Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1994, Side 104

102
Fredrik J. Heinemann
to Sámr’s model. The following table, in which I have rearranged the order of the
elements somewhat, will help us to see the symmetry in the two scenes:
HRAFNKELL’S SJÁLFDÆMI (131-132)
(1) Mun ek bjóða þér tvá kosti: at vera drepinn
(2) þú skalt fara brott afASalbóli
(3) Ek vil taka við goSorii mínu, svá ok við búi ok
staSfestu
(4) Skaltu hafa með þér auSxfi þau, sem Eyvindr
hafði átt. M skalt ekki heðan fleira hafa í fémunum
útan þat, er þú hefir hingat haft... Sé ek, at mikill
ávöxtr hefir á orðit á gózi mínu, ok skaltu ekki þess
njóta
(5) Fyrir Eyvind, bróður þinn, skulu engar bætr
koma, fyrir því at þú mæltir herfiliga eptir inn fyrra
frænda þinn ... En eigi þykki mér meira vert dráp
Eyvindar ok manna hans en meizl við mik ok
minna manna . . . hafi þér ærnar bætr þó eptir
Einar, frænda yðvarn, þar er þú hefir haft ríki ok
fé sex vetr
(6) Skaltu aldri tilkall veita né þínir erfingjar. (6) þú gerðir mik sveitarrakan, en ek læt mér líka,
Hvergi skaltu nær vera en fyrir austan Fljótsdals- at þú sitir á Leikskálum, ok mun þat duga, ef þú
heiSi ofsar þér eigi til vansa. Minn undirmaðr skaltu
vera, meðan vit lifum báðir
While this symmetry has long been recognized,27 only two readers,28 as far as I
am aware, have attempted to explain its narrative function. Hrafnkell’s settlement
is patterned on Sámr’s not merely because of a predilection for parallelism but
because the symmetry calls attention to their differences. The balance sheet, of
course, prevents Hrafnkell from killing Sámr, but it also allows him to be more
27 A. R. Taylor (1957:225, n. 11. 830) notes “the similarity ofwording and situation” between the
two. In addition, he observes that “parallelism is a favourite device of the author” and cites the
pairing of characters as “Hrafnkell and Sám, Einar and Eyvind, Þorgeir and Þorkel, Þorbjörn
and Bjarni.” Surely the pairs Hrafnkell and Þorgeirr, Þorkell and Eyvindr, Þorbjörn and Bjarni,
Einarr and Eyvindr represent more meaningfúl oppositions. Sámr is noticeably alone in this
scheme.
28 Schottmann (1989:123—24) discusses the parallelism in some detail, concluding that Sámr’s
generosity lies at the root of his sparing Hrafnkell (“Sámr schonte Hrafnkell, was er sich nicht
leisten konnte”) and that Sámr fails to consider Hrafnkell’s unscrupulousness in allowing him
to live, whereas the measure of both Hrafnkell’s power and his lack of esteem for Sámr can be
seen in requiring no security from Sámr that he will keep the peace. Sámr is honorable and
courageous, but not decisive or sufficiently unscrupulous. Hrafnkell is power in perfection. My
discussion in what follows above makes clear where I disagree with Schottmann in his
interpretation of wbat the saga structure means, but I endorse his thesis as to how the structure
fúnctions in communicadng meaning. See also Miller (1990:201).
SÁMR'S SJÁLFDÆMI (121)
(1) Tvá kosti geri ek þér, Hrafnkell. Sá annarr, at
þik skal. . . vera drepinn
(2) farþú afASalbóli
(3) ek skal taka staSfestu þína ok mannaforráS
(4) haf þá eina fémuni, er ek skef þér, ok mun þat
harSla litit.. . Sámr skipti Hrafnkeli afféslíkt, er
hann vildi, ok var þat raunarlítit
(5)