Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Qupperneq 100

98
Fredrik J. Heinemann
the stereotyped character of the Islendingasögur, it seems permissible to assume
that stories accumulating around certain historical or parahistorical figures con-
tained certain elements that were fixed by retelling and were, therefore, immuta-
ble. This assumption does not mean sagas are historically reliable, it does not rule
out the oral tradition, it does not mean that the author could not shift the
emphasis on certain facts or portray events in a radically new way, and it certainly
does not mean that the author was restricted in shaping his story to achieve
rhetorical effect. But it does suggest that, from time to time, we accept that there
are parts of sagas that we are never going to be able to explain satisfactorily. Partly
this is because we can not always be sure — as here — whether we are dealing
with a traditional segment or whether a saga might not simply be ill-constructed.
And partly this is because there is no important work of art that does not somehow
defy our attempts to account for the fascination it holds for us even when, and
perhaps because, we do not completely understand it. Thus, if we assume its
traditional character, the Eyvindr episode presents the author with a very difficult
technical problem to solve: justifying the killing. If the story had sprung whole
from the author’s mind, on the other hand, then we cannot avoid the conclusion
that the saga reveals glaring structural problems. That the author has not entirely
succeeded in solving this problem is amply documented by the many readers who
regard the hero, despite the author’s claims, as unregenerate and the many readers’
attempts to explain Eyvindr’s role in the saga as insufficient.
Pierre Halleux (1966:43) speaks for many who see no change:
What drives Hrafnkel to violence and brutality is not his idolatry but his own nature.
His nature does actually undergo a slight change under the influence of his temporary
misfortune. He does show himself more kindly, more friendly to people, but in reality
he bides his time. As soon as a suitable opportunity for taking the revenge he has been
brooding over for six years appears, he seizes it. No deep change has taken place in
him . . ,20
Here the equation “bloodfeud equals ójafhaðr seems to lie behind Halleux’s
thinking, but as I have argued elsewhere, some killings in the sagas receive the
approval, either tacit or explicit, of the community at large (1975:449). Moreover,
the role of the bloodfeud as a legal institution has not received proper considera-
tion in this context.21 To be sure, the feud in Hrafhkels saga involves none of the
complexity of those portrayed in the great feud sagas, but Hrafnkell’s retaliation
must nevertheless be measured in the context of feud. He could ignore the
griðkona, allow Eyvindr to pass unscathed, pretend that nothing had happened,
and abide by the terms of the settlement.22 But Eyvindr’s return destroys the
20 For conclusions similar to those of Halleux, see Thomas BredsdorfF(1966).
21 See William Ian Miller’s discussion of this point, as well as valuable references to other studies
ofthe bloodfeud, in “Choosing theAvenger: SomeAspectsoftheBloodfeudinMedievai Iceland
and England,” Law andHistory Review, 1 (1983), 160 ff.
22 None of the readers who condemn Hrafnkell’s killing mention an incident in Valla-Ljóts saga