Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Blaðsíða 101

Skömm er óhófi <zvi
99
balance achieved by Sámr and Hrafnkell over the last six years. Eyvindr’s conduct
suggests that his return will not, to say the least, improve Hrafnkell’s position.
Both Hrafnkell and Sámr meet often in the course of events, but they never speak
of their diíferences {Opt fundusk þeir Sámr ok Hrafhkell á mannamótum, ok
minnttiskþeir aldri á sín viðskipti, 125). This tacit reticence is crucial to preserving
the peace, but Eyvindr, whether intentionally or not, reopens old wounds and
reanimates the feud. I have argued (1974) that Eyvindr is, in fact, not an innocent
victim, but rather a disturber of a peace that has lasted six years. Even if we reject
this view (Hallberg 1975; von See 1979:47), the staging of the revenge allows us
to make a case for Hrafnkell. The authors shows him in the most favorable light
he can cast on this deed, and if at the end some readers cannot accept the
attempted resolution of the problem, then we must recognize this as a legitimate
response to the text. I would ask, though, why the author lavishes so much care
on preparing Eyvindr’s return if he did not wish us to compare it to other such
scenes in the corpus and to interpret its function. As part of the rhetoric that
causes us to see Hrafnkell as perhaps not quite so calculating as some readers
would have him, the griðkona must insult him, it appears, to rekindle the
bloodlust she claims he has lost in his old age:
“satt er flest þat, er fornkveðit er, at svá ergisk hverr sem eldisk. Verðr sú lítil virðing,
sem snimma leggsk á, ef maðr lætr síðan sjálfr af með ósóma ok hefir eigi traust til at
reka þess réttar nökkurt sinni, ok eru slík mikil undr um þann mann, sem hraustr hefir
verit. Nú er annan veg þeira lífi, er upp vaxa með föður sínum, ok þykkja yðr einskis
háttar hjá yðr, en þá er þeir eru frumvaxta, fara land af landi ok þykkja þar mestháttar,
sem þá koma þeir, koma við þat út ok þykkjask þá höfðingjum meiri. Eyvindr
Bjarnason reið hér yfir á á Skálavaði með svá fagran skjöld, at ljómaði af. Er hann svá
menntr, at hefnd væri í honum.” (126-27)
in which Björn Þorgrímsson intially refúses to take revenge on Böðvarr Sigurðarson rather than
on the latter’s brother, Halli. Björn cites as one of his reasons for not wanting to attack Böðvarr
the fact that. . . sá maðr ersaklauss ok aldri verit viðskipti matina hér á landi (251). Later Glúmr
criticizes Björn in the same language for planning to attack Böðvarr as Björn himself had used:
Eru þetta þín ráð, frœndi, at drepa saklausan mann ok ganga á sœttir . . . ? (251). The two
statements tend to support the notion that Eyvindr is innocent because he has had no troubles
with Hrafnkell. In addition, as Glúmr suffers no loss of face because of his refusal to go along
with the conspirators, we might imagine that Hrafnkell could also have ignored the griðkona
without humiliation. Finally, Björn is shown to be weak because he yields to goading to do
something he knows is morally wrong, a fact which would lend support to those arguing against
Hrafnkell’s change. But one difference between the two incidents is that Böðvarr is innocent
and is seen to be such, whereas, as I believe, Eyvindr is not; another is that the settlement in
Valla-Ljóts saga is in all respects just and that those who break the peace suffer as a result, but
in Hrafhkels saga, as we will see below, the settlement between Hrafnkell and Sámr is not just
and Hrafnkell does not suffer by breaking the peace; and finally, evetything in Valla-Ljóts saga
suggests that Björn’s attack is reprehensible, while much in Hrafnkels saga argues for the rightness
of his attack or at least portrays the mitigating circumstances that might excuse it or make us
understand why Hrafnkell felt he had to act. Thus, while superficially the incident in Valla-Ljóts
saga could be regarded by some readers as a parallel to condemn Hrafnkell’s killing of Eyvindr,
the narrative differences in treatment are, I think, too telling to allow such a conclusion.