimposing
them on the text he distorts it. And, of course, the two tend to cancel each other out.
19 Whether Þorkell or Þorgeirr utters the following remark is not dear: Eigi veit ek, hvíþú gerir
þetta. Muntu þessa mest iðrask sjálfr, erþú gefr honum líf{ 121). It seems more in keeping with
Þorgeirr’s character than with Þorkell’s — the latter gives no sensible advice elsewhere; when
later Þorgeirr says, in effect, “1 told you so,” it may be that he is referring to this earlier remark.
See ÍF, XI, n. 5, p. 121, where Jóhannesson justifies his emendation. Whoever utters the advice,
Sámr would have been well advised to have followed it. Fortunately for students of the saga, he
did not, as the saga would have been devoid of interest.