Gripla - 20.12.2014, Blaðsíða 39

39
–––. Sejd. Textstudier i nordisk religionshistoria. Nordiska texter och undersöknin-
gar. Bd. 5. Stockholm: geber, 1935.
torfi H. tulinius. The Matter of the North: The Rise of Literary Fiction in Thirteenth-
Century Iceland. omsett av randi C. Eldevik. the Viking Collection. Bd. 13.
[odense]: odense university Press, 2002.
–––. Skáldið í skriftinni. Snorri Sturluson og Egils saga. íslensk menning. Bd. 3.
reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, 2004.
Vésteinn Ólason. “Inngangur. Íslendingasögur og þættir.” I Íslensk bókmenntasaga,
bd. 2, 9–164. red. av Vésteinn Ólason. reykjavík: Mál og menning, 1993.
–––. Dialogues with the Viking Age. Narration and Representation in the Sagas
of Icelanders. omsett av Andrew Wawn. reykjavík: Heimskringla, 1998.
Fyrst publisert som Samræður við söguöld. Frásagnarlist íslendingasagna og
fortíðarmynd. reykjavík: Heimskringla, 1998.
SuMMArY
Meeting one’s former Self. tyrrany, rights and Self-Deception in Egils saga –
and Ambiguous situations in the Sagas of Icelanders.
Keywords: Egils saga, Íslendingasögur, attitudes to royal power, ideology, inherit-
ance, foundation myth.
this article points out a compositional pattern that may be essential to a greater
understanding of the ideology behind Egils saga, but that has previously been
acknowledged to a small degree, and whose significance has been overlooked.
the general scholarly view of the saga – that its message is in support of Egill’s
family and the Icelandic point of view against norwegian royal power – seems to
be somewhat insufficient, because there is a fundamental ambiguity, throughout
the whole saga, in the presentation of the Kveldulfr family and their decisions, be-
haviour and ideals. On the surface, it seems that the author supports the kveldulfr
family and the Icelandic aristocracy’s understanding of themselves, but on a closer
inspection the saga problematizes this self-understanding and the ideas upon which
it is based. this comes to light especially in many coupled situations. Where simi-
lar issues occur twice, the Kveldulfr family assumes one position the first time, but
the opposite position the next time, and in other situations where the family meets
their former selves regarding their relation to the norwegian royal power and its
values. As a result, the saga fundamentally problematizes inheritance as the one
legitimation of power, and the idea of the tyrant and the free farmers who respect
each other and founded a free-state on this principle in Iceland. It does not, how-
ever, present an alternative view, just a problematization. the author argues that
such a ‘non-solution’ ideology can be seen in many of the sagas of Icelanders and
MøtE I DørA