After reviewing all of the sagas we've read, I've come to the conclusion that one of the most intriguing characters for me has been King Harald. He is not particuarly involved in any one saga, but it is his presence across many sagas that makes him interesting to me. He is never portrayed as exactly the same character, but is different in each one according to his relationship to the main protagonist of that saga. But if the sagas have had one overall contribution to our understanding of the political aspects of this historical era, I think it is their depiction of this incredibly important king. Harald united all of Norway, and while some historians would rather learn about the daily lives of ordinary people (which the sagas give plenty of insight into), it is also important to understand the leaders of kingdoms who shaped the larger currents of their kingdoms.
I also think another reason I liked King Harald so much was because I know that he was portrayed accurately, despite the many different perspectives. Because each person perceives another person differently according to the circumstances surrounding their meeting. Harald also never seemed larger than life, just wise and strong and adept, if sometimes weak and prone to believing other peoples' gossip. He was a fascinating character to follow all semester throughout the many sagas.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Week Fourteen: The Saga of Ref the Sly
This saga, more than any other we've read, seems like an actual story told for entertainment. I enjoyed the storyline, and can see how it would be a good nighttime tale told around a fire. There were a number of indications beyond the introduction stating this saga to be fantastical. Gest suggests that Ref should "have a story written about [his] journey, because it will seem noteworthy to some people" (605). Greenland is presented as a sort of mythical, ambiguous place, especially compared to its description in the Vinland Sagas. Ref kills Thorgils by splitting his head open down to his shoulders, which seems impossible to me. Ref's house can't be lit on fire because he has devised a system of running water, which I would guess is around the time when the Romans first build aqueducts.
In addition to all of these details, I felt like this stanza on page 604 was a little red flag, alerting the audience that this is more a story than a history: "The stroke this day was struck / I felled the famous man. / I reckon two blows revenged / and hot blood won for the raven. / Such deeds are told in stories, / related by wise men." This is the first reference I've noticed in the sagas of stories actually being told, and of someone acknowleding that those stories are sometimes exaggerated. While there has been a lot of talk about poems and telling the deeds of kings, this specifically points out stories. I feel like this stanza is sort of a self-referencing joke, because the audience would know that this story is more for entertainment than historical or cultural value.
Some other tidbits I noticed included the first mention of homosexuality. It has never been remotely brought up before, so I sort of assumed it was not a concern in this culture. Calling Ref homosexual seemed to have the same insult implied as today, which shows one way in which we have not progressed over the past thousand years. Also, Thorgerd's and Gest's reactions to Ref telling each of them that he killed someone echo Egil's mother's reaction in Egil's Saga, when she says that he is such a good little Viking. Last thing- King Harald is characterized as much smarter in this saga than any other: he guesses the secret of Ref's house, and deciphers his gibberish after killing Grani. Propaganda, perhaps?
In addition to all of these details, I felt like this stanza on page 604 was a little red flag, alerting the audience that this is more a story than a history: "The stroke this day was struck / I felled the famous man. / I reckon two blows revenged / and hot blood won for the raven. / Such deeds are told in stories, / related by wise men." This is the first reference I've noticed in the sagas of stories actually being told, and of someone acknowleding that those stories are sometimes exaggerated. While there has been a lot of talk about poems and telling the deeds of kings, this specifically points out stories. I feel like this stanza is sort of a self-referencing joke, because the audience would know that this story is more for entertainment than historical or cultural value.
Some other tidbits I noticed included the first mention of homosexuality. It has never been remotely brought up before, so I sort of assumed it was not a concern in this culture. Calling Ref homosexual seemed to have the same insult implied as today, which shows one way in which we have not progressed over the past thousand years. Also, Thorgerd's and Gest's reactions to Ref telling each of them that he killed someone echo Egil's mother's reaction in Egil's Saga, when she says that he is such a good little Viking. Last thing- King Harald is characterized as much smarter in this saga than any other: he guesses the secret of Ref's house, and deciphers his gibberish after killing Grani. Propaganda, perhaps?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Week Thirteen: The Vinland Sagas
The introduction to The Saga of the Greenlanders and Eirik the Red's Saga focuses on the ways in which the two sagas are similar in storyline, which I can agree with, but I found the biggest difference between the two was in style. The Saga of the Greenlanders was quite different than most sagas we've read in that it was straightforward and focused, whereas Eirik the Red used the same narrative structure and detail that prolong simple events, like a marriage proposal, to paragraphs or even pages.
These differences resulted in a change in my perception of the story; I try to visualize what I read, and while the events of the stories were congruent, I pictured very different scenes simply because of the style of storytelling. The Saga of the Greenlanders was a lot more vague and fleeting; I pictured the main characters to be a band of travellers who never really settle in a place. There were also a lot less characters to keep track of, as the saga did not go into the usual detail describing every persons' lineage. Eirik the Red's Saga had a lot more dialogue and detail, and ths made the characters seem more settled to me. Even when they are in Greenland, they seem more persistent in establishing farms, because of the details that are omitted in The Saga of the Greenlanders.
Looking beyond the stylistic events, I found these sagas very interesting because they describe the first Europeans in America. I thought their exchanges with the natives proved beyond a doubt that they were in fact in America. There is no way they could have imagined people as savages in a different continent who sound so similar to the Native Americans without having seen real Native Americans. I think this section was also interesting because I remember learning about Erik the Red and Leif Eriksson as these great Viking explorers when I was younger; but they seemed to take the backseat to other explorers, and I wonder why their names persisted above others who undertook the same feats as they did.
These differences resulted in a change in my perception of the story; I try to visualize what I read, and while the events of the stories were congruent, I pictured very different scenes simply because of the style of storytelling. The Saga of the Greenlanders was a lot more vague and fleeting; I pictured the main characters to be a band of travellers who never really settle in a place. There were also a lot less characters to keep track of, as the saga did not go into the usual detail describing every persons' lineage. Eirik the Red's Saga had a lot more dialogue and detail, and ths made the characters seem more settled to me. Even when they are in Greenland, they seem more persistent in establishing farms, because of the details that are omitted in The Saga of the Greenlanders.
Looking beyond the stylistic events, I found these sagas very interesting because they describe the first Europeans in America. I thought their exchanges with the natives proved beyond a doubt that they were in fact in America. There is no way they could have imagined people as savages in a different continent who sound so similar to the Native Americans without having seen real Native Americans. I think this section was also interesting because I remember learning about Erik the Red and Leif Eriksson as these great Viking explorers when I was younger; but they seemed to take the backseat to other explorers, and I wonder why their names persisted above others who undertook the same feats as they did.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Week Twelve: Egil's Saga, ch.49-89
Now that I've read about Egil's entire life, what stands out the most to me is how long it is!! So much happens in his life, and I started wondering if Snorri combined elements of other heroes' lives into this one penultimate hero, to make his life more exciting. But for one person to see that much in one lifetime is just crazy. Maybe the saga just seems so long because it does cover many generations, and Egil's stories did not begin until halfway through. Either way, it's very long. I am also curious about how any person could remember the details of this story and repeat it for the few hundred years between its occurrence and when it was written down. People in oral cultures are supposed to have superior memory, but to remember the finite details of Egil's Saga and be able to repeat it must have been an amazing feat.
For my stanza to read in class, I chose the last stanza of the poem Egil calls 'The Loss of My Sons'. It is about his sadness over so many deaths, and his outlook on waiting for his own death. I thought it was odd since Egil and Thorgerd just tried to commit suicide, that he in poetry would then say he is willing to wait for his own death. And then "Egil began to recover his spirits as he proceeded to compose the poem" (158) about death?! Odd person, if you ask me.
For my stanza to read in class, I chose the last stanza of the poem Egil calls 'The Loss of My Sons'. It is about his sadness over so many deaths, and his outlook on waiting for his own death. I thought it was odd since Egil and Thorgerd just tried to commit suicide, that he in poetry would then say he is willing to wait for his own death. And then "Egil began to recover his spirits as he proceeded to compose the poem" (158) about death?! Odd person, if you ask me.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Week Eleven: Egil's Saga, ch. 1-48
First off, I have to say that I am rather enjoying this saga, despite the fact that once again, everyone has the same names. I am surprised no one has ever made a Hollywood movie out of this, especially the first part concerning Thorolf Kveldulfsson and his fall from the king's grace, and the battles and revenge of his kin. It could be good.
Egil and his kinsname can be defined by some of the same characteristics, although Thorolf Kvedulfsson and Thorolf Skallagrimsson share more likeable traits, while Egil, Skallagrim, and Kveldulf share less likeable traits. They are all eager for glory, as evidenced by the two Thorolfs who join the king's men just to find favor, while Egil is eager for glory though battle. In chapter 46, when Egil and his men have escaped imprisonment and run off with booty, Egil insists on going back and killing their captors, because otherwise it would have been a cowardly plunder.
The most important trait this family shares is an inherent ability to anger the king. Thorolf Kveldufsson had been on his good side, but when he refused to rejoin the king's men and abandon his own followers, he set the tone for the rest of the saga and the struggle between his family and the Norweigan royals. Skallagrim wanted to return the axe that the king had sent, but thankfully one of his sons threw it into the ocean, therefore avoiding that potential catastrophe. Thorolf Skallagrimsson and Egil inherit this quality, as Thorir remarks, "'But you, Egil, have inherited your family's gift for caring too little about incurring the king's wrath, and that will be a great burden for most people to bear'" (71).
Some other traits Egil's family share, that are evident throughout most of the sagas and therefore important Viking qualities, are being proud, stubborn, determined, strong, poetic, difficult, short-tempered, loyal to friends, and having a strong intuition about the future.
Egil and his kinsname can be defined by some of the same characteristics, although Thorolf Kvedulfsson and Thorolf Skallagrimsson share more likeable traits, while Egil, Skallagrim, and Kveldulf share less likeable traits. They are all eager for glory, as evidenced by the two Thorolfs who join the king's men just to find favor, while Egil is eager for glory though battle. In chapter 46, when Egil and his men have escaped imprisonment and run off with booty, Egil insists on going back and killing their captors, because otherwise it would have been a cowardly plunder.
The most important trait this family shares is an inherent ability to anger the king. Thorolf Kveldufsson had been on his good side, but when he refused to rejoin the king's men and abandon his own followers, he set the tone for the rest of the saga and the struggle between his family and the Norweigan royals. Skallagrim wanted to return the axe that the king had sent, but thankfully one of his sons threw it into the ocean, therefore avoiding that potential catastrophe. Thorolf Skallagrimsson and Egil inherit this quality, as Thorir remarks, "'But you, Egil, have inherited your family's gift for caring too little about incurring the king's wrath, and that will be a great burden for most people to bear'" (71).
Some other traits Egil's family share, that are evident throughout most of the sagas and therefore important Viking qualities, are being proud, stubborn, determined, strong, poetic, difficult, short-tempered, loyal to friends, and having a strong intuition about the future.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Week Ten Reaction: Prologue to the Prose Edda
What strikes me as most significant about the prologue to the Prose Edda is the excuses the author makes for ancient humans forgetting the Christian God. This by itself would not seem so extreme if then the excuse was not stretched to explain how they could remember to worship a vague deity who they perceived controlled earth and the heavens. And, "that they might fasten it in memory, they gave names out of their own minds to all things", which they could then remember? I just found that section a little sketchy, but I can guess that the connection between the two religious views had to be inserted so that later Christians would not feel they were being pagans in learning about the old gods of the unconverted heathens.
I also found it curious that Asia is described by men from northern Europe as "the centre of the earth; and even as the land there is lovelier and better in every way than in other places, so also were the sons of men there most favored with all goodly gifts: wisdom, and strength of the body, beauty, and all manner of knowledge." I would think the culture would try to bolster its own importance, aside from the fact that they are claiming descent from Troy (which is what the Romans did too.... interesting). I would think most cultures would say they were the best, but perhaps this idea is tainted by my American background.
I also found it curious that Asia is described by men from northern Europe as "the centre of the earth; and even as the land there is lovelier and better in every way than in other places, so also were the sons of men there most favored with all goodly gifts: wisdom, and strength of the body, beauty, and all manner of knowledge." I would think the culture would try to bolster its own importance, aside from the fact that they are claiming descent from Troy (which is what the Romans did too.... interesting). I would think most cultures would say they were the best, but perhaps this idea is tainted by my American background.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Week Nine Reaction: Norse Mythology
I enjoyed the introduction to the Norse Mythology book, mostly because it is such a departure from the Icelandic Sagas we have been focusing on. The most mystical element of those sagas has been dreams, and the demon in the privy at night, and some vague references to the gods. In contrast, this section was full of gods and elves and giants-- reminded me a lot of Lord of the Rings, which I have to admit I am a big fan of. I can totally see how Tolkien was influenced by Norse mythology. The story on page 14 where a dwarf turns into stone when the sun rises completely parallels a scene in The Hobbit. And the reference on page 19 to a "gold and cursed ring that plays a large role in heroic legend"... but I digress.
Some of the historical elements I found particuarly interesing were the origins of the Goths, Vandals, and Anglo-Saxons (all from Scandinavia), as well as the integration of Trojan warriors Priam and Agamemmnon into Snorri's version of Thor's parentage, and the Viking influence in naming Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I also liked the section which described poetry, although I was very surprised to learn that meter is a factor in composing poems, because I had considered all the ones we've read so far free verse. The elements of meter must get lost in translation.
I found the entry on Baldr particuarly fascinating, mostly because there are two completely different stories involved. Although the author attempts to find similarities, the only real connection between the two is vengeance, which as we have seen is an element in the majority of the Icelandic Sagas. I thought that Frigg, Odin's wife, showed extreme stupidity in readily telling Loki, disguised as a woman, that the only living thing that can kill Baldr is mistletoe. That kind of thing should be kept secret if you go to the great trouble of getting an oath from every living thing, in my opinion.
I also read the entry on the Ginnunga Gap, which is the "primeval void that existed before the creation of the cosmos" (141). Snorri essentially writes that human beings emerged from poisonous ice that melted in an evil wind. A person called Ymir was created, and then his body formed the cosmos. I find creationism stories fascinating and thought this one was pretty unique.
Some of the historical elements I found particuarly interesing were the origins of the Goths, Vandals, and Anglo-Saxons (all from Scandinavia), as well as the integration of Trojan warriors Priam and Agamemmnon into Snorri's version of Thor's parentage, and the Viking influence in naming Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I also liked the section which described poetry, although I was very surprised to learn that meter is a factor in composing poems, because I had considered all the ones we've read so far free verse. The elements of meter must get lost in translation.
I found the entry on Baldr particuarly fascinating, mostly because there are two completely different stories involved. Although the author attempts to find similarities, the only real connection between the two is vengeance, which as we have seen is an element in the majority of the Icelandic Sagas. I thought that Frigg, Odin's wife, showed extreme stupidity in readily telling Loki, disguised as a woman, that the only living thing that can kill Baldr is mistletoe. That kind of thing should be kept secret if you go to the great trouble of getting an oath from every living thing, in my opinion.
I also read the entry on the Ginnunga Gap, which is the "primeval void that existed before the creation of the cosmos" (141). Snorri essentially writes that human beings emerged from poisonous ice that melted in an evil wind. A person called Ymir was created, and then his body formed the cosmos. I find creationism stories fascinating and thought this one was pretty unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
