I have not written in here honestly since I was hired at my job, which has most unfortunately taken up considerable time for reading, writing and thinking generally. Regardless, I had a surge of thoughts and ideas recently while rereading
Feud in the Icelandic Saga by Jesse Byock (I name-drop Byock a lot on here. It is mainly because he has great influence in Old Norse studies, but also because his scholarship is interdisciplinary, varied and fresh). I started rereading
Feud again because I had just finished rereading
Brennu-Njáls saga (The Saga of Burnt-Njal; hereafter referenced as "Njal's Saga") and wanted a refresh on the specifics of Medieval Icelandic feuding. The first time I had read
Njal's Saga I was deeply upset about the death of Hoskuld Hvitanes-Goði. I decided to reread
Njal's Saga because I wanted to take a fresh approach to understanding his murder. Naturally, I am going to flesh out some background so my objectives seem comprehensive here.
Many scholars believe that
Njal's Saga is really comprised of two separate sagas since the first half of the story is markedly different from the second half. I disagree completely. The first half of
Njal's Saga outlines specific events which set up long-term feuds that inevitably influence the second half of the saga. In 1983, William Ian Miller put forth an unprecedented and refreshing article which challenged this idea without even discussing it. (
See: Miller, Willian Ian. "Justifying Skarpheðinn: Of Pretext and Politics in the Icelandic Bloodfeud." Scandinavian Studies 55 (1983): 316-344.) The issue Miller dealt with was the murder of Hoskuld Hvitanes-Goði by Skarpheðin Njalsson. Because the saga is centered around Njal and his family (for the most-part), the audience is guided to feel solidarity with the Njalssons, and their actions and words become symbols of greatness. The killing then of Hoskuld Hvitanes-Goði is on the surface, an atrocious act which cannot be justified. Because of a feud between the Sigfussons and the Njalssons; which started in the earlier stages of the text between Gunnar of Hlidarendi's wife Hallgerð and Njal's wife Bergþora - Hoskuld Hvitanes-Goði becomes a viable target of vengeance for Skarpheðin. (Because the feud structure in
Njal's Saga is so extensive, I will limit the discussion here. Although, if bloodfeud, vengeance and law are themes of intrigue,
Njal's Saga is the "go-to" text for that). To jump back to William Ian Miller's article,
Justifying Skarpheðin, the first and second halves of the saga are bridged through Miller's consideration of the specific feud steps from the very early stages until the end; identifying that each social exchange has a political action attached.
Miller's article put my upset with Hoskuld Hvitanes-Goði's death to rest. Skarpheðin Njalsson is one of my favorite Medieval Icelanders, and his character descriptions in the text are fascinating. (
See: Low Soon Ai, "The Mirthless Content of Skarpheðinn's Grin," Medium Ævum 65 (1996): 101-107.) In order to reinterpret and fully understand Skarpheðin's actions, I needed to familiarize myself with the feud structure present in
Njal's Saga. So..this brings me back to my original point. I cracked open Byock's
Feud in Icelandic Society for this purpose. I am still going to write a paper giving my perspectives on
Njal's Saga, both Hoskuld's (I did not talk about Hoskuld Njalsson), and Skarpheðin; but my mind wandered a bit while reading
Feud. Byock addresses the concept of
advocacy in his "Feudeme" structure (i.e. the thesis of his book). A main component of
advocacy is what Byock terms "brokerage". Brokerage is essentially the acquisition of support in order to create a stronger case in a feud. Individuals would seek out strong, powerful goðar to support their cases, bringing prestige and public approval to their actions. To quote Byock:
Brokers were identifiable, not by office or by training, but by prestige, power and wealth. A broker who took on a case often served in the capacity of a lawyer. He decided whether to settle the case in or out of court and what the compensation should be. Brokers ranged from middlemen who simply transacted business, representing a disputant and effecting a resolution without becoming more deeply involved, to active advocates who risked life and wealth to bring about a desired resolution (75).
Brokerage then is a system of created obligations, and sociopolitical ties of bondage, where dependence is mutual and weighted. The individual who sought out the 'brokerage' relationship acquires support, while the "broker" - the individual giving support, can gain in future support, wealth, or the maintenance of political ties (
quid pro quo). Through the political action of brokerage then, the "broker" always is in a better situation. By lending their support to the individual in need, they are increasing their power and prestige, but also solidifying future support and potential wealth from the individual in need.
This led me to the infamous Snorri Goði (Snorri Þorgrímsson). Snorri Goði was a prominent Icelandic chieftain from Western Iceland. He figures in many sagas, including
Njal's Saga,
Laxdæla saga, Gísla saga Súrssonar and
Eyrbyggja saga. He was the nephew of Gísli Sursson, the Icelandic outlaw-hero of
Gísla saga Súrssonar. Gísli killed Snorri Goði's father, Þorgrím, while Snorri was still an infant. Because Gísli is Snorri's uncle, that tie of kinship was difficult to take any sort of vengeance against. Throughout many of the sagas, Snorri is consistently reminded that he never took vengeance for his father Þorgrím against his uncle Gísli; and his usual response is that he is aware of it and the slanders don't bother him. I was thinking of a new consideration for the avoidance of vengeance on Snorri's part. By looking at Byock's outline of brokerage, and considering that Snorri Goði is undoubtedly one of the most powerful and wealthy chieftains in Iceland, the idea that he would acquire support and
need advocates to take vengeance for his father's death would drop Snorri from his current seat of power. Staying consistent with Byock's detailing; Snorri would then owe another man (most likely another goði) an agreement of
vinfengi, some form of a kinship through marriage/fosterage/gift exchange or friendship generally. This would additionally require Snorri to potentially part with his wealth, generally dropping in prestige and power. Since Snorri Goði is such a well-known name of Medieval Iceland, and his background is quite shadowy - I hope to dive in a bit deeper and consider the implications of Snorri's lack of vengeance in association with his political position.
More to come.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.