I spoke earlier about how gift giving was a reciprocal undertaking, one just did not give gifts wily-nily. If the gifts given to guests who attended the aforementioned funeral banquets were not expected to be reciprocated however, after all in one instance the sons of Hjalti summoned all the chieftans in Iceland and many others (11,740 persons in all...yikes) to their father's funeral banquet and "all the distinguished men left the feast with presents", the same happened when the sons of Hoskuld held a funeral feast for their father in which 11,080 guests were invited and "all the noble men present received gifts."
I cannot speak to if they reciprocated the gifts given to them because we have no record of it taking place but I can imagine they did considering the fact that they themselves received the gifts. And here is where it gets interesting, at least for us as moderns...and as humans in general. If gift giving was reciprocal then how did one ensure the gift was in fact reciprocated? If a country such as Iceland with it's population spread out over such distances managed to do it, how did they do it? It's simple really, by individuals constantly transferring items between one another it ensured social contact between them. It did not matter if the gift was an object of worth or if it was a marriageable woman between two groups of people, the groundwork was laid for continued, definite relationships and with this relationship came dramatic and emotional content between the groups. Another interesting point is that it seems that the exchange of objects was frequently irrational...if you regard it from the POV of the value of the object being given...but was did matter was not the object itself but that the person who owned it chose to transfer it.
When do we as humans, not heathens but we know some do in fact engage in gifting, ritually participate in the act of reciprocal gifting? Go on, you can say it...Christmas, or Yule, whatever you choose to use. It is then and only then that the act of gifting and receiving is considered "normal" and in fact it is very much so a cultural and societal norm,without the subtle nuances and potential ramifications of what it was to heathens of course. Imagine that level of gifting but with actual meaning behind it, not because it is "just what we do" at the end of the year, it's a pretty big difference.
Earlier I mentioned that if one did not return a gift of equal...or greater, but that will come about later...value then the recipient would be in danger of becoming dependent on the donor and this in turn would humiliate him and could even endanger his honor, his freedom and even his life. The donor triumphs over his rival...remember, gifting isn't always "nice"... This comes about because the objects that were bestowed were not considered inanimate objects but were to thought to possess a part of the person who bestowed them, they thought the exchange of gifts possessed some kind of magic power. This comes about from the fact that gifting was heavily invested in ritual and there was a magic, religious and ethical nature behind the concept of the value of these gifts. It represented one of the means of social contact, along with marriages, mutual favors, sacrificial offerings and other acts of worship. In all of the rituals mentioned there was an exchange of relationship between tribes, families and individuals as well as between humans and the gods. By exchanging presents you were maintaining regular contact between the component groups of a community. Through mutual visits, the attending of celebrations...which naturally were accompanied by gifts and festivities...a form of "give and take" was established.
One of the leading motifs in the poetry we have is the generosity of the kings and the loyalty of the men who were in their retainer, ok so the loyalty had a lot to do with the fact that the king distributed gold, weapons and other wealth amongst his men for their loyalty but come on, wouldn't you? However...such favors also had the effect of preserving the inseverable bond between them and their overlord up to and including death. If one looks at all this gold, weapons or other forms of wealth one would accumulate you would see that to them they were preserving and increasing their success and good luck. What is interesting is that the gold and silver did not themselves contain these blessings regardless of who owned but actually came to comprise an inherent part of the qualities of their owner. I guess you could say they "absorbed" the prosperity of the person who owned them. and retained those qualities. This is one of the reasons why associates and retainers of chieftains were so eager to obtain gifts from them in hopes of acquiring a portion of their success and good luck which had clearly come to their superiors.
The real center of any distinguished man's house was where the feast was held and the two most important focal points in Scandinavian social life was the feast and the ting. Their subjects, when it was their turn, would invite their leaders and protectors to feasts and give them gifts in hopes that they could count on them for their support and the gifts they expected to receive in return. In fact, since we are known for hospitality and in the literature hospitality figures so prominently we can judge the quality of a relationship between people by whether or not the host sent his goes off with "good gifts." The epithets vinsaell ("happy in his friends", "beloved by many") and vingjof ("a gift of friendship") occur often in the sagas and yet in the kings' sagas we have evidence of something almost unheard of in that the sons of the Norwegian king Eirik Blood-Axe were so tight fisted that they were compared to simple peasants. If you look at tradition in the sources, when a successful king ruled and was generous in feasts and entertainment peace reigned, cattle were bred and the land brought forth harvests and fish were caught in the sea and this was not just considered simply a moral duty but it was also a quality possessing certain magical and sacramental properties. It was not only kings but nobles who were known for having rich feasts and having bestowed gifts upon his guests and the memory of a generous hofdingjar was transferred from one generation to the next.(this is where the funeral feasts mentioned earlier come in).
Alright, so we know some occasions when gifts were given and why, but what about when it came to feuds? When and why were gifts given then? In Fostbroedra saga , Ingolfr svidinn and Thorbrandr, his son, both ojafnadarmenn (chs 3-5) steal from farmers around Jokulsfirdir. Their chieftan, Vermundr inn mjovi, protects them because they have given him good gifts. In Gudmundar saga dyra (chs. 5-6), Hrafn Brandsson is killed by Hakon Thordarson, lover of Hrafn’s wife, Gudrun Thordardottir. Hakon is the nephew of the chieftan Gudmundr dyri, who takes the case. Gudmundr sends for Erlendr, Hrafn’s brother, and tries to settle the matter. Erlendr, well disposed toward settlement, sends for Hakon’s father, Thordr Thorarinsson but Thordr will settle only if Gudrun pays half the fine. Gudmundr and the priest Flosi arbitrate the dispute and make a substantial award, including two pieces of land, to the dead man’s kinsmen. Gifts are exchanged and Gudrun and Hakon marry. And fionally in Reykdoela saga (chs. 12-13), Steingrimr Ornolfsson is insulted by having a sheep’s head thrown at him at the instigation of Askell Eyvindarson’s nephew, Vemundr. Askell tries to placate Steingrimr with generous gifts, but Steingrimr refuses to accept them. Two years later Steingrimr has Herjolfr, brother of Vemundr, killed. The killing is followed by arbitration, but the conflict continues.
We also know where gifting was given for advocacy, arbitration or in direct resolution such as in the example of fictitious kinship bonds which was a way to gain protection either before or during a feud was the creation of ties between families. Fosterage, a bond of fictitious kinship, was especially common. In Reykdoela saga (ch. 4), Haneffsters Vemndr Fjorleifarson’s daughter, Thorkatla, and gives the father valuable gifts. In Ljosvetninga saga (chs. 2-4), Thorgeirr godi and his sons are disputing over the outlawed Solmundr Vidarsson. Solmundr was banished but while in Norway became a favorite of that country’s ruler, Hakon jarl. Hakon sends gifts to Thorgeirr godi and Gudmundr inn riki in order to insure support for Solmundr’s return to Iceland. Thorgeirr’s sons object to the gifts, and Hoskuldr Thorgeirsson kills Solmundr when he returns. When it came to direct resolution it could come either smack in the middle of one or at the end of one such as in Laxdaela saga (ch. 16), Hoskuldr Dala-Kollsson is approached by a farmer, Thordr goddi, for protection in a divorce suit. Hoskuldr, who is well liked and well respected, does not intend to support the farmer without compensation. After obtaining the management of all the farmers wealth by handsal and getting the farmer to foster his favorite, but illegitimate, son Olafr pai, Hoskuldr deals with the powerful family of the farmer’s wife. He settles the suit by giving the family generous gifts and convincing them that they have no case.
In Thorgils saga ok Haflida Haflidi is to settle between himself and Thorgils Oddason, whom Haflidi has outlawed (ch.18). Trusting in his strength as a godi, Thorgils has refused to leave, although reconciliation has failed. Haflidi finally gets sjalfdoemi with the condition that Thorgils not be outlawed or lose his rights to his godord and farm. All conditions are carried out; after the settlement is specified, many men contribute towards it’s payment. The settlement is final and both sides hold to it. Thorgils sends Haflidi generous gifts and afterward they side together in legal cases (chs. 28-32).
I know there is a lot more to it than this but this is just a brief look into the ritual that was gifting. I hope you all are able to further research it using the sources I gave in the first entry and I hope you enjoyed it.
No comments:
Post a Comment