Iceland in Tolkien's Work?

[Lalwendë]

After starting to get into Icelandic sagas in our house I've been thinking about some similarities in Tolkien's work, aside from the stylistic similarities of the sagas to Tolkien's work.

But we have two different ideas floating around, so see what you think:

1. The Numenoreans could be like the old Icelanders. Iceland is a relatively young nation, the Norsemen sailed there and settled it not long before 1000 AD. In the Sagas you read of men who would sail back to the 'old country' and have adventures, maybe do some raiding, have dealings with the old Kings and Queens. The Numenoreans, like the Icelanders were an indepnedent and very adventurous people.

I'm not the only one to notice this, as I had a poke around and found this old thread: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...t=gawain+green
In post 22 The Ka is the first to mention a possible similarity.

It was an Icelandic Norseman who first travelled to the Americas if I'm not mistaken? Hmm, travelling to Valinor?

2. However, the old Icelanders were essentially a peaceful people mostly engaged in farming despite the raiding adventures, unlike the expansionist and often unpleasant Numenoreans.

Are The Hobbits more like the Icelanders? One of the ways the farmers would build houses is to construct a low longhouse, walled with turf so that their homes would often blend completely in with the landscape - a little like The Hill! Plus the Icelanders did not take Kings, like the Hobbits.

Now in common with both Numenoreans and Hobbits, Icelanders always have and still do believe in Elves. If you don't think that's true take a look at this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/in...erland&emc=rss

A very magical place, methinks

Anyway, which do you think Iceland is more like? Numenor or The Shire?

[davem]

I'd lean towards the Shire being closer to the Icelandic Free State (ie Iceland in the Saga period. Iceland was effectively a farming community, without the kind of hierarchical structure found in other Scandinavian countries, with law being held as paramount. To what extent the Shire Moot was equivalent to the Althing is probably unanswerable.

Yet, Iceland was more violent than the Shire - though less violent than it is often perceived by casual readers of the Sagas - & there was probably less need for arbitration in neighbourly feuds.

I was struck by the way Icelanders built turf houses which, due the the effect of weather would become absorbed into the landscape - after all 'Holbytla' is translated 'hole-builder' rather than 'hole-digger'. The similarites between the Icelandic long houses & Bilbo's Hobbit hole, with its rooms leading off the main tunnel, are again worth pointing up. Icelanders would often add extra rooms to their longhouses by knocking holes through the walls & building on (often for protection - latrines were often added as extra rooms in order to avoid the need to go out after dark in response to a call of nature & risk attack by enemies at night).

That said, the Hobbits seem to have inflicted less damage on their environment than the early Icelanders, who weren't averse to using slash & burn tactics to clear the little forest they found for grazing land (though perhaps there's an echo of that in their treatment of the Old Forest). Of course, the Shire is a far more temperate place than Iceland & there would be less of a struggle for survival.

Certainly, The Shire has been related to Anglo-Saxon England (by Shippey among others), but I can't help feeling that the Iceland of Tolkien's beloved Sagas, with its 'anarchic' social structure, did contribute something to the 'soup'.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...perhaps Bjork should've sang the theme song to the movie then.

Sorry, that was the only Icelandic allusion I had readily handy.

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

[Andsigil]

I really don't see a parallel between Iceland and Numenor, other than the fact that they're both islands.

Numenor was home to a fantastic (Atlantean) civilization. Iceland gave us many sagas and had some hardy explorers, but they weren't the center of the world the way Numenor was.

[Lalaith]

They wanted Bjork to sing Gollum's song but she was about to have a baby. So they got Emiliana Torrini, who despite the name is also Icelandic.


I think there's more of a case for Numenor than the Shire, myself. I'm not sure about the peaceful nature of the early Icelanders...The sagas are set in the 10th and 11th century, around the time the country was founded, but were written in the 13th century, by which time the Republic had collapsed in bloody civil war. Iceland was taken over by the Norwegian king at that time because of the internal chaos in the country.
I think the Shire feels very English indeed, and much too gentle and fertile a land to have any resemblance to Iceland. It's a harsh, windswept place - tundra and permafrost and what have you...

[davem]

I also came across the interesting fact that after the introduction of paper for books a number of early Icelandic velum books were simply destroyed - in one case a page was used to make a pattern for a waistcoat.

Once their contents had been transferred to a more easily read format, the vellum books lost almost all value to the contemporary population. In fact, they were viewed as so unimportant that the stiff pages of one of them were cut up into patterns for making clothes. (Byock 'Viking Age Iceland')

Now, given the fondness among Hobbits for that particular item of clothing, one has to wonder what happened to the original Red Book....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

I think by later period there was a fairly complex social structure in Iceland. Whether or not the Shire can be considered 'anarchical' in the sense Tolkien used the term in whatever letter he expressed his approval of that 'system' is another question. I think a glance at the complexities of Gragas, the almost machiavellian system (at least in practical terms) of the Godi/thingman/advocacy set up & the means of dealing with feud points to a very advanced culture in Iceland. "With law must our land be built, or with lawlessness be laid waste" (Njal's Saga)

Yet, as I stated, I'm not arguing that the Shire is exactly like Iceland, merely that there is something of Icelandic society/ culture that went into the soup.

[Lalaith]

Anarchic - perhaps. One of the main reasons Iceland was settled in the first place was because Norway was being brought under the rule of one king.
Some landowners and petty lords of the western Norwegian coast who could not brook such subjugation sailed away to newly discovered Viking territories in the west - the Faroes and Iceland.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Anarchic - perhaps. One of the main reasons Iceland was settled in the first place was because Norway was being brought under the rule of one king.
Some landowners and petty lords of the western Norwegian coast who could not brook such subjugation sailed away to newly discovered Viking territories in the west - the Faroes and Iceland.

Well, clearly in the Sense that Tolkien used the term 'anarchy' does not imply savagery or chaos.

Of course, one can't push the similarities between The Shire & medieval Iceland too far. The Hobbits sought a place where they could live in peace with their own rules to guide them. Not being quite 'human' - in the sense of being more natural peace-loving than the folk who took over Iceland - they managed to live a more harmonious life in their new land.

Of course, another similarity is that both lands were uninhabited, & there were no 'natives' to cause problems for the settlers (of course, that would apply equally to Numenor....)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

P.S. As far as the Shire, the terms 'moot', 'thain' (as in 'thane', 'thegn'), and even the 'farthings' (quarterings) of the Shire, indicate a wholly English squirearchy with nominal (or in this case, no) input from the monarchy. The Shire was not anarchical; it was ruled by custom (much the same as early English Common Law) and had specific agencies and bureacracies (postal service, bounders, shirrifs, etc.) that would not be apparent in early Icelandic culture, which would be more prone to hunter/gatherer and subsistence farming than stratified classes, legal documentation and flourishing, established business evident in Hobbitish society.

Well strictly speaking, anarchy does not imply 'chaos' and the (apparent) lack of central State control in The Shire is indeed still a form of Anarchy. Presumably as they do not have specific 'departments' devoted to such things as maintaining roads, picking up rubbish etc they must share these duties - as would happen under an 'ideal' state of anarchy. Interestingly Tolkien himself felt he had to underline the difference as the word 'anarchy' is such a loaded term:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. Letters, 51

Although the fact that The Shire does have certain systems (e.g. shiriffs) again suggests that someone (we? Tolkien?) has overstated the supposedly 'anarchic' nature of the place somewhat, so I tend to agree with you that the Shire was not, in fact, in a 'state of anarchy'! And that could be an oxymoron

The existence of the Althing and a legal system in old Iceland however, suggests that that too was not some anarchic Utopia; it had some basic systems of 'control' and in that respect, it is very much like The Shire as both have basic 'systems' in operation, even if they do not have central state control of one form or another.

Now, another thing which draws to mind an Iceland/Numenor comparison is the importance of 'bloodline' and how blood feuds could carry on for a long time - of course and how the island is at first a gentle paradise and later descends into chaos through said feuding.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It was an Icelandic Norseman who first travelled to the Americas if I'm not mistaken? Hmm, travelling to Valinor?

2. However, the old Icelanders were essentially a peaceful people mostly engaged in farming despite the raiding adventures, unlike the expansionist and often unpleasant Numenoreans.

ah but lets take a look at these people of you speak. . .

Firstly Erik The Red: Erik the Red had to flee Norway because of some killings he commited, he and his family settled in Iceland. The Icelanders then exiled Erik for several murders around the year 982.

Erik then left Iceland and "found" Greenland which he started colonizing. . . Erik is often said to be the first Norseman locating Greenland, but I have read that apparantly it was spottet over 50 years earlier.

Now Erik seems just as unpleasant as the Numenorians. . .but he was really more Norweigan than Icelandic. . . Moving on to other explores of Iceland.

Now Erik the Red's son Leif the Lucky was the one that settled in Vinland (Newfoundland) and for what I know there is no stories of him being bad, in fact I can only find nice things about him.

SO that seemed undecisive. . .but I am leaning more towards the Numenorians, simply because of the sailing and the fact that the Icelandics had thralls, something I think is very unlikely to be found in the Shire.

[Lalwendë]

I'm very glad Rune is here - do you learn all this cool stuff at school in Denmark?

Wasn't this Leif the famous Leif Erikksson (he who the mobile phones were named after? As was 'Bluetooth' named after Harald Bluetooth?)?

So what you are saying is that some Icelanders were still expansionist and still tough guys in every sense of the word? That to me rings true again with Numenor as this was essentially a peaceful society at forst containing one or two 'bad apples' and as it grew they came more to the fore. I have to say Hobbits certainly don't have the adventuring spirit inherent in them that Icelanders/Numenoreans had!

Course there is also the small matter that Numenoreans, like Vikings in general, had the habit of setting up new societies on the shores of the home continent (Vikings for example setting up: Dublin, Isle of Man, much of Northern Britain, Normandy etc).

Inetersting that you say Erik was 'more Norwegian' than Icelandic. Maybe the 'Black Numenoreans' could be termed in a similar way - they were more 'Middle-earth' than 'Numenor' - i.e. more of the old country (Morgoth tainted) than of the new, slightly Elvish island?

[davem]

Well, Icelanders weren't exactly 'expansionist' - for a lot of the time they were more concerned with simple survival. Another reason why the society was basically peaceful was that farms needed running & it was difficult to sustain violent feuds which cut individuals off from the rest of the community or risk alienating their neighbours (plus in such a small community most families tended to be related to each other to some degree). Icelanders were farmers first & foremost - but farmers with swords & a strong sense of personal honour. Their whole social & legal set up was designed to limit the effect of feuds & to solve disputes quickly & to the satisfation of all concerned. They did have slaves in the earlyier period, but slavery disappeared before too long - Freedmen could own land of their own once they'd been liberated. Slavery was often uneconomical - farming was often difficult & supporting a household plus slaves could be difficult, if not impossible - you'd free your slaves to avoid having to provide for them..

Expansionist??

Well, one problem was that Iceland didn't provide wood for shipbuilding (or much for building generally, & timber had to be imported. Young men might go off raiding & trading (homespun cloth was very a popular commodity), but the kind of life they lived made an expansionist attitude a no-no. They were basically peaceful farmers who tried every means to avoid conflict & resolve it peacfully, primarily because they didn't have the luxury to do much else. Iceland was effectively a big village. Violence did tend to explode & get dealt with quickly - except in extreme cases.

[Kath]

Of course, another similarity is that both lands were uninhabited, & there were no 'natives' to cause problems for the settlers (of course, that would apply equally to Numenor....)

Ah, well, that's not entirely true according to some of those who live there. Many people still believe in 'the little people', and have done for a long time. In fact the belief is so strong that when roads were built they made sure not to build them over where the little people lived for fear that if they did it would cause these legends to become angry with them.

So perhaps that would link Iceland more to the Shire as you could see the little people as being hobbits.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

haha I do not know if they are named after those two, but we do learn this stuff although some teachers does not have their facts straight.

I thought for a long time that the reason it was called "Vinland" was because they found grapes there. . .but that is most likely a legend. I must admit that I had forgotten why Erik the Red left iceland and so I had to read up on that.

Originally Posted by Davem

Well, Icelanders weren't exactly 'expansionist' - for a lot of the time they were more concerned with simple survival. Another reason why the society was basically peaceful was that farms needed running & it was difficult to sustain violent feuds which cut individuals off from the rest of the community or risk alienating their neighbours (plus in such a small community most families tended to be related to each other to some degree). Icelanders were farmers first & foremost - but farmers with swords & a strong sense of personal honour.

You are right, but in this respect the Icelanders are not very different from the rest of the Norse society. . .Vikings was not worriors by profesion, they where farmers and blacksmiths and stuff. . . Why did they come to Iceland in the first place? They where running out of farmable land in their home lands. . . there was also the raiding, but it was not the main thing.

So I think the Viking soicieties in genneral was a lot more peaceful than people think, but it was not idyllic like the shire.

I just see far more paralels to Numenor than to the Shire.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ah, well, that's not entirely true according to some of those who live there. Many people still believe in 'the little people', and have done for a long time. In fact the belief is so strong that when roads were built they made sure not to build them over where the little people lived for fear that if they did it would cause these legends to become angry with them.

And there are episodes in the sagas where individuals fight trolls, Elves & ghosts. 'Ghosts' are interesting in Scandinavian lore, as they have a physical presence & engage in combat with heroes (Grettir fights trolls & breaks into a barrow to steal grave goods. He has to fight the ghost of the inhabitant, & defeats him in the traditional way - beheading the ghost & placing its head between its buttocks.

Clearly there was a belief right from the start that Iceland was inhabited by supernatural beings, & that they had to be respected or combatted.

[Lalaith]

The supernatural people of Iceland were traditionally not "little" - they were "hidden" (huldufolk - hidden people). They are as big as humans, possibly bigger, and more beautiful. So elves, not hobbits.

Leif was named Lucky not because he found America, nor because he lost it again. (I think I've told this joke before...) He was called lucky because he rescued people from a shipwreck.
This is revealing of the Norse view of luck. To have good fortune has a moral dimension which is quite hard to explain.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

The supernatural people of Iceland were traditionally not "little" - they were "hidden" (huldufolk - hidden people). They are as big as humans, possibly bigger, and more beautiful. So elves, not hobbits.

Leif was named Lucky not because he found America, nor because he lost it again. (I think I've told this joke before...) He was called lucky because he rescued people from a shipwreck.
This is revealing of the Norse view of luck. To have good fortune has a moral dimension which is quite hard to explain.

I thought he only rescued one person. . .I suppose today we would have named the survivor "the lucky"

Anyways In Danish he is known as Leif den Lykkelige. . . and Lykkelig is now used to descripe the highest form of Happiness. The word must have changed meaning and hence caused a lot of confusion, I for one did not understand what he was so happy about.

[Lalaith]

I suppose today we would have named the survivor "the lucky"

Exactly.
I think Tolkien understood the whole idea very well....I think the Turin/Tuor parallel is a good illustration of the difference between fortune and misfortune in the Norse sense - compare Skarphedin with Kari, those of you who have read Njalssaga....

[Lalwendë]

Could that be where the phrase "happy go lucky" comes from?

Originally Posted by davem

And there are episodes in the sagas where individuals fight trolls, Elves & ghosts. 'Ghosts' are interesting in Scandinavian lore, as they have a physical presence & engage in combat with heroes (Grettir fights trolls & breaks into a barrow to steal grave goods. He has to fight the ghost of the inhabitant, & defeats him in the traditional way - beheading the ghost & placing its head between its buttocks.

I wonder why that image will not go from my mind...

It would certainly mean that the ghost had no chance of pursuing its victim!

Now those Elves...the scandinavian people even had rituals of sacrifice made to the Elves - the Alfablot. That's how serious they were/are about Elves!

[Lalaith]

Still light elf-fires...alfabrennur....on Twelfth Night.

[davem]

Another similarity with Hobbit traditions:

At the expensive feasts & offerings of hospitality that figure prominently in the literature, the quality of relationships was judged by noting whether the host sent his guest off with 'good gifts'. (Byock 'Viking Age iceland')

In other words, its the party guests who recieved gifts.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Was the hobbit tradition not only so at birthdays?

Because I think it was a more general thing back around the year 1000. It did not have to be a birthday party or even a party, it would always be the host that treated the guests. In sertain cases the guest might bring something as well I supposse.

Anyways, the quote made me think of Morwen. . . she seems to share this view. When Thingol sents messengers to her with gifts, she feels obliged to give them gifts as well.

I cannot remember if the gifts was for Thingol or the messengers. . . .that could be important.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Anyways, the quote made me think of Morwen. . . she seems to share this view. When Thingol sents messengers to her with gifts, she feels obliged to give them gifts as well.

I cannot remember if the gifts was for Thingol or the messengers. . . .that could be important.

Thus began the sojourn of Túrin in Doriath. With him remained for a while Gethron and Grithnir his guardians, though they yearned to return again to their lady in Dor-lómin. Then age and sickness came upon Grithnir, and he stayed beside Túrin until he died; but Gethron departed, and Thingol sent with him an escort to guide him and guard him, and they brought words from Thingol to Morwen. They came at last to Húrin's house, and when Morwen learned that Túrin was received with honour in the halls of Thingol her grief was lightened; and the Elves brought also rich gifts from Melian, and a message bidding her return with Thingol's folk to Doriath. For Melian was wise and foresighted, and she hoped thus to avert the evil that was prepared in the thought of Morgoth. But Morwen would not depart from her house, for her heart was yet unchanged and her pride still high; moreover Niënor was a babe in arms. Therefore she dismissed the Elves of Doriath with her thanks, and gave them in gift the last small things of gold that remained to her, concealing her poverty; and she bade them take back to Thingol the Helm of Hador.

So the Elven messengers bring gifts from Melian & Morwen reciprocates with gifts to them. The giving of the Helm is a bit ambiguous - is she giving it as a gift to Thingol, or giving it to Turin via Thingol? (We also have Turin's giving of his Knife to Sador, but that's perhaps a side issue).

If she was giving the Helm to Turin then we have another echo of the Sagas, in that a Mother would often give a weapon to her son, along with 'encouragement' to avenge a dishonour to the family. This happens in Grettir's saga - & another interesting point is that Grettir's death is brought about by his attempting to cut up a (cursed in Grettir's case) piece of driftwood for firewood - the axe he is using slips & he cuts open his own leg (as happens with Sador) which cripples him & leaves him unable to defend himself against his enemies' attack.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I've always felt as though Tolkien's greatest 'debt' to the Sagas was more their "feel" than any specific event or reference. Time and again in the Sagas you have somebody who does something that sets off a feud and no matter how hard everyone tries to avert disaster and tragedy it's hopeless and everyone involved suffers mightily. The Sagas do not participate in the Modernist idea of history as advance/improvement...quite the reverse. And that's pretty much the story of Middle Earth in a nutshell. Things generally go from light to dark, from high to low, vengeance and blood feuds wipe out whole peoples and cause misery without justice... Which is not to say that the Sagas or Middle-earth are depressing places--there is fellowship, honour, heroism but mostly there is convivialty, hospitality and, most importantly, gatherings of friends and family. The world is dark, but life need not be so.

There may be elements of particular reference between the Sagas and Middle-earth (the portrayal of the trolls in TH is clearly inspired by Icelandic trolls; the 'governmental' structure of the Shire is pretty much precisely the kind of loose 'democracy' practised in Old Iceland) but on the whole I think the real comparison is to be made betwen the views of heroism--what Tolkien called "naked will and courage in the face of inevitable defeat". That's what got Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, and that's what inspired Aragorn to lead his armies to the Black Gate.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

....but on the whole I think the real comparison is to be made betwen the views of heroism--what Tolkien called "naked will and courage in the face of inevitable defeat". That's what got Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, and that's what inspired Aragorn to lead his armies to the Black Gate.

Yes, but such valor is not specifically Icelandic in nature; one could just as easily infer the same from Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon studies. One only has to read The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son to get that same sense of valor and heroic chivalry (however misguided in this case in point). That sense of selflessness in the face of defeat and death is evident in nearly every literary piece of that time (even the coeval Frankish 'Song of Roland' echoes that bravado).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Yes, but such valor is not specifically Icelandic in nature; one could just as easily infer the same from Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon studies. One only has to read The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son to get that same sense of valor and heroic chivalry (however misguided in this case in point). That sense of selflessness in the face of defeat and death is evident in nearly every literary piece of that time (even the coeval Frankish 'Song of Roland' echoes that bravado).

Well, no, its not unique to the Icelandic concept of valour. One would not expect it to be, given that both the Anglo-Saxons & the Icelanders were Germanic peoples, & their attitudes reflect a cultural norm. However, being that this thread is discussing (possible) Icelandic influences on Tolkien, I don't see that pointing out that another society held the same view adds to the discussion. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons held to the 'Northern theory of courage' doesn't negate the fact that the Icelanders also did. Both Icelanders & Anglo-Saxons held to the concept of weregild. Men in both societies wore tunics.

The real point is that we have nothing like the Sagas from Anglo-Saxon England, no extensive literature which depicts everyday life in Dark Age/Medieval England. The Children of Hurin is the closest thing we have in style & structure to an Icelandic Saga from Tolkien, & there is nothing in the whole of Anglo-Saxon literature that is anything like it - as far as I'm aware. The work seems almost purely Icelandic is style, mood & structure - getting away from the Shire or Numenor options admittedly. Surely we have to look to Icelandic Saga literature as a major influence on Tolkien's creation - something which is usually ignored in favour of seeking Biblical or Northern mythological influences.

[Lalaith]

Actually I think the "feel" of CoH is closer to the Eddic poems (the various Lays of Gudrun, the Lay of Atli, etc) than to the sagas. The date of the poems is disputed, as they are older than the date they were fixed to paper, but they are certainly at least three centuries older.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, no, its not unique to the Icelandic concept of valour. One would not expect it to be, given that both the Anglo-Saxons & the Icelanders were Germanic peoples, & their attitudes reflect a cultural norm. However, being that this thread is discussing (possible) Icelandic influences on Tolkien, I don't see that pointing out that another society held the same view adds to the discussion. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons held to the 'Northern theory of courage' doesn't negate the fact that the Icelanders also did. Both Icelanders & Anglo-Saxons held to the concept of weregild. Men in both societies wore tunics.

Being that the 'thread is discussing (possible) Icelandic influences on Tolkien', isn't pointing out when something is not necessarily exclusive to Icelandic nature, but present in Anglo-Saxon literature as well, germane to the discussion, particularly in regards to an Anglo-Saxon scholar such as Tolkien?

Originally Posted by davem

The real point is that we have nothing like the Sagas from Anglo-Saxon England, no extensive literature which depicts everyday life in Dark Age/Medieval England. The Children of Hurin is the closest thing we have in style & structure to an Icelandic Saga from Tolkien, & there is nothing in the whole of Anglo-Saxon literature that is anything like it - as far as I'm aware.

Certainly, CoH bears a great debt to the Sagas, but more so the Eddas, as Lalaith pointed out. But then again, there are certain similarities to the Finnish Kalevala as well (Kullervo seducing a maiden, only to find out it is his sister, and then later killing himself, for instance). Kullervo is an anti-hero much in the mold of Turin.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Certainly, CoH bears a great debt to the Sagas, but more the the Eddas, as Lalaith pointed out. But then again, there are certain similarities to the Finnish Kalevala as well (Kullervo seducing a maiden, only to find out it is his sister, and then later killing himself, for instance). Kullervo is an anti-hero much in the mold of Turin.

The similarities with the stories of Kullervo from Kalevala and Turín surely go deeper than this but some people tend to overestimate the similarities as well.

We probably should not forget that Tolkien was an eclectic - or should we say an Eclectic - picking this and that thing from here and there to make a mythology of his liking. So there may be paths and motives from Icelandic sagas and others from Finnish epic - which kind of nicely is a 19th century production of a person who had the romantic ideas of Hölderlin in his backpack as well. And sharing things from other Germanic lore and even the old Greeks and Romas as well?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think that Tolkien, like most people, had many interests. The Icelandic sagas, Norse Mythology and good old fashioned Englishness were quite forefront in the many cultures of Middle Earth. The Culture of Numenor, while having Atlantian qualities, did, I think, have some allusions to the Icelandic sagas. Likewise, The Shire, while one of its main functions was, no doubt, to satisfy Tolkien's amusement with quintessential Englishness, had some of the Icelandic traits as well. One must always keep in mind that Tolkien had to create a new world and new cultures and all he had to work with was his imagination and cultures that already exsist, past or present. A completely new culture that is not base, even loosely, on another is an incredibly difficult thing to do, if not nigh on impossible. One must always be considering what has gone before, the good parts, the bad parts and all the parts in between.

The Shire, with its Icelandic housing and such Tolkein had studied in his time is mixed with the quirky English traits that he had observed his whole life. There are new things, of course, Hobbits themselves are not English people, nor are they Norsemen. They are, sorry to point out the obvious, Hobbits. Their creator may have had certain ideas about English folk and Icelandic houses as well as a whole host of other things, but they themselves are a peculiar race. I always imagined that the Hobbits (especially Bilbo in The Hobbit) were rather like Arthur Dent in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Unexpected travelers in a far flung land of wonder and magnificence, and yet retaining those odd little personalities from their homeland that makes them stick out like a set of grossly disproportionate infected and possibly contagious sore thumbs.

As with any of Tolkien's cultures in Middle Earth, one must not always look too deeply at things. I do often wonder how many of the connections and similarities he was aware of. If I may speak from experience, it is only when another person reads something I have written that they say, "Ho-ho! This is inspired by X" or "Ah! A little like the thing that happened when so and so did the other thing..."

At least, that's how this struck me...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I've always felt as though Tolkien's greatest 'debt' to the Sagas was more their "feel" than any specific event or reference. Time and again in the Sagas you have somebody who does something that sets off a feud and no matter how hard everyone tries to avert disaster and tragedy it's hopeless and everyone involved suffers mightily. The Sagas do not participate in the Modernist idea of history as advance/improvement...quite the reverse. And that's pretty much the story of Middle Earth in a nutshell. Things generally go from light to dark, from high to low, vengeance and blood feuds wipe out whole peoples and cause misery without justice... Which is not to say that the Sagas or Middle-earth are depressing places--there is fellowship, honour, heroism but mostly there is convivialty, hospitality and, most importantly, gatherings of friends and family. The world is dark, but life need not be so.

There may be elements of particular reference between the Sagas and Middle-earth (the portrayal of the trolls in TH is clearly inspired by Icelandic trolls; the 'governmental' structure of the Shire is pretty much precisely the kind of loose 'democracy' practised in Old Iceland) but on the whole I think the real comparison is to be made betwen the views of heroism--what Tolkien called "naked will and courage in the face of inevitable defeat". That's what got Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, and that's what inspired Aragorn to lead his armies to the Black Gate.

Nice one Fordim. That's the greatest similarity of all - the style. A lot of people struggle with the Sil as the style is so at odds with the usual style you expect of a novel, yes even of Rings, but once you pick up an Icelandic Saga you have a moment of revelation and realise just what Tolkien was attempting to do in terms of style. Have to admit I was dumbfounded to realise this at long last! Far from being 'biblical', the Sil is just like one of the Sagas! Long lists of people, stark language and imagery, thinly but effectively drawn scenes of slaughter and of horror.

One of my mates once said he found The Sil 'glacial', and I told him that Tolkien was trying to achieve a 'cool Northern air' - and this is where, I think, he found it. I was rambling on not so long ago about how the Kinslaying made me feel odd, took me back to my ancestors almost - and then again when I picked up a Saga for the first time this feeling completely grabbed me by the guts.

It's a rich mine I think.

And that's what this thread is about - looking at Icelandic Sagas, Iceland and Tolkien's work.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Actually I think the "feel" of CoH is closer to the Eddic poems (the various Lays of Gudrun, the Lay of Atli, etc) than to the sagas. The date of the poems is disputed, as they are older than the date they were fixed to paper, but they are certainly at least three centuries older.

I suppose it depends on whether we're talking 'feel' or structure & style. Of course, as Hookbill points out, Tolkien drew on many sources, but if one is familiar with the Sagas, one can't help noting the basic structure of the story reflects the typical structure of a saga.

CoH starts with Turin's ancestry, grandfather & father, setting out the place of his family in the wider society. Then we have the hero's birth, his childhood, early deeds, his outlawry (again a popular topic for saga writers), his heroic feats, the suffering & destruction he brings on friends & kin, & ending with his death. Even his mother is typical of Saga mothers. Its a 'classic' saga in its structure. Of course, Kullervo was a major influence, as were the Eddas, Beowulf, the Volsungasaga et al.

The real point, I think, is that the influence of Saga literature on Tolkien's work has not been sufficiently explored. Tolkien was a member of a group, The Coalbiters, who gathered together to read the Sagas in the original Icelandic, & his love of Saga literature & the way it influenced his work should be taken seriously. Pointing out other influences is to sidetrack the thread. Of course those influences are there, but in order to discover the specific influence of the Sagas on Tolkien's work we have to put them on one side.

The question is, were the Sagas a major influence on Tolkien's Legendarium or not, & if so, how & in what way? To respond to that question with 'Well, there were lots of influences.' misses the point of the question. So, I don't think it is germaine to point up similarities with other cultures/myths, because all that does is lead us to the dead end of 'Tolkien was influenced by lots of things'. This is about how 'X' may or may not have influenced Tolkien, not aboout pointing out that he was influenced by A, B, C, D, etc as well.

Also, I take Lalaith's point re the Eddas, but I'm not sure (personal feeling of course) that they were as great an influence on CoH as on some of his other works.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

The real point, I think, is that the influence of Saga literature on Tolkien's work has not been sufficiently explored. Tolkien was a member of a group, The Coalbiters, who gathered together to read the Sagas in the original Icelandic, & his love of Saga literature & the way it influenced his work should be taken seriously. Pointing out other influences is to sidetrack the thread. Of course those influences are there, but in order to discover the specific influence of the Sagas on Tolkien's work we have to put them on one side.

The question is, were the Sagas a major influence on Tolkien's Legendarium or not, & if so, how & in what way? To respond to that question with 'Well, there were lots of influences.' misses the point of the question.

You're right here davem but I think also wrong. Your depiction of the story of Túrin in comparison to Egil's saga or parts of the fates of people in Njall's saga I feel compelled to accept and grant you - and Lal - a point here. There really is a similarity in the style and the structure of the narrative here. But whether it goes through all that Tolkien wrote, that I think is another question and brings back the things about other possible influences as well.

I mean it's hard to ask this kind of tightly defined question when any answers to it will so easily go off the limits. What would a comparison with the sagas actually give us if it's tightly defined to not jump outside the sagas themselves?

Were the sagas a major influence on Tolkien's legendarium? You can't answer that question without giving a somewhat grounded explanation what was the part of other mythologies in Tolkien's writing as well... Only then can you compare the relative weight of different mythologies...

Sorry to nit-pick on this.

[Bêthberry]

Much depends upon how the topic is defined and first presented and then how the posters develop and extrapolate the topic.

Myself, reading the first post here, thought that we were being asked to consider how Numenor ressembled the Old Icelanders. All well and good, except I happened at the time to be reading a compilation of old Welsh tales and legends and discovered that sunken cities are prominent in the old Welsh tales. Ah ha, says I, we have a common topic among many cultures of eld.

Now, we all know about Atlantis and we all know about Tolkien's recurrent dream of flooded civilization, and we all know about Tolkien's love of Welsh. So my initial reaction was to say, well, yes, but there's these Welsh possibilities too. So it isn't a question of ignoring the topic but of wondering just how it is to be defined. To say broadly that the Numenoreans could be like the Old Icelanders is to invite responses of 'well, how specific and definite is that similarity'.... It's a bit confusing moving between causation and correlation and simple similarities. It invites other similarities.

Besides, we have Tristram Shandy which starts not just with ancestry and the hero's birth, but with the actual ... well, ... little man as it were.

I would like to see Lalaith elaborate a bit on her post about how 'the feeling' of CoH is closer to the Eddic poems than the Sagas. What are those differences between the Eddas and the sagas? And, frankly, I would enjoy a bit more discussion of just CoH before we jump into the literary forebearers. After all, I want to explore the reading experience before I break it apart.

[Morthoron]

I think it's safe to say that Tolkien horded an immense amount of data from various external sources throughout his career and synthesized this accrued information into various literary forms as it suited him. His tastes changed as he developed his prose, and he regretted some of his decisions after his works were published (taking Dwarvish names directly from the Völuspá comes to mind). Efforts to pinpoint with any accuracy where he derived his source material can be accomplished microcosmically from tract to tract (in some cases, chapter to chapter or sentence to sentence), perhaps, but one really can't achieve this on a macrocosmic level with any degree of certainty.

davem and Lalaith have offered varying views on CoH as represenatative of either the Eddas or the Sagas from a stylistic standpoint; however, as I stated previously, the actual character of Turin in some instances bears such a striking resemblance to Kullervo in the Kalevala, that one must consider if Tolkien didn't lift sequences wholly from the Finnish text. Here is a bit of transcribing offered by Nogrod from this post...http://forum.barrowdowns.com//showpo...&postcount=430

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Shortly and not actually translated but just described...

The first paragraph:
Kullervo, son of Kalervo took his dog with him and went to the wilds. After a short trek he came to the place where he had "marred the maid, spoiled the one her mother had brought to a life".

The second:
The grass was wailing and the flowers were groaning for the misdeed. No young grass would grow or heaths blossom there as it was a dark place where the maid had been marred, the one mother had brought a life was spoiled.

The third:
Kullervo takes his sword and looks at it, turns it around and asks it questrions and thinks. Asking then from it whether it would eat the guilty flesh, drink the vile blood?

The fourth:
The sword thought about the mind of the man, getting into what he was thinking. answered with the words: "Why shouldn't I eat gladly, eat the guilty flesh and drink the vile blood? I eat the flesh of innocents and drink the blood of those with no vice as well."

The fifth:
Kullervo, son of Kalervo set the hilt of the sword to the ground and brought the edge of it to his chest. He threw himself to the sword. There he met his death.

Again, to demand that the discussion be limited to a single source as the wellspring of an entire Tolkien work(s) leaves much to be desired, particularly when whole sections of text cannot be directly ascribed with certainty to any one source, points decidedly towards a different source, or offers a multiplicity of possible sources.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Again, to demand that the discussion be limited to a single source as the wellspring of an entire Tolkien work(s) leaves much to be desired, particularly when whole sections of text cannot be directly ascribed with certainty to any one source, points decidedly towards a different source, or offers a multiplicity of possible sources.

No. If someone started a topic on The Hobbit I don't see what would be gained by loads of people coming on it to point out that Tolkien also wrote Lord of the Rings & Smith of Wooton Major, or one on Tolkien's time at Oxford & having people come on & point out that he also lived at Leeds.

In the same way I realise that one could even find points of similarity with Tristam Shandy, but...

I don't see how that helps us in understanding how the Sagas affected Tolkien's work. Anyone who knows anything about Tolkien knows that the story of Kullervo influenced CoH. Its been discussed many times, as has the influence of Beowulf & Sigurd. I'm not aware that we've spent much (if any) time discussing the Sagas in relation to Tolkien's work. This isn't a thread on 'What influenced Tolkien?' but on 'How did Iceland & its literature affect Tolkien?'

[Lalwendë]

Now play nicely.

I s'pose I have the responsibility to say something as I started the fire...I did start this up to discuss similarities between Icelandic (Norse) Sagas and the life depicted therein to Tolkien's work - specifically Numenor and The Shire, though this does not exclude other Tolkienian cultures if you spot anything interesting there. Mostly as we are reading the Sagas and want to woden (I left the typo in as that's a bit eerie - I meant widen though) discussion beyond oor hoose. Course, a bit of discussion of other associated literature to the Icelandic Sagas can also add to this (things in culture do not exist in a vacuum after all), as can a little discussion of main 'themes' and where else we might better find them (as Bethberry brings up the Atlantean theme which cannot be ignored - now where might this appear in the Sagas?). But the wild horses need some harnesses.

We have got an ace thread somewhere started by Rune about wider Norse influences too: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ighlight=norse At the risk of me own thread going cold, some of the mythological stuff might be more fruitfully pursued on Rune's thread.

It's not so useful in terms of a topic for things to get too baggy around the edges so that's why I have interjected - not to stop anyome discussing certain stuff but just to say that there is of course the risk that when looking at an influence someone is going to jump up and say 'but such and such' is also an influence!' We know. But I'm not pretending to say that this is THE influence - just want to have a look at it as its not really been done before.

So, have some fun, this is not a thread intended to 'get at' fixing upon a source or a meaning because we know there isn't a specific one - if you've read any of the sagas or know a little of old Iceland and Norse culture have a pop at it. From Fordim's great post on the style to my meanderings about random stuff I pick up on as I begin to read the Sagas, it's good.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I would like to see Lalaith elaborate a bit on her post about how 'the feeling' of CoH is closer to the Eddic poems than the Sagas. What are those differences between the Eddas and the sagas? And, frankly, I would enjoy a bit more discussion of just CoH before we jump into the literary forebearers. After all, I want to explore the reading experience before I break it apart.

I would like to see more discussion of CoH too before we go into what influenced it or not, I agree. That might warrant its own thread sometime soon? Maybe a Chapter by Chapter in the near future? Hint. Hint.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I can't help myself, but I'm going to throw another faggot on the fire here and raise the interesting (to me at least) point of significant differences bewteen the Sagas and Tolkien's tales.

The first thing that comes to mind is the bickering. There's plenty of it in Middle-earth to be sure--and by bickering I don't mean open warfare or the ongoing struggle between good and evil, I mean people arguing with one another endlessly, sometimes letting these arguments get out of hand. In the Sagas such bickering almost inevitably leads to real conflict with someone taking offense, feeling as though his pride or honour has been hurt, doing some killing and then we have a blood feud. In Middle-earth this kind of escalation is relatively rare as, inevitably, someone is able to step in and make peace. In the ON these attempts are always there but they always fail. In M-E these attempts usually work out (Gimli and Legolas become fast friends, for example, instead of trying to kill one another; Frodo is able to keep Gollum and Sam from hurting one another). It makes me consider how in Middle-earth the concept of "honour" is oddly absent. Yes, people do honourable things, but they are not willing to immediately hack off someone's head if they are insulted by them. Compare this to a scene relatively common in the Sagas:

Western Icelander: Your grandfather cheated our family when you sold us that lame pig!

Eastern Icelander: Your grandfather dropped the pig on the way home!

Friendly Icelander: Now now, let's just forget about all that...

Western Icelander (to Eastern Icelander): I hear that the Sninafal Troll uses you as his woman every night!*

Eastern Icelander: That's it! I'm getting my axe!

(*This is an actual insult in some of the Sagas...)

Another big difference is in the notion of heroic action. There are numerous times in the Sagas when a hero behaves in a way that one of Tolkien's heroes never would. My favourite example is Grettir. When he hears of a farmer who is being terrorised by Vikings he says that he'll help the farmer for a price. The farmer agrees and when the Vikings next show up Grettir greets them invites them into the barn then shuts them in and burns them alive. He then collects the reward from the farmer and sails away in the Vikings' ship leaving the farmer without a barn and 12 burned corpses to contend with. Aragorn he ain't.

So despite my earlier post saying that I find the notion of northern heroism to be prevalent in Middle-earth, I think I might have to amend that. "Naked will and courage in the face of inevitable defeat" is there, but (what we would consider) silly hang-ups over matters of honour are not, nor are (to our minds) dubious tactics. So while Frodo and Aragorn are "Icelandic" in some ways I think that they are significantly, well, something else as well. And on this point I refer you back to Hookbill's excellent post and his salient reminder that there are many different ingredients at work in the "cauldron of story" that is Middle-earth...

[Nogrod]

I think I understand well what you mean davem, but if you write:

Originally Posted by davem

The question is, were the Sagas a major influence on Tolkien's Legendarium or not

you can't possibly think that discussing about something being a major (or minor) influence can be done without comparison.

But surely I do agree that it's more to the spirit of this thread to discuss more the influnces of specifically Icelandic mythology to Tolkien's work and not bring everything else in as there seems to be a host of threads that have taken those larger views in consideration.

Just to play nicely.