Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Side 103

Skömm er óhófi œvi
101
Recendy, in an article that has relevance to the present discussion, William Ian
Miller (1983) discusses the strategy of revenge-taking in defense of one of the
most unpopular killings in the saga, that of Höskuldr Hvítanessgoði by Skarp-
héðinn. Miller argues that some participants in a feud acquire “liability” (317).
That is, some victims fall because they conduct themselves in such a way as to
“[engage] in liability-producing conduct” (321). Mostly these characters get what
they have coming to them in the settling of old scores (e.g., Þráinn). Others seem
unluckier (e.g., Höskuldr Hvítanessgoði), who succumbs in his role as peacema-
ker. The art of the bloodfeud often demands that those on the periphery who
become drawn in as the feud expands, especially when “innocent” family mem-
bers, be made to look more involved than they may actually be: “The legitimacy
of hostile action in . . . the feud depended very much on how successfully that
action could be made to look like reaction” (325). Miller is speaking about how
the participants themselves cloak their revenge in legitimacy, but if we imagine
that the saga author strove to achieve the same ends for another purpose — that
of making Hrafnkell’s act acquire the maximum in legitimacy — then Miller’s
conclusions could apply to Hrafnkell’s killing of Eyvindr.2"’ Clearly, Eyvindr bears
no direct responsibility for Hrafnkell’s fall. But at the very least his appearance is
made to seem the catalyst that breaks the peace. Whether or not modern readers
of the saga disapprove of the bloodfeud as a political weapon — and I suspect
that such disapproval lies behind most of the negative reaction to Hrafnkell — I
see nothing in the saga that condemns Hrafnkell’s act or his career in toto.
X. Self-Judgment. Those who find Hrafnkell unregenerate never really analyze the
terms of the settlement he imposes upon Sámr. And why does he not kill Sámr?
After all, he alone “cuts and shapes” (ek skal einn skera ok skapa okkar í milli, 131)
and could have ended Sámr’s worries then and there. Besides, who is left to call
Hrafnkell to account after Eyvindr’s death?
The settlement operates on the principle of the “balance-sheet model.”26This
means that Hrafnkell assumes sjálfcUmi and awards himself damages by holding
2^ This is, in fact, the way Miller himself sees the scene. He sees Eyvindr as the “perfect expiator
because he is ‘greater than chieftains’” (Miller: 1990:200). Among themany cogentobservations
he makes about the saga, I find most convincing his point that Hrafnkell eliminates Eyvindr
sooner rather than later; Hrafnkell gets rid ofEyvindr on the offense rather than having to defend
himselfagainst him later (201). He does, however, see Eyvindr as entirely sympathetic (202 and
note 28).
26 Miller (1983:316) applies the term to the conduct of a feud. The principle applies to this
incident, because sjálfdami is merely another form of conducting a feud. Miller apologizes,
unnecessarily I think, for using this jaunty bit of academic jargon. Miller discusses the institution
of sjálfdami at some length (Miller:1984; 1990:285-289). About the only criticism I would
make of Miller’s work is that sometimes it seems, especially in his citation of anthropological
studies of feud, that he underestimates the fictional or patterned character of the sagas. Case
studies of feud are best done in the field among feuding societies, whereas the sagas are narrative
reports of feuds. Feuds in the sagas are, thus, always terminal at the end of the saga if not before.