Hrafnkel’s Saga: The Validity of the Trial
While ancient stereotypes often portray Viking society as primitive and barbaric in comparison to other cultures, medieval Scandinavian societies possessed complex legal systems. The Medieval Icelandic government, in particular, was comprised of both local assemblies of freemen, or things, and a national legislative body that convened once a year, known as the Althing. However, there was an institutional idea that government had no responsibility to punish offenders of lawbreakers. Thus, ancient Icelandic society struggled with an issue of enforcement. There was no formal executive body to enforce individual rights (Professor Wen, Lecture 1). This brings us to the case of Einar and Hrafnkel in the tale Hrafnkel’s Saga. Written during the 10th century A.D., Hrafnkel’s Saga tells the story of a lawsuit brought against a powerful chieftain in the Icelandic countryside. The eponymous character, Hrafnkel, is accused of wrongfully killing his shepherd, Einar, after he breaks a solemn oath and rides his beloved stallion. In the saga, the question that the thingmen and proscutor are faced with is whether or not Hrafnkel’s actions constitute an unlawful killing. Through a careful examination of the text and outside sources, this paper will show that while Hrafnkel is guilty of homicide, it was an unfortunate killing and does not rise to the same level as murder. This paper will explore three elements that serve to vindicate Hrafnkel: the lack of identifiable intent to constitute premeditated murder, the explicit verbal oath taken by Einar, and the absence of due process in the trial.
A man of great power, Hrafnkel was a brutal chieftain. As the saga illustrates he “took possession of the entire valley and gave land to other settlers, on condition that he should be their overlord. Hrafnkel was a bully despite his many qualities and he forced men of Jokulsdale to submit to his authority. He was kind and considerate to his own men, but harsh and ruthless to his enemies and to them he showed no justice” (p. 37). Yet, despite these unfavorable traits, it may be seen that Hrafnkel was a fair ruler. The character of Hrafnkel that we, as the reader, encounter throughout the text of is one of respect and power. There were no cases in which we directly observe Hrafnkel take the lives of other men. In the case of Einar, Hrafnkel was kind and compassionate, offering not only to provide him with a job, but to keep him at his home for a whole year. In these instances, his actions toward Einar show him to be an honorable man with no intent to harm, let alone kill, Einar. His eventual need to take the shepherd’s life did not stem from a desire to kill, but rather from need to maintain his word and honor the god Frey. Thus, while the text explains that he was a merciless ruler, there is not enough evidence to show that he was guilty of any criminal activity in the past which would have bearing on the trial; when it comes to Einar, his actions do not indicate, nor is there any textual evidence, that this was a premeditated action.
Another critical factor that must be taken into account when considering the validity of the lawsuit is the system of unwritten laws set in place by Icelandic society. Because Iceland was an illiterate society, the concept of oral vows was paramount. Oaths took the place of any sort of contract law or legally-binding agreement that would be used in contemporary society. According to a scholarly article entitled “Bound by Words: Oath-taking and Oath-breaking in Medieval Iceland and Anglo-Saxon England”, “oath-taking stands out as one of the most important forms of verbal expression available to members of Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic communities… such highly regulated verbal exchanges make up a significant portion of the legal system in both cultures” Upon further analysis of the initial exchange between Hrafnkel and Einar, it becomes apparent that oaths garnered an important moral weight in Scandinavian culture; the breaking of a such a vow would likely warrant a range of punishments. In Hrafnkel’s Saga, Einar readily agreed to the conditions Hrafnkel imposed on him, indicating full awareness of the consequences his actions would bring. As seen in the text, he claimed he “would never be so wicked as to ride the one horse which was forbidden to him, particularly since there were plenty of other horses at his disposal” (p. 40). This oath, first and foremost, represents a legal contract between Hrafnkel and Einar. Hrafnkel cautioned the shepherd and made explicit the consequence of breaking the oath. In doing so, he cleared himself from any blame that would come as a result of Einar’s actions. Thus, the oath Einar swore to Hrafnkel, despite the clause it contained, constituted a valid contract. In breaking the oath, Einar not only defied Hrafnkel, he further put into question the illegality of Hrafnkel’s actions.
Another issue that arises with Hrafnkel’s trial is the lack of due process. Upon his arrival to the Althing, Hrafnkel is blocked by crowds of people that had gathered before the court; “he was barred,” as the text explains, “from approaching it [the Law Rock] by sheer weight of numbers, so he couldn’t even hear what the prosecutor was saying and it was impossible for him to present his legal defense” (p. 54-55). In this way, Hrafnkel is stripped of his fundamental right to due process being sentenced to full outlawry. While in contemporary society such a violation of due process would lead to the disintegration of a court case, there is little information available as to how it would impact a case in the Icelandic judicial system. However, in a society with a well-established, complex legal system, it is fair to assume that some variation of due process would exist. Regardless of the court’s interpretation of due process, it is clear that Hrafnkel was denied his right both procedural and substantive due process. This, once again, serves to question the validity of the trial and, therefore, the verdict reached by the prosecutor.
In conclusion, upon looking at several aspects of Hrafnkel’s trial including the lack of identifiable intent or malice to constitute premeditated murder, the verbal oath taken by Einar, and the absence of due process in the trial, one may question whether there is a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to convict Hrafnkel of murder. His actions were void of the hostility and anger characteristic of those seeking revenge. Instead, his killing of Einar was an act of honor, a means of keeping one’s word and restoring balance to Adabol and the community as a whole. In addition, the trial itself was flawed in execution, which would serve to question the validity of the case or dismiss it altogether. Taking all of these elements into account, one may conclude that while Hrafnkel’s actions constitute an unfortunate killing, they ultimately do not align with our understanding of murder.