Reading Þórðar saga kakala as literature

• Main Author: White, D. M.
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Center for Open Science 2021
• Subjects: Mikla; Iceland
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.34055/osf.io/kp786

Þórðar saga kakala is a thirteenth-century contemporary saga, extant today in the surviving manuscripts of the fourteenth-century compilation Sturlunga saga. The original version of the saga – *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla – was written during in Western Iceland during the 1270s, most probably by someone close to Hrafn Oddsson who had been present at the saga’s events (notably proposed to be Svarthöfði Dufgusson) (White 2020a). In extant form, Þórðar saga kakala contains 50 chapters covering the years 1242-9/50 and 1254-6; however, *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla was longer and, whilst also ending in 1256, likely began in c.1233 (or even earlier in c.1210) (White 2020a). Historically, contemporary sagas – such as the component texts of Sturlunga saga – have been treated uncritically by scholars seeking to cite them as primary sources of Icelandic history. Despite this, in recent years attitudes have begun to change (cf. Jón Viðar Sigurðsson et al. 2017). The transformation in approaches to the contemporary sagas has been spearheaded by the great scholar of Sturlunga saga, Úlfar Bragason, who has sought throughout his career to evaluate the literary qualities of the compilation, especially from a narratological standpoint (e.g. Úlfar Bragason 2010). This article carries out a literary analysis of Þórðar saga kakala, specifically in relation to how its structure and intertextual connections serve as meaning-making devices. Two arguments are presented across this article. The first is that Þórðar saga kakala’s interlaced structure encourages the reader to focus in on Þórður’s personal qualities. The second is that Þórðar saga kakala’s implicit references to other texts serves to induce the reader to attribute Þórður’s successes to his possession of exceptional characteristics. The article closes by emphasising the literary nature of this apparently historical text, and echoes Úlfar’s call for historians to use subject the text to thoroughgoing analysis when using it as a primary source.