Author: sternra

One of the guiding questions of my research has been, what role or purpose do the Norse gods serve within the context of the ancient Norse society? Since they are apparently not morally perfect, or even good, it would appear that they are not meant to guide their believers in that way, differing drastically from the functions of the gods or messiah figures in most religions. For example, most theologians would agree that it would be good to live your life as similarly to Jesus as possible (WWJD). However, what if the Norse gods are not meant to guide people, but are just reflections, albeit extreme dramatizations, of the current society in which the believers already live? This idea is supported by their conception of what the universe looks like. They conceptualized a giant ash tree, called Yggdrasil, as the center of the earth. In the center of the tree is Asgard, the home of the gods, who represent order. Traveling away from the center is Midgard, home of the humans. Around the atmosphere of the tree is Utgard, the home of the “ice-giants”, who represent chaos. This conception of the world reflects the real situations of the ancient Northmen and how they live. A typical Viking settlement would have the home in the center, representative of order (Asgard), then the farm surrounding the house, tame but not necessarily as “orderly” as the house (Midgard), and beyond that, the forest, which would be vast and wild, unchartered territory (Utgard).

The gods of Asgard and the giants of Utgard are perpetually at war. This war will eventually end in the doom of the gods, called Ragnarok. This constant war is not presented as a battle between good and evil, but between order and chaos. Therefore, I believe they serve to reflect the Norse/Viking society, which did not necessarily value “goodness” in a moral sense, but did value order, because it was necessary to the continued survival of the clan(s).  The gods did not instruct their believers in a didactic way, but upheld already existing conventions. Georges Dumėzil’s “Tripartite Structure”, as applied to this pantheon, supports that argument. Some questions that spring off of this idea of perpetual war that I can use to guide further research are, what implications does it have that the gods do not even win the war? And is it significant that we know at the start of the sagas that the gods are in fact already dead? Or will die? What purpose does linear time serve to this idea of perpetual war? Are the gods both alive and already dead to the characters in the sagas, similar to how the Christian god is both always present and has already died as Jesus?

Georges Dumėzil studied a range of Indo-European tales and identified a deistic organization that many cultures share. “Dumėzil has sought to demonstrate that the earliest I-E speaking societies of India, Europe, and elsewhere shared a common set of such ‘collective representations’. Most if not all of these early I-E societies, he asserts, were characterized, at least in their earliest known periods, by a hierarchically ordered, tripartite social organization, each stratum of which was collectively represented in myth and epic by an appropriate set of gods and heroes” (Littleton, 148). Dumezil makes the argument that these societies, including the Vikings, possessed a “tripartite ideology” that was able to travel and spread geographically. This ideology refers to a tendency to divide phenomena in general into three related categories. This notion reminded me of the Christian Holy Trinity. For the Indo-European societies that Dumezil studied, (not Christianity) he came up with three overarching categories: the priestly stratum, the warrior stratum, and the herder-cultivator stratum (in descending order of importance). This hierarchy applies in general to all the early I-E societies, but I believe in the pre-Christian Icelandic society, it holds with a few tweaks. For example, the “priestly” function is expanded to include the King or clan leader, represented by the gods Odin and Tyr. It is expanded, not altogether changed, because some sagas will still show the importance of the mystic or the shaman, although the “priest” is usually a “priestess” (called a Völva…) The Vikings add a judicial as well as a mystic quality to the first function. Additionally, the third function, the herder-cultivator, is expanded to include a female fertility function, represented by the goddess Freyja.  That leaves the warrior function, fulfilled by Thor. I believe this tripartite structure serves to uphold the order of the Viking clans, because it makes specific categories for the leaders, the warriors, and the peasants. I will use examples from specific sagas, such as Sigurdr’s Saga, where this structure is particularly evident, to further this argument.

Citation:

Littleton, C. Scott. “The Comparative Indo-European Mythology of Georges Dumézil”. Journal of the Folklore Institute. Vol 1, No. 3. Dec. 1964, pp.147-166. JSTOR

photo source

Although I have not yet read my primary texts fully enough to pick a stance, opinion, or argument, I think that a potential position that I may take is that the tale of Beowulf was once a Norse oral saga that was extremely Pagan, but then was later Christianized by a Christian author. While the unnamed person who wrote down the story explicitly attempted to make the tale a Christian one, elements of the Pagan religion and traditions still slip through the cracks. The references to a singular God and to Jesus seem forced and out of place, like a badly photo-shopped picture. Beowulf also bears a striking resemblance to at least two other Icelandic sagas, particularly Hrolf Kraki’s Saga and Grettir’s Saga. I have not yet read Grettir’s Saga, so this piece of evidence is liable to change as I do further research; however, the similarities between Beowulf and Hrolf Kraki are too close to be accidents, borne of chance. I think that the Christian author in England heard oral Nordic tales and tried their very hardest to make it Christian and Anglo-Saxon, because the story itself is exciting and appealing. I will also research some of the history of this time period, because politics are not something to be overlooked, even in reference to ancient times. This is pertinent because the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons have a  history of conflict, approximately around the same time that Beowulf would have been written down. The Vikings (a term I will disambiguate more in my research due to the fact that “Vikings” refers to a large variety of peoples from all over northern Europe, however the Sagas/texts are mostly Icelandic) attempted to conquer England numerous times between the eighths and ninth centuries. After many invasions, King Alfred of England smashed the Vikings for the final time, around 954 (reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z8q487h). I will also look into other Anglo-Saxon texts from this time period to further develop my understanding of the Anglo-Saxon view of their invaders. I will also research their conception of race, because even though the invading force was technically white, they were stilled viewed as primitive and barbarous. Racial theory, or at least “views of the other”, may or may not be applicable here. The ancient concept of race is very different from our conception, anyway. It had almost nothing to do with physical color. This popular view actually lasted for a while, up to about medieval times with the conquest of Africa by Spain, France, Belgium, and England; this is when the concept of eugenics, the notion that some races are inherently better than others due to biology, came into play. More to come on that. This lens may be relevant to Anglo-Saxon views of the Pagan, and the reason why the author felt it necessary to alter the tale. But maybe not.

In Beowulf, the author was attempting to retell an old and exciting oral tale while appealing to their audience at the time, who would have been other Christians. I believe that the written-down version leaves out or alters some facets of the story in order to make it a Christian tale, or at least adds extraneous information and digressions that are superfluous to the story itself. When I have the epic poem in front of me, along with other secondary texts, I will be able to point out more specific evidence that supports the argument that the written version was altered in specific ways to appeal to Christians and repress the tale’s Paganism.

(Again, this is only a potential stance I may take in my paper and not my definitive view on these texts).

This blog post really revealed to me the obscurity of my thesis topic. I’m enjoying the challenge of finding creative resources. Honestly, I had a hard time with this blog post, because none of the three prompts really directly apply to my thesis subject without some tweaking. The primary texts I will be working with, Beowulf, and a multitude of the Icelandic sagas, have no known author, because they were mainly told orally until written down later by a nameless scribe. I think the best response to these prompts would be to research a little translation theory, since I know nothing about it and I’m working with strictly translations. Beowulf was written in Old English, and the Icelandic sagas were written in ancient Icelandic. Since it’s impossible to close-read the actual texts, I have to look at a few different translations of my chosen passages, because, for example, I cannot analyze something like word choice if I am not actually reading the original words. Zohre Owji describes some problems that translators encounter when translating a text, and strategies that they employ to deal with these issues when they inevitably arise. She cites Mona Baker’s In other words: A Course Book on Translation for support in her arguments. She puts forth a list of constraints, or rules, for translation strategies. They must: apply to a process, involve text-manipulation, be goal-oriented and problem-centered, be applied consciously, and be inter-subjective. There is a careful relationship between the source-language text and the target-language readers. The original text must, in a way, be “decoded” from the original, only to be “recoded” for the reader, in a way that is obviously different, but also the same. Different, because the actual words themselves might be different languages, different iterations of the evolution of the same language, etc., and the same because the translator has the responsibility of not altering the meaning of the words. In order to close read Beowulf, I will be attempting to read some of the Old English version, with help from Peter Baker’s Intro to Old English, published by Wiley-Blackwell, and recommended to me by Professor Skalak, who specializes in medieval studies.  Unfortunately, I do not think it would be reasonable for me to try to decipher the Icelandic.

One of the main differences to keep in mind when dealing with Old vs. contemporary English is that Old English is an inflected language, like contemporary German. But present-day English has only a very few inflections, such as the plural and the possessive of nouns. There was much more variety in Old English. Using Baker’s book and Owji’s article, I will try to “decode” the Old English of Beowulf and “recode” it into contemporary English so that I can understand it, and see what how this added layer to my close reading and study of Beowulf changes my understanding of the text. Maybe I am being overly optimistic about my ability to translate Old English, but it might reveal a change in things like tone, or reveal something hidden in the syntax and form of the epic poem.

This blog post will discuss imperialism and colonialism of the American New World through a bibliographical lens, through examining the lives of two explorers: Vasco da Gama and Christopher Columbus. A critical race theory might be most apt for studying colonialism, but I wanted to see if anything interesting or revealing could be gleaned from a bibliographic close reading of “The Allure of the Sea: Africa and Beyond”, and Christopher Columbus’ own travel logs, “The Four Voyages”. I wanted to identify any differences in the obvious overarching pattern: white man sailing on behalf of a European nation “discovers” new land, claims it as their own, or in broader terms, “white people taking things that belong to people of color”.

Vasco da Gama was a Portuguese nobleman charged with the command of a mission to explore the Indies. Christopher Columbus was the poor son of a weaver who had a big plan for exploration in mind. These two men are simultaneously very similar and very different, but ultimately, they are two of history and North America’s most important people. Their story also demonstrates the importance or necessity of social station when it comes to writing history. I believe that da Gama’s background: the fortune and social class he inherited at birth, led him to behave in a specific way in interactions with the indigenous Americans. Columbus, while by no means respectful to the Native Americans he met, behaved in a fashion that showed careful planning and foresight. He was not born with the advantages of da Gama, who came from Portuguese lower nobility and was part of the respected religious order the Order of Santiago. Da Gama is described as having a “solid physique and constitution and a steely resolve; he was exceedingly loyal in friendship, terrible in enmity” (Allure of the Sea, pg 6). Da Gama becomes known for his ruthlessness and discipline, although not a professional sailor. Da Gama, only around twenty-two years old, already had the respect and confidence of the king “with respect to his maritime skills, his ability to lead men, and his willingness to take decisive action” (Allure of the Sea, pg 8). Da Gama was known for being ruthless, authoritative, and so high up in the social hierarchy that he’s almost untouchable.

Christopher Columbus was born to weavers in 1451 in Genoa. Having none of the hereditary advantages of da Gama, he was faced with a lot more adversity than da Gama. He came up with a proposal to explore the Indies and pitched his plan to five monarchs before anyone would fund it. His actual voyage was tougher than da Gama’s as well. His crew had to go three months without land, and half of them died.

Da Gama, coming from a noble family and equipped with a multitude of advantages, faced his project with a conqueror’s mindset. He conceptualized the population of the New World as needing his help, help from Portugal. Columbus, while still a conqueror, focused more on a two-way relationship than did da Gama. Some of this can be shown from his logs, where he described the people he met as being “friendly”, their countenance more open and curious than savage-like and barbaric.  Columbus writes that the natives are godless but friendly, well-built but easy to enslave. Da Gama sees them more as barbaric, primitive sub-humans that he has a divine right from the Order of Santiago to subdue. Two competing nations, with similar motivations for exploration, employed likewise similar techniques in taming the (supposedly) untamed. Additionally, da Gama had his position as the commander of the fleet handed to him, while Columbus made a huge effort to develop a plan and then get that plan funded. This is a huge difference between two seemingly similar events.

A strong similarity is that both men brought small gifts, or trinkets, for the native people. Da Gama brought striped cloth, sugar, glass beads, honey, red hats, hand basins, trousers, tin jewelry, and bells (da Gama, pg 20). Columbus also brought presents for the people he encountered, although his log shows that these gifts were not worth much, and he seemed to take advantage of the people in trade as well. Columbus wanted the natives to think he was benevolent and diplomatic. He says, “It was to create this impression that I had set him free and gave him presents. I was anxious that they should think well of us so that they may not be unfriendly when your Majesties send a second expedition here. All I gave him was worth less than four maravedis” (Columbus’ log-book, pg 61). On his first visit, Columbus was already thinking ahead to the future visits, so he wanted to keep up a façade of diplomacy.

The lives of Vasco da Gama and Christopher Columbus show how two seemingly similar events, with nearly identical outcomes (the colonization of the New World), in fact have glaring differences that may have contributed to the course of history.

This year, I am focusing my writing and research on the Vikings and the Nordic mythology and sagas. The pantheon was pretty much limited to the small Scandinavian countries, especially Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and started to die off when Iceland was Christianized, in around 1000 C.E. Oral tales and storytelling are important (or at least present) in almost all the world’s cultures, especially before people could read and write. All of the Norse tales were told orally for many generations, and were mostly written down after making contact with Christianity. This turn is something I wish to focus on in my research, especially in relation to two primary texts, The Saga of King Hrolf Kraki, and the famous Beowulf. I see multiple similarities in these two texts, and one key difference. I argue that these two tales are actually the same story, except Hrolf Kraki is very pagan, and the Beowulf author attempts to make it a Christian tale. I argue that Beowulf is a Christianized version of Hrolf Kraki.

The biggest recurring motif in both Beowulf and Hrolf Kraki is the symbol of the bear. Both heroes (Beowulf, in Beowulf, and Bodvar-Bjarki in Hrolf Kraki) channel bears in their respective tales. The main similarities between the two heroes are their bravery and unmatchable, ferocious strength. Bodvar’s father is named Bjorn, which literally translates to “Bear” in Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish. Not only that, he is transformed into an actual bear by his evil step-mother when he rejects her advances. He roams around as a bear by day, killing the king’s livestock, and is a man at night. The name of his lover, Bodvar’s mother, is Bera, meaning “she-bear”. When Bjorn is killed and his bear-meat served at a feast in the castle, the evil queen makes Bera eat small pieces of it, even though Bera is warned against doing so. The result of this is that their children, born after the feast, have beast-like features. Bodvar-Bjarki’s two older brothers have the marks of an elk and a hound, but Bodvar has no physical blemish. However, he has the strength and ferocity of a bear, and even gets the nickname “Bjarki”, meaning “little-bear”. Beowulf also has unmatchable strength and prowess in battle, and his name, translated, means “Bee-Wolf”, which is a kenning (a phrase which describes a well-known noun in a creative way) for bear. Bodvar grows up, and becomes a great warrior in the hall of King Hrolf Kraki (who, I will argue, is the same character as Beowulf’s King Hrothgar), and even shape-shifts into a bear in his final battle. In the coming research and writing, I will discuss why the storytellers chose the bear to be the symbol of the warrior instead of another animal.

So, if they are the same tale, why doesn’t Beowulf shape-shift into a bear form? I will consider more answers to this question after further research, but as of right now, I think that when the Beowulf tale was written down by a Christian writer, the writer sanitized the story, and possibly removed references to inhuman, witchcraft-like pagan magic. However, the writer left enough of the original tale intact that we can draw the connection to a pagan saga.

“The Sea of Sunset” by Emily Dickinson

This is the land the sunset washes,

These are the banks of the Yellow Sea;

Where it rose, or whither it rushes,

These are the western mystery!

Night after night her purple traffic/

Strews the landing with opal bales;

Merchantmen poise upon horizons,

Dip, and vanish with fairy sails.

I decided to close read a poem by Emily Dickinson called “The Sea of Sunset”. I chose it at random, and I had never read it before. The poem is only eight lines and two stanzas long, but its language is not abrupt or staccato, but flowing and a little flowery. First I read the poem a few times and jotted down notes, then I read Stanley Fish’s article about poetic language from his “Reader-Response Theory” and recorded my thoughts, then I read it out loud and did the same.

My first thought was that the poem has color. I couldn’t read it without seeing the “Yellow Sea” (line 2), “purple traffic” (line 5) or “opal bales” (line 6) in my mind’s eye. The poem reminds me of a fish’s scale, or a beautiful phosphorescent shell. You could probably find both of these items on “The Sea of Sunset”, even though she never explicitly mentions fish or seashells.  Dickinson’s words expand upon themselves in the mind without her having to use more than 8 lines to elaborate on the scene. The colors in the poem are given an ethereal sheen by her word choice, such as “fairy sails” (line 8) and the words “dip, and vanish” in the same line evoke an ephemeral feeling, as though this moment is simultaneously otherworldly and fleeting. This perfect moment on the beach can’t last forever. Even if she hadn’t named the poem “The Sea of Sunset”, I probably would still have pictured sunset as the setting. It’s perfectly evocative of the yellow and purple hues of the poem, the fairy-like fluttering of sails, and the sense that this feeling won’t last, that it will soon be dark.

Even though the language evokes a fairy tale, she uses some particular words that ground the poem in our reality. For example, the speaker says, “merchantmen poise upon horizons” (line 7).  Referring to humans sailing upon this effervescent sea anchors the otherworldly poem to the world in which we live. Additionally, she names the sea “the Yellow Sea” (line 2), capitalizing “Yellow” and “Sea”. If she had not capitalized it, I might have glossed by it as another colorful and picturesque phrase, but since she did choose to capitalize it, she named it. This grounded the scene in real life, even if she did not mean to refer to the actual Yellow Sea. The “real” Yellow Sea is the northern part of the East China Sea. However, I do not believe she meant to refer to this sea, because a couple lines down, the speaker wonders “where it rose, or whither it rushes, These are the western mystery!” (lines 3-4). The word “western” really sticks out to me. This “sea of sunset” could fathomably be anywhere; why is it a western mystery? “Where it rose, or whither it rushes” seems to be questions of origin, how it got there, and how far it flows to. Either the speaker is saying that the sea is itself geographically western, or that the questions of how the sea got there and where it flows to are specifically “western” questions. I’m not sure about which one the speaker means. Additionally, the question of “whither it rushes” forces us as readers to imagine the size of the Sea of Sunset, expanding our minds horizons as we imagine the vast and glittering sea.

After reading the Fish article, I wondered, what poetic qualities does it have? Fish says, “…you know a poem when you see one because its language displays the characteristics that you know to be proper to poems”. Immediately, the punctuation comes to mind. She uses commas and semicolons liberally, as do plenty of poets, but Dickinson specifically uses exclamation points in almost all of her poems, which is not as characteristic of a poem as are commas and semi-colons. The exclamation points give her poems a child-like, straightforward quality. This reminded me of the intentional fallacy. I think poems, by their nature, are probably especially susceptible to the intentional fallacy, because they almost always use “poetic language”, words with multiple meanings, or have meaning hidden in their form. However, I do not find this to be true with Dickinson’s authorship. I could be (and probably am) wrong, but I think a lot of her poetry is straightforward, or about what it seems to be about. After reading the poem out loud, it’s clear that it doesn’t all rhyme perfectly, but I think the length of the poem allows for that.

In the future, I want to examine the significance of the fact that she is a successful American female poet, perhaps in conjunction with Fetterley’s article about American female writers.