Saga - 1996, Blaðsíða 355

RITFREGNIR
353
tex *n ttle text matces sense/ Torfi proposes a reading of this prose
i, Slmilar to the way in which a skaldic stanza is deconstructed. By
ntifying metaphor and metonomy and rearranging the text, trained
ers and listeners are able to make a dróttkvætt stanza yield its mean-
fi^g' Applying these principles to the prose in Egils saga, Torfi also identi-
pr^a semantic web of themes, names, and words that allows him to inter-
cur storT at a political, a social, and a personal level. Most will con-
ajth Wlttl Torfi's political view of Egill as an astute individual who,
°ugh against an unjust king, was not unwilling to collaborate with a
, arcn with whom he could agree. In his social interpretation Torfi
vvs Egill's troubled relationship not only with king Eiríkur but also
kill eiS °Wn tattler anct brother to the extent that he may have wanted to
1 Ihem. With convincing demonstration of intertextuality between Egils
je°fl anct Hervarar saga, Torfi lends credence to his thesis that at least this
gendary saga was known by an author of an ísíendingasaga. Some of the
Parisons in this section, however, may be too strained.
e most startling insight occurs at the level of the personal inter-
ahon. Torfi suggests that Egils saga be read as Snorri's confession of
r rs°nal guilt. Wracked by jealousy in his youth, Egill had a troubled
’onship with his brother, father, and king. In a similar manner, Snorri
have been jealous of his nephew Sturla because of his marriage to
fat^ei8' and his relationship with Sighvatur, his own brother and Sturla's
g, er' Was tense. In fact, Snorri may have been behind an attack on
^ r a s farm in 1229, but Torfi thinks that he regretted it so deeply after-
Wh S saw ttle death of his own son in 1231 as divine punishment.
he en '’18tlvatur and Sturla confronted Snorri with a large army in 1236,
int^efused to do battle on the grounds that it was too close to Easter. Torfi
C[.. rPrets this gesture as an effort to appease God and to soften public
p°slcism °f his previous act. This reaction is the only overt sign of Snorri's
his
a
e guilt. Since his son was dead by then, its focus must have been
r°ther and nephew, an attitude - in case of the former - that creates
P^rallel with Egill. Egill also lost sons, but while he had not been
jja ° Ved in their deaths, Snorri must have felt guilt over his son's un-
JPy ending. In 1229, when Jón, his only legitimate son, had wanted to
w Snorri refused the necessary money, causing Jón to travel to Nor-
ed f ,1Ilstead. When Snorri became aware of his son's intentions he chang-
dru 1S minct' hut too late. Jón died in Norway two years later following a
ar)^n^en brawl. Redirecting the attention from Snorri's nephew to his son
th t ^rawin8 the full consequence of Torfi's interpretation, one might say
Son . norri wrote Egils saga to gain release for his grief over the loss of his
' Just as Egill had composed Sonatorrek under similar circumstances.
llr,P°rtant study on the saga literature written in a major language,
h°ok is a cause for celebration. Torfi integrates the Icelandic nar-
this
23
sAGa