The Saga of the Confederates

The first noticable difference came to be at the very beginning of the saga. After spending my night writing my paper on the characterization (or lack thereof) of the main characters found in the typical saga, I noticed right away that the saga of the Confederates gives more information upfront than any saga before its time. Thorgerd was characterized as "a woman of good family and very strong character," probably the first mention of a female that doesn't begin with (and consist almost only of) a description of beauty. The first paragraph also mentioned the lack of affection Odd recieved, which is an unusual insight for the saga era.

I also noticed that dialouge increased in volume, and also that what the characters say seem to be wordier, whereas before their statements were very blunt and to the point. (A side note, on pg 467 Ospak says "It's like this, Odd..." I thought that phrase was a biiiiit modern sounding for ancient Icelandic speak...)

Speaking of modern, it appeared to me that Svala owned her own farm? I wasn't aware that this was a priviledge women were capable of in that time, so I found that interesting. Also, the interaction and "courting" between Svala and Odd had more detail and usually found in such circumstances.

It was also interesting to hear a report of finding Ospak's body the next season, instead of bluntly ending his part in the saga as soon as he leaves the community.

Hrafnkel Frey's Godi

The first difference I noticed in this saga verses the others, is the constant referel to actual quoted social understandings and bylaws. In other sagas, these things are implied, or if they are referred to it is not done in quote so formal a manner, ie "he who gives warning is not at fault" (440) and "it's a wise man who knows himself" (443).

This saga also differed, as I noticed many have already commented, based on the fact that there is much more detailed information regarding the law and procedures of the time. The Day of Summons, the importance of finding cheiftains, and the Law Rock, are all very specific and detail-oriented tidbits of the story that other sagas often brushed over with a simple phrase, such as, "and they they went to the Althing and it was settled." I do wonder how the ammount of detail (such as the number of days [14] after Weapon Taking that a court date is to take place) remained so accurate over the years until this tale was recorded, or if these procedure details were based off of similiar proceedings taking place at the time when it was recorded.

I also found it sort of miraculous that they were able to hold a court so similar to the justice system that we practice today. The most significant difference is the importance of a crowd for either side.

Another difference I noticed was brief insights into the characters' thinking, such as Sam's remark that "he would rather choose to live, but thought that both alternatives were hard." It is rare that we are given information on the direct thoughts of characters, so it was nice to see information on his decision process.

Overall, I liked that each event that progressed in this story was explained according to common law or reasoning, so that really, the characters could not argue with the course of events and the outcomes because the offender or the starter of the action had premeditated his reasoning and built a sort of case against the other. It made for a neat, and tidy chain of events.

Hovamol

Okay, I am not into poetry. Although this poem wasn't too flowery, I am just not a big fan of poetry so this wasn't a fun reading for me. However, I did notice a few things of interest:

1) The contradiction between the welcoming atmosphere and immidiate care and "welcoming speech" given to a stranger who wanders into a gathering in the darkness of night seen here,

"Fire he needs who with frozen knees
Has come from the cold without;
Food and clothes must the farer have,
The man from the mountains come.

Water and towels and welcoming speech
Should he find who comes, to the feast;
If renown he would get, and again be greeted,
Wisely and well must he act."

and the warning and implicit need for protection from dangerous strangers or strange situations in the verse,

"For never he knows When the need for a spear
Shall arise on the distant road."

Why is it that this culture focuses SO much on accepting and meeting strangers (such as traveling strangers to a new kingdom, etc) with such openness and trust? It just seems so weird when paired with the attitude of vengence and manslaughter also embedded within the society's guidelines. Especially in comparision to this day and age where a stranger would more probably be met with a slammed door in the face or a threat to bodily harm instead of immediate acceptance if they appeared in the middle of the night at one of your family gatherings.

2) The appearance of several of the Christian "Seven Deadly Sins" throughout the poem. The first appears in #20 & #21, where the reference to both Guilt and Gluttoney is made with the verses,
" The greedy man, if his mind be vague,
Will eat till sick he is;The vulgar man, when among the wise,
To scorn by his belly is brought.

The herds know well when home they shall fare,
And then from the grass they go;
But the foolish man his belly's measure
Shall never know aright."

Then later, Pride,

"his pride will wax, but his wisdom never,
Straight forward he fares in conceit"

Then towards the end, Lust,

"Seek never to win the wife of another,
Or long for her secret love"

This last stanza also seemed to be an alternate translation to the Christian commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife."

It was intriuging to me to see such ancient interpretations of modern Christian belief, and although they seemed to put a much much stronger focus on Wisdom (stanzas #8-11, 22-27, 54-5 just to name a few), there are so many parallels between the relgious standards of the two time periods I can almost invision living back then.

Response to Njal's Saga & Gisli Sursson's Saga

In Njal's Saga there was one specific detail I found interesting, and that was the use of the Christian crucifix as a weapon. When it was first mentioned, "Thangbrand defended himself with a crucifix instead of a sheild, but even so he managed to defreat Thorkel and kill him," I thought it could have been meant more symbolically. Like, with Christ on his side (represented by the crucifix), he was able to defeat Thorkel without a weapon. But the crufix is mentioned again, when Thangbrand, "struck him on the arm with a crucifix and, miraculously, the sword dropped from the brserk's grasp." Here they made it quite obvious that the physical crucifix was being used to do physical harm to an opponent. I tried to look up other uses of crucifix as a weapon and my search came up with only the use of a cross against Count Dracula. This new use of a common Christian symbol stuck me as a fitting combination of the violent, battle-centered ideals of the Icelandic Vikings with the pacifist and peaceful Christian ideals they were beginning to adopt.

Then, in Gisli Sursson's Saga, I decided to focus on the frequent mention of gift giving in the Icelandic society. In the past few stories, especially the Tale of Audun from the West Fjords, there has been a focus on the gifts given and recieved by main characters. In Gisli Sursson's Saga, Gisli and Vestein "give gifts worth more than the price of their share" [508], when they buy a portion of Beard-Bjalfi's ship. Immediatley after, it is noted that they quickly became friends with Bjalfi and they all "gave each other gifts" [508]. Vestein brings bags of gifts for his sister and Gisli, but when Gisli in turn trys to share his gifts with Thorkel, he responds with "I cannot see how they will be repaid" [515]. This led me to wonder if the gifts, which I had previously attributed to a value of generosity within Icelandic society, were more similar to a system of giving and taking. When Gisli makes the statement that "a gift always looks to be repaid," [520] it becamse clear to me: gifts were given with an understanding that the reciever is now in a sort of debt to the giver. It made me reconsider my percerption of the Icelanders. This is a very clever system I think, because it makes them appear very generous, while knowing that because of the understanding they have with one another, they will be repaid later on (and probably with interest...almost like Icelandic banking and loans!).