Please add your reading-commentaries to this blog. Due Monday, Sept. 14 (Sept. 7 is Labor Day - no class). Comment on one or more of the following:
"The Civilization of the Middle Ages" - Cantor
Halfdan Eysteinsson
Historical Atlas of the Vikings
E.g. consider this question: What are the 'most surprising' things you learn in each of these three different texts?
E.g. consider this question: What are the 'most surprising' things you learn in each of these three different texts?
It is interesting to consider who makes up our society today if we were to look at it in regards to the four classes listed in the reading (peasants, bourgeoisie, priests and aristocracy) from "The Civilization of the Middle Ages". Starting with the aristocracy, in today's society they would be anyone owning a major coporation, government officials, the president, etc. Priests are easy enough with these people being the same as before, the clergy and other religious officials who do religious work for a living. Thirdly is the bourgeoisie. These people would be classified as those who own smaller businesses, middle management and other decently high paid officials. Lastly are the peasants. While our peasants ae not all destitute, they still make up the majority of our society. They would be all regular employees ranging from the farmer to a compture technician in a major corporation. These people do their job while making marginal salaries or hourly wages compared to the upper elite.
ReplyDeleteWithin the readings from "Historical Atlas of the Vikings" I found it most interesting that women had so much say in their marriage. "Though marriages were usually arranged by megotiations between the prospective husband and the bride's father, the woman's wishes would usually be taken into account. A marriage was regarded as an alliance between equals...Woman had the right to a divorce if a marriage proved unworkable and the marriage contract could stipulate how the joint estate should be divided in such an eventuality" (p44). This shows that while the Viking society may have been male oriented, women were treated with dignity and thought to have knowledge and skill, allowing them to have say in such matters as marriage instead of being thought of as another piece of property. this mentality would be very important since often the men would leave for things such as raiding. When this occured it was up to the women to run and protect their families and buisniesses from other attacking while the men were away.
This is also seen in "Halfdan Eysteinsson" when Halfdan goes to help Earl Skuli in battle. Upon arriving at Skuli's estate Halfdan finds only women defending the castle. The leader of the women tells him "no man will ever take this castle, even though there are only women to defend it" (p191). Again readers see in Viking text that the women were a very strong people who were thought to be capable and able to hold their own. If thoughts regarding women and these matters were opposite what we found, the text would probably read Earl Skuli leaving some men behind to watch the castle even though all were needed upon the battlefield.
-Laura Schoedel 10773257
I also found the role of women in halfdan interesting, but in a different way. What struck me (not that I was particularly surprised, it's just different from our society) was the way they viewed women as treasure that they would dispense after a victory. Several times in the reading they used women as objects and after conquering a village they would decide who got to marry which of the new widows. They did ask what the women thought of these proposals, and they seemed to agree, despite the fact that they would be marrying someone who just sacked their village. This connects to the point brought out in the first reading about how the peasants did not question the current system because that was how it worked and they had known of no other way to do things. These women were fine with marrying the men who just attacked because that was the way it worked. That was what marriages were, and there was no need to question it.
ReplyDelete-Erik
While reading "Halfdan Eysteinsson" I was repeatedly taken aback by the transfer of women, much like Erik has said. I read Halfdan, thinking all the while, "These women are pretty screwed by circumstance; if your father/protector gets conquered, there you go, off to the highest bidder." That thought caused me to do a double take when reading the atlas on page 44 where women are said to have a choice in marriage and be treated as equals.
ReplyDeleteA few other things I took note of in the reading: the use of magic in "Halfdan Eysteinsson" really surprised me. I was expecting a story with hand to hand combat, of which there was plenty, but not anticipating that people would be turning into dragons! To really wrap my mind around the different connections in Halfdan I had to make a bunch of family trees to illustrate the different connections between people.
-Lauren Young
While reading "Halfdan Eysteinsson" I made sure to note how the characters were described, and which traits were admired in the culture at that time. Halfdan as the heroic character had "every quality that deserves praise" (171). He was loyal, devoted, (a gentleman by any standard!) cheerful, but a warrior and dangerous enemy. Ingigerd received less description, only as fine-looking, tall, and very gifted. She was astute, crafting the plan to switch places with Ingigerd 2.0 and pose as a man.
ReplyDeleteUlfkel became the villain, by becoming greedy and power hungry. He "committed the worst of crimes" (181) by killing his own brother. He was merciless in his plundering. After reading this, I feel like the Scandanavians appreciated many of the same qualities we do today.
PS - on page 196 the term "sons of whores" was used. Was whore a bad word then? What does that statement mean?
Heritage of the Ancient World:
ReplyDeleteI have always thought of the Middle Ages as such a slow-moving time period and wondered how it could be possible that from approximately 300 to 1500 A.D. society moved forward so ponderously. As was commented on in other entries, the text says, "Medieval men knew of no form of government except kingship, and without experience with alternatives, they could not envision any other system (p. 6)." This surprised me and I was skeptical at first, thinking it impossible that people did not imagine even small improvements to their society. In our world, every generation does copy their parents but also makes small steps forward, building on the society they were given. After further consideration, however, I can see that the advantage of education we have makes such a difference! We can envision slight improvements to our laws and government only because we know the history of how it was founded, what has already been changed, and what it looks like today. In a society where they did not know the foundation of their systems, how could they progressively envision next steps?
Julie Hobson
I have already posted a comment on "The Civilization of the Middle Ages" in the previous blog.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading of "Halfdan Eysteinsson" I was shocked as well that women were given a chance to have their say about marriage. Many women in the 15th and 16th centuries were not given that luxury. Also, I thought it was odd that Ingigerd, whose father was murdered by Halfdan's family, and Halfdan, whose father was also murdered by Ingigerd's foster father, were so agreeable to being married. She took vengeance for her father's death and Halfdan's father's life. He, in return, spent five years looking for his father's murderers, only to agree to marry Ingigerd and forgive her foster father. I did not find it realistic, but perhaps they thought differently during the Viking age.
Lastly, in the "Historical Atlas of the Vikings" I found their concepts of the afterlife curious. The author states that "the vikings had rather vague ideas of the afterlife" (26). They only knew that the heroes went to Odin's or Freyja's home to feast and fight, and others went to the world of Hel. I thought that their ideas and concepts of an afterlife would be more prgressed. It is the nature of human beings to want to know where they will end up and what they should do to get there. That is, I believe, part of the reason why Christianity has been so attractive. The modern take of the afterlife is more developed and many religions have specific details about the afterlife.
I'd like to go back to the earlier discussions on women. I also found the treatment of women interesting. I feel that on one hand, they had more rights than I would have expected (eg when the women were left to defend the city in Halfdan). Further, as was mentioned before, according to the Atlas, they had some say in their marriage. This kind of seemed to contradict, but I could see how it could coexist with the concept of marrying off a female as a treasure after a big defeat. I wonder if the women were just taught to be submissive or if marrying the guy who ransacked everything they had ever known was actually desirable. In a sense, I think this isn't much different than today - the macho dude shows off and makes sure the girls are very clear about how "buff" and "cool/ amazing" they are. I think this may be exactly what the men in Halfdan were doing. The "I'm so cool and tough/rough, so you should marry me." The question still remains in my mind of how a woman felt. If what I mentioned before is true, women in such a position must have felt rather torn. On the one hand, perhaps culturally she's attracted to this roughian who can conquor (and protect her), but on the other hand she must have felt pain because he just crushed everything she ever knew, and undoubtedly she lost some dear friends, maybe even family members, in the process.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of Halfdan I found interesting was the way the story was told. It was very matter-of-fact. Even though the tales were rather gory at times, they were told as if there was nothing special about them.
Halfdan Eysteinsson:
ReplyDeleteGood catch, Amara. When I read your comment I realized that I had thought that was odd when I was reading it, too.
My observation is branching off from that. I was struck by the capriciousness of the characters' loyalties in general. In addition to the example that Amara gave, Earl Skuli also invested a lot of time and effort into taking vengeance on Eystein, and promptly turned around to save Halfdan (Eystein's son)'s life (183)! Just before that in the story, Ulfkel battles Halfdan, his old raiding buddy, in order to lay his own claim to the kingdom (181). Ulfkel had been initially happy with the land given to him by King Eyestein (177), but when he realized that he had a chance at getting more power, he went for it.
Historical Atlas of the Vikings:
This idea of capricious loyalties was confirmed in Haywood's work. He says, "It is likely that the Roman Iron Age saw the development of the 'comitatus' or war band,...[which] was made up of young warriors who became the followers of a successful chieftain or king. In return for their loyalty the warriors expected to be rewarded, and the war band would only stay together as long as the leader had the wealth to reward them" (20). I suppose that loyalty has tended to historically be based on what each party can get out of the relationship and our society falls into this as well today. We will work for a company unless they stopped paying us (reasonable, I think); we can tend to be friendly to others in order to get something out of them (only admitted when we are honest with ourselves); we pray only when we are desperate, and not always when things are going well. Haywood cites the results of the vikings' disunity: internal insecurity as a community (evidenced by many fortifications and settlement moving away from the coasts, p. 20).
While I found the Cantor work informative and interesting, I was able to lose myself in the story of Halfdan. It was so eye opening to me to read about the vikings as they saw themselves, more or less. I have almost always herd tales from those the vikings attacked, not from the perspective of this mysterious group of people. I found the contrast between the feudal monarchs described in Cantor and the warrior kings/leaders present in Halfdan to be very intriguing. The warlords could only hold allegiance while they were winning and prospering, and could only effectively rule territory they could physically oversee. The feudal lords could possess much more territory, but had no real personal connection to their subjects, the mass peasantry.
ReplyDeleteI also found the causes of the viking expeditions laid out in the Atlas to be fascinating. I was happy to see that they addressed the theories that aren't likely and explained why.
Additionally, each of these works addressed the concept of slavery, which unfortunately seems to have been a part of nearly every culture. Cantor's work discussed slaves as the laborers/mass peasantry while in Halfdan there was a slave named Kol, who had high status and was a fierce warrior. This begs the question of this being commonplace or unique in this culture. Also, the concept of a foster-daughter was prevalent in Halfdan's saga...but I don't fully understand if that is a common relationship, or if there are special circumstances surrounding her birth. Is she perhaps an illegitimate child of the King or just a pretty girl he adopted because he had no daughters to use as bargaining chips? Also, I agree with Katie when she was talking about the sons of whores rowing the boats. Does this mean they were just ruffians or was that a profession occupied by literal whore's sons?
On another note, I got a kick out of the drunkenness in Halfdan, it reminded me of Greek stories, Beowulf and others that all seem to portray the people and the kings enjoying the wonders of fermented fruit.
The role of the woman in this society struck me as well. I really wasn't expecting the viking victors to even ask the plundered woman if she'd like to be a prize or not. Though, I get the feeling if they refused they would end up married anyway...
Scandanavia's climate and geography as described in the Atlas gave me a much better feel for the kind of lives these people were living and what kind of conditions they endured for centuries...with all that to deal with I would probably go a viking as well!!
I agree with Leah's comment about the voice that Halfdan is told in. The narrator does seem to be distant through most of the work, merely relaying what had happened and who was killing who. But at times he addresses the reader directly, such as on pg 175 when he says "Now to describe the clash between Kol and Ulkfel". I was particularly surprised when the story ended with "And thus we end our tale; now go in peace" (pg 198). I wonder if this is the style in which most of the Viking saga's are written, or is this an exception?
ReplyDeleteSarah Linker 10952255
ReplyDeleteHalfdan Eysteinsson:
When I first picked up Halfdan Eysteinsson, I was surprised by the detailed descriptions of family lineages. For instance, on page 170 the piece begins with a description of the relationships amongst family members: “Trondheim in Norway takes its name from a king called Thrand, son of Saming, son of Odin who once ruled over Halogaland; and Namdal is so called after Saeming’s wife Nauma. Thrand was a great chieftain. He and his wife Dagmaer, sister of Svanhvit who was married to Hromund Gripsson, had a son called Eystein…” In American society, we often focus solely on conjugal family rather than the extended family. American literature exemplifies this point. (When was the last time you picked up a novel and it explained several generations of family relations?)
Cantor’s “The Civilizations of the Middle Ages”:
I found it extremely interesting that the “purpose of the Germanic law courts and from of procedure was not to establish justice…but simply to stop a fight.” In today’s courts, both the latter seem to be true, but the word “justice” is repeatedly used time and time again. “Going to court” usually paint the hopeful picture that justice will be achieved. All in all, this quote really stuck out to me during my reading.
Though I wasn't necessarily "surprised" by it, I really enjoyed the Historical Atlas' explanations of the potential causes of the Viking Age. I learned a lot about the climate/ geography of Scandinavia, and many of the aspects of these things help to understand why the Viking Age came about- the necessary migrations in search of arable soil, the importance of ships in traveling around the region, and the temptations of the unguarded wealth in Europe, especially after trade began to increase with the Arabic world. I was surprised to learn that sea raids did occur before the Viking Age, however- at first I thought the Atlas was going to justify the start of the Viking raids with the need for food and land, but later it was shown that the first Vikings were raiders and not settlers.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that surprised me, as mentioned many times earlier by other students, is some of the "rights" they gave to women and slaves. Though they were a fairly savage group of people, they did give women some choices when it came to marriage/ being given away as a prize. Also, they sometimes freed slaves as a reward for hard work- I really didn't exect them to have compassion for hard working slaves, especially to a level that would merit freeing them. The Vikings had some interesting, sometimes almost contradictory, views on different aspects of life.
Jim Sanford