What do you think?
Rate this book
The Vikings of Helgeland
Henrik Ibsen, considered to be the father of modern drama, was a Norwegian playwright. He is responsible for "realistic drama." During the Victorian era Ibsen's writings were considered scandalous. The Vikings of Helgeland was Ibsen's 7th play written in 1857. the island of Helgeland is in the northern part of Norway. The story takes place in the time of Erik the Blood circa 933 A D. The setting is a rocky coastline with several war ships in the distance. The character of Hjdoris was modeled after Ibsen's fianc Suzannah. Hjdoris is a larger than life character whose strength comes from honor and love. In the play Hjdoris continues to love one man while marring another.
102 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1858
6 people are currently reading
131 people want to read
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,286 books2,120 followersHenrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 11, 2026
The Vikings would seem a suitable choice of subject for a Norwegian playwright just starting out, and therefore it should be no surprise that a young Henrik Ibsen penned in 1857 a play titled Hærmændene paa Helgeland -- or, The Vikings at Helgeland. It is a striking play, with strong overtones of Shakespearean tragic drama – and at the same time, modern admirers of Ibsen’s work may find themselves thinking about the ways in which this Ibsen play differs from the classic dramas through which Ibsen gained literary immortality.
The stage directions tell us that “The action takes place in the time of Erik Blood-Axe (about 933 A.D.), at, and in the neighbourhood of, Gunnar’s house on the island of Helgeland, in the north of Norway.” As a couple of commentators have pointed out, the setting is remote geographically, but the time is one in which the old Norse faith is encountering the new Christian religion that will eventually relegate Odin and Thor and Freya and Baldur and Loki to the realm of mythology. To provide some context, it was in the year 1000 that Iceland’s parliament, the Althing, voted for what is known as kristnitaka, the “taking of Christianity” as the country’s official religion.
But the Vikings are still pagans at the time of Ibsen’s play, and the play begins as Örnulf of the Fjords, a chieftain of Iceland, arrives in Norway. Örnulf has a whale-bone to pick with the sea-king Sigurd the Strong, and with Gunnar Herse (“Gunnar the Headman”), a leading yeoman or freeholder of Helgeland. The reason for Örnulf’s grievance is that, some time ago, Sigurd and Gunnar voyaged together from Norway in search of Icelandic brides. And their quest was successful, at Örnulf’s expense – as Sigurd came home with his new wife Dagny, Örnulf’s daughter, while Gunnar returned to is Norwegian homeland with his new wife Hiördis, Örnulf’s foster-daughter.
Örnulf seems reconciled with having a recognized and respected warrior like Sigurd as son-in-law – the two fight a swords-and-shields duel at the beginning of the play, before even recognizing each other – but he has more issues with Gunnar as Hiördis’ husband. The hot-tempered qualities of these Vikings are much in evidence; at one point, an angry Örnulf tells his foster-daughter Hiördis that, as far as she’s concerned, Hiördis is nothing more than a “leman” (a mistress), not a lawfully wedded wife. From then on, Hiördis is coldly and absolutely dedicated to revenge.
Indeed, Hiördis is something of an agent of chaos in the play. She loves to lord it over Dagny and other characters, on grounds that her husband Gunnar (for whom she shows little real affection) is the greatest of all Viking warriors, having won Hiördis by killing the white bear that guarded her bedchamber.
It is left to Sigurd to tell the audience the truth behind that story, when he recounts for Dagny a story that Dagny already knows, from back when Sigurd and Gunnar went together to Iceland in search of wives:
Thou knowest there had been a feast; thou didst seek thy chamber betimes; but Hiördis still sat among the men in the feast-hall. The horn went busily round, and many a great vow was sworn. I swore to bear away a fair maid with me from Iceland; Gunnar swore the same as I, and passed the cup to Hiördis. She grasped it and stood up, and vowed this vow – that no warrior should have her to wife, save he who should go to her bower, slay the white bear that stood bound at the door, and carry her away in his arms.
In fact, Sigurd killed the white bear on Gunnar’s behalf and accepted Hiördis’ arm-ring; and when he slept next to Hiördis, he placed a sword between him and her. The ring that Hiördis gave to Sigurd, Sigurd gave to Gunnar. Hiördis has never known better, and has always assumed that her husband Gunnar is the noblest and bravest of all Viking warriors. This scenario will be familiar to all those who have read the Nibelungenlied, the epic poem of 11th-century Germany, and to viewers of composer Richard Wagner’s operatic cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelungs) (1876).
In all of these iterations, the key story element is the same: the greatest of all heroes (be his name Sigurd or Siegfried) kills a monster and wins the hand of an exceptionally combative warrior-maiden (Hiördis or Brunhilde), only to use deception in giving her over to a less capable but lovesick friend (Gunnar or Gunther). The warrior-maiden eventually finds out the truth, and – unsurprisingly – things go badly from there.
In the case of The Vikings at Helgeland, things start going badly during a feast at Gunnar’s castle. The cycle of honour and revenge has wracked Örnulf’s family. Hiördis makes fun of Örnulf’s loss, saying to Dagny that “I wot it is the last time thy father shall sail from Iceland on such a quest!” Tired of Hiördis’ constant taunting, Dagny finally loses her temper and reveals the long-hidden truth, telling Hiördis that “The sword that lay drawn between thee and the bear-slayer hangs at my husband’s side – and the ring thou didst take from thy arm thou gavest to Sigurd.” She takes the ring off her own arm, holds it up for all to view, and cries out, “Behold it!”
To say that Hiördis is angered by this public revelation would be an understatement. Once Dagny, Sigurd, and Sigurd’s men have left the hall, Hiördis says to herself that “Now have I but one thing left to do – but one deed left to brood upon: Sigurd or I must die!”
But Hiördis’ emotions are complicated. Hiördis, the warrior-woman, eventually declares her love for the uber-warrior Sigurd, and states that the two of them are meant to fight side by side through the ages: “It is the Norns’ will that we two shall hold together; it cannot be altered.” Sigurd is tempted, and even admits that he feels for Hiördis the same sort of passion that she feels for him, but he insists that “Gunnar and Dagny stand between us, and that by right.” To the end, he tries to fulfill the role of the honourable warrior.
Hiördis then tries to blackmail Sigurd by saying that she will tell both Dagny and Gunnar of Sigurd’s feelings for Hiördis; but Sigurd sidesteps Hiördis’ plans by challenging Gunnar to a duel! Sigurd knows that Hiördis, with her adherence to the Viking warriors’ code of honour, will be sworn to kill Sigurd if Sigurd kills Gunnar; if Gunnar wins, then Sigurd’s struggle is at an end. Gunnar sees what Sigurd is doing as a bold intervention on Gunnar’s behalf, vindicating Gunnar as a man of courage – “Thou venturest thy life for my honour, as of old for my happiness!” Hiördis meanwhile insists to herself that “Let fall who will – Sigurd and I shall still be together!”
As in other revenge plays, from Aeschylus’ Oresteia trilogy (c. 458 B.C.) through William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (c. 1600), the person who is seeking revenge may eventually achieve it, but only at the cost of the deaths of innocents whose lives had nothing to do with the revenger’s quest for payback. And it is left to one of the survivors of the play’s violent resolution to posit the idea that the people who have died violent deaths at Helgeland may live on in the Valhalla-style glory of Viking remembrance:
Long will it be ere our forth-faring is forgotten.
The weapon-wielding warriors’ meeting,
Woeful by the Northern seaboard,
Still shall live in song and saga
While our stem endure in Iceland.
Henrik Ibsen achieved his lasting fame for realistic plays like A Doll’s House (1879), Ghosts (1881), and An Enemy of the People (1882) – stark dramas, set in modern times, and dealing with the ugly realities lurking just beneath the surface of “respectable” middle-class society. The Vikings at Helgeland will not cause anyone to forget what Ibsen achieved with his realistic dramas, but it does provide an interesting look at some of the literary experiments that Norway’s greatest dramatist tried, on the way to his most enduring successes.
The stage directions tell us that “The action takes place in the time of Erik Blood-Axe (about 933 A.D.), at, and in the neighbourhood of, Gunnar’s house on the island of Helgeland, in the north of Norway.” As a couple of commentators have pointed out, the setting is remote geographically, but the time is one in which the old Norse faith is encountering the new Christian religion that will eventually relegate Odin and Thor and Freya and Baldur and Loki to the realm of mythology. To provide some context, it was in the year 1000 that Iceland’s parliament, the Althing, voted for what is known as kristnitaka, the “taking of Christianity” as the country’s official religion.
But the Vikings are still pagans at the time of Ibsen’s play, and the play begins as Örnulf of the Fjords, a chieftain of Iceland, arrives in Norway. Örnulf has a whale-bone to pick with the sea-king Sigurd the Strong, and with Gunnar Herse (“Gunnar the Headman”), a leading yeoman or freeholder of Helgeland. The reason for Örnulf’s grievance is that, some time ago, Sigurd and Gunnar voyaged together from Norway in search of Icelandic brides. And their quest was successful, at Örnulf’s expense – as Sigurd came home with his new wife Dagny, Örnulf’s daughter, while Gunnar returned to is Norwegian homeland with his new wife Hiördis, Örnulf’s foster-daughter.
Örnulf seems reconciled with having a recognized and respected warrior like Sigurd as son-in-law – the two fight a swords-and-shields duel at the beginning of the play, before even recognizing each other – but he has more issues with Gunnar as Hiördis’ husband. The hot-tempered qualities of these Vikings are much in evidence; at one point, an angry Örnulf tells his foster-daughter Hiördis that, as far as she’s concerned, Hiördis is nothing more than a “leman” (a mistress), not a lawfully wedded wife. From then on, Hiördis is coldly and absolutely dedicated to revenge.
Indeed, Hiördis is something of an agent of chaos in the play. She loves to lord it over Dagny and other characters, on grounds that her husband Gunnar (for whom she shows little real affection) is the greatest of all Viking warriors, having won Hiördis by killing the white bear that guarded her bedchamber.
It is left to Sigurd to tell the audience the truth behind that story, when he recounts for Dagny a story that Dagny already knows, from back when Sigurd and Gunnar went together to Iceland in search of wives:
Thou knowest there had been a feast; thou didst seek thy chamber betimes; but Hiördis still sat among the men in the feast-hall. The horn went busily round, and many a great vow was sworn. I swore to bear away a fair maid with me from Iceland; Gunnar swore the same as I, and passed the cup to Hiördis. She grasped it and stood up, and vowed this vow – that no warrior should have her to wife, save he who should go to her bower, slay the white bear that stood bound at the door, and carry her away in his arms.
In fact, Sigurd killed the white bear on Gunnar’s behalf and accepted Hiördis’ arm-ring; and when he slept next to Hiördis, he placed a sword between him and her. The ring that Hiördis gave to Sigurd, Sigurd gave to Gunnar. Hiördis has never known better, and has always assumed that her husband Gunnar is the noblest and bravest of all Viking warriors. This scenario will be familiar to all those who have read the Nibelungenlied, the epic poem of 11th-century Germany, and to viewers of composer Richard Wagner’s operatic cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelungs) (1876).
In all of these iterations, the key story element is the same: the greatest of all heroes (be his name Sigurd or Siegfried) kills a monster and wins the hand of an exceptionally combative warrior-maiden (Hiördis or Brunhilde), only to use deception in giving her over to a less capable but lovesick friend (Gunnar or Gunther). The warrior-maiden eventually finds out the truth, and – unsurprisingly – things go badly from there.
In the case of The Vikings at Helgeland, things start going badly during a feast at Gunnar’s castle. The cycle of honour and revenge has wracked Örnulf’s family. Hiördis makes fun of Örnulf’s loss, saying to Dagny that “I wot it is the last time thy father shall sail from Iceland on such a quest!” Tired of Hiördis’ constant taunting, Dagny finally loses her temper and reveals the long-hidden truth, telling Hiördis that “The sword that lay drawn between thee and the bear-slayer hangs at my husband’s side – and the ring thou didst take from thy arm thou gavest to Sigurd.” She takes the ring off her own arm, holds it up for all to view, and cries out, “Behold it!”
To say that Hiördis is angered by this public revelation would be an understatement. Once Dagny, Sigurd, and Sigurd’s men have left the hall, Hiördis says to herself that “Now have I but one thing left to do – but one deed left to brood upon: Sigurd or I must die!”
But Hiördis’ emotions are complicated. Hiördis, the warrior-woman, eventually declares her love for the uber-warrior Sigurd, and states that the two of them are meant to fight side by side through the ages: “It is the Norns’ will that we two shall hold together; it cannot be altered.” Sigurd is tempted, and even admits that he feels for Hiördis the same sort of passion that she feels for him, but he insists that “Gunnar and Dagny stand between us, and that by right.” To the end, he tries to fulfill the role of the honourable warrior.
Hiördis then tries to blackmail Sigurd by saying that she will tell both Dagny and Gunnar of Sigurd’s feelings for Hiördis; but Sigurd sidesteps Hiördis’ plans by challenging Gunnar to a duel! Sigurd knows that Hiördis, with her adherence to the Viking warriors’ code of honour, will be sworn to kill Sigurd if Sigurd kills Gunnar; if Gunnar wins, then Sigurd’s struggle is at an end. Gunnar sees what Sigurd is doing as a bold intervention on Gunnar’s behalf, vindicating Gunnar as a man of courage – “Thou venturest thy life for my honour, as of old for my happiness!” Hiördis meanwhile insists to herself that “Let fall who will – Sigurd and I shall still be together!”
As in other revenge plays, from Aeschylus’ Oresteia trilogy (c. 458 B.C.) through William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (c. 1600), the person who is seeking revenge may eventually achieve it, but only at the cost of the deaths of innocents whose lives had nothing to do with the revenger’s quest for payback. And it is left to one of the survivors of the play’s violent resolution to posit the idea that the people who have died violent deaths at Helgeland may live on in the Valhalla-style glory of Viking remembrance:
Long will it be ere our forth-faring is forgotten.
The weapon-wielding warriors’ meeting,
Woeful by the Northern seaboard,
Still shall live in song and saga
While our stem endure in Iceland.
Henrik Ibsen achieved his lasting fame for realistic plays like A Doll’s House (1879), Ghosts (1881), and An Enemy of the People (1882) – stark dramas, set in modern times, and dealing with the ugly realities lurking just beneath the surface of “respectable” middle-class society. The Vikings at Helgeland will not cause anyone to forget what Ibsen achieved with his realistic dramas, but it does provide an interesting look at some of the literary experiments that Norway’s greatest dramatist tried, on the way to his most enduring successes.
May 11, 2021
3.7 stars. The second real win of the Henrik Ibsen's play was about vikings. Nothing to surprising here. Seems like most of his plays are historical. Not knowing much about Henrik Ibsen before starting this journey, I tought they where set close to when it was written. Maybe I was wrong or maybe it will change slightly as I go forward. But I do enjoy this short plays set in the olden days.
December 8, 2020
Das erste Mal, dass ich einen frühen Ibsen lese. Gelesen, weil ich es am Nationaltheater in Oslo auf Norwegisch sehen werde. Entstanden, bevor Ibsen sich zum sozialkritischen Realisten gewandelt hat. Sehr melodramatisch und nationalromantisch (das Stück spielt in der Wikingerzeit), und äusserst spannend und unterhaltsam. Hjørdis ist bereits eine starke und zwiespältige Frauenfigur, die sich in der männerdominierten Rache- und Ehre-Gesellschaft nicht entfalten kann und darauf mit Bitterkeit, Verhärtung und Manipulation reagiert. Die restlichen Figuren sind eher Stereotypen. Wäre der perfekte romantische Opernstoff gewesen, und Ibsen hatte tatsächlich in späteren Jahren mal den Plan, ein Opernlibretto für Grieg daraus zu machen. Wurde leider nichts daraus.
May 12, 2020
Oh, I loved this one. Was soooooo close to a 5 star but fell just a tad short in the end .
I found this a compelling story of family, one with attempt of reuniting, but with secrets in the past things start to unravel to lots of drama, tragedy and the battle of wills and morals. So good! Plus: vikings. All good. Definitely will re-read this one as well as seek out to see if there are productions of it kicking around. A great read.
I found this a compelling story of family, one with attempt of reuniting, but with secrets in the past things start to unravel to lots of drama, tragedy and the battle of wills and morals. So good! Plus: vikings. All good. Definitely will re-read this one as well as seek out to see if there are productions of it kicking around. A great read.
June 2, 2019
Konflikt og intriger i en overbevisende sagaverden. Hurra! Hvorfor lager ingen en slags "spaghetti western" av denne? Stykket begynner med en duell mellom to tilsynelatende fremmede, men det viser seg å være svigerfag og svigersønn. Svigerfar kommer til Norge fra Island for ærens skyld, da han har blitt frarøvet en datter og fosterdatter uten betaling (huff!). Svigersønn stiller med glede opp, men det viser seg at fosterdattera har blod på tann. Jeg savner en avsluttende Sergio Leone-aktig duell, men ellers føler jeg at det må minimale endringer til for å nå et moderne publikum. Dette skal også ha vært det mest oppførte av Ibsens stykker på hans egen tid.
August 9, 2025
4/22
overraskende morsom
tydelige hedda gabler frø som jeg koste meg med
ufattelig mye kaos
likte den
overraskende morsom
tydelige hedda gabler frø som jeg koste meg med
ufattelig mye kaos
likte den
November 8, 2010
this was such a pleasure to read: very cinematographical. And I just loved Hjørdis.
July 13, 2023
I picked this up because the Ibsen biography I’ve been reading described it as proto-Hedda Gabler set during the age of the Icelandic sagas.
It was definitely that—Hjordis and Sigurd are Hedda and Lovborg, Dagny is Thea, and Gunnar is Tesman—except that Hjordis is unafraid of scandal, so she has slightly more fun before everything all goes sideways.
It is also COMPLETELY UNHINGED. Like, so completely unhinged that it’s hilarious and amazing. There is no subtext. Everyone says what they are feeling and thinking constantly. You might think this would make the action easy to follow, but in fact, it does not, because none of the characters’ thoughts are logical. At one point, a grieving man is snapped out of his depression by his daughter suggesting he sing, and the action grinds to a halt while he improvises a 2-page ballad about his dead sons.
I am pretty sure this play is unstageable and also pretty sure I’m going to have to try anyway. 😂
It was definitely that—Hjordis and Sigurd are Hedda and Lovborg, Dagny is Thea, and Gunnar is Tesman—except that Hjordis is unafraid of scandal, so she has slightly more fun before everything all goes sideways.
It is also COMPLETELY UNHINGED. Like, so completely unhinged that it’s hilarious and amazing. There is no subtext. Everyone says what they are feeling and thinking constantly. You might think this would make the action easy to follow, but in fact, it does not, because none of the characters’ thoughts are logical. At one point, a grieving man is snapped out of his depression by his daughter suggesting he sing, and the action grinds to a halt while he improvises a 2-page ballad about his dead sons.
I am pretty sure this play is unstageable and also pretty sure I’m going to have to try anyway. 😂
February 15, 2019
یک تراژدی عاشقانه بسیار زیبا با ترجمه ای روان و خوب. یک روایت کهن نروژی که به خوبی در قالب نمایش نشسته.
January 26, 2025
Ο Ίψεν είναι σπουδαίος ακόμα και σε εκείνα τα έργα του που η κριτική θεώρησε αδύναμα
July 6, 2014
Ibsen's early plays alternate between poetic romances and historical dramas, often of a nationalist flavour. Certainly we don't get more stereotypically Norwegian than a play about Vikings, the subject of Ibsen's third play based on the national history of his country, and his seventh play in total.
The story is not especially remarkable. It revolves around two Vikings, the peaceable Gunnar and the courageous Sigurd. Both are married to a wife who would perhaps have been better suited to the other warrior. Sigurd's wife is loving and timid, and hardly a good match for the ambitious fighter. Gunnar is married to the dangerously passionate Hjordis.
It is Hjordis who drives the story along, inciting conflicts between the two men, and indeed her own adopted father, leading to a growing sense of tragedy. She is not the first harpy in Ibsen's fiction, In fact the relationship between her, Sigurd and Dagny (Sigurd's wife) echoes that of the three protagonists in Cataline. Indeed, Ibsen will go on to portray many more such female characters, culminating in Hedda Tesman, who greatly resembles Hjordis.
The essential dilemma facing Sigurd is also a familiar one for anyone who has rid Ibsen's other plays. The hero has a choice between the dutiful wife, or the exciting other woman. Both options spell death for the hero - the stultifying death-in-life of his placid wife that hardly meets his passionate needs, or the wild and dangerous freedom of choosing who he wants, that will eventually culminate in his actual death.
Beneath this, we can see another dilemma that this choice symbolises. That is, the choice between duty (often a negative word in Ibsen's world) and freedom. To choose one is to be trapped by the past and to risk losing one's happiness. To choose the other option is to be irresponsible or dissolute. This dilemma will continue throughout Ibsen's later works, and is never truly resolved.
The play is an interesting addition to Ibsen's category. The plot is far less convoluted than his last nationalistic play, Lady Inger of Ostrat, and contains fewer contrivances than his other romantic plays (although it is still heavily-contrived).
There are moments of real pathos (Ornulf, Dagne and Hjordis's father, rescuing Gunnar's son, only to learn that Gunnar has killed his own son instead) and psychological interest (the scene in the third act where Sigurd and Hjordis confess and discover the depths of their feelings for one another).
These fine passages help to compensate for the rather mundane plot.
The story is not especially remarkable. It revolves around two Vikings, the peaceable Gunnar and the courageous Sigurd. Both are married to a wife who would perhaps have been better suited to the other warrior. Sigurd's wife is loving and timid, and hardly a good match for the ambitious fighter. Gunnar is married to the dangerously passionate Hjordis.
It is Hjordis who drives the story along, inciting conflicts between the two men, and indeed her own adopted father, leading to a growing sense of tragedy. She is not the first harpy in Ibsen's fiction, In fact the relationship between her, Sigurd and Dagny (Sigurd's wife) echoes that of the three protagonists in Cataline. Indeed, Ibsen will go on to portray many more such female characters, culminating in Hedda Tesman, who greatly resembles Hjordis.
The essential dilemma facing Sigurd is also a familiar one for anyone who has rid Ibsen's other plays. The hero has a choice between the dutiful wife, or the exciting other woman. Both options spell death for the hero - the stultifying death-in-life of his placid wife that hardly meets his passionate needs, or the wild and dangerous freedom of choosing who he wants, that will eventually culminate in his actual death.
Beneath this, we can see another dilemma that this choice symbolises. That is, the choice between duty (often a negative word in Ibsen's world) and freedom. To choose one is to be trapped by the past and to risk losing one's happiness. To choose the other option is to be irresponsible or dissolute. This dilemma will continue throughout Ibsen's later works, and is never truly resolved.
The play is an interesting addition to Ibsen's category. The plot is far less convoluted than his last nationalistic play, Lady Inger of Ostrat, and contains fewer contrivances than his other romantic plays (although it is still heavily-contrived).
There are moments of real pathos (Ornulf, Dagne and Hjordis's father, rescuing Gunnar's son, only to learn that Gunnar has killed his own son instead) and psychological interest (the scene in the third act where Sigurd and Hjordis confess and discover the depths of their feelings for one another).
These fine passages help to compensate for the rather mundane plot.
Want to read
September 28, 2012Free download at Gutenberg Project.
February 1, 2022
This one was a very good read! Everybody comes out a loser, with Hiordis being the main cause of all the grief that comes to pass (although Gunnar and Sigurd, with their "a viking" posturing years earlier, could be said to have been the ultimate). They all have their skeins woven (repeated references to the Norns in the play) and must follow them regardless of where they end. Hiordis was always going to be trouble, but she does compare favorably with Hedda Gabler as a main character (she's not really the "lead" here) villain. The end was just a touch abrupt, and for its moralizing, Gunnar gets off light compared with everyone else.
February 24, 2019
تنها اثری که تا به اینجا از دورۀ متقدم ــ و کمتر شناختهشدۀ ایبسن برای ما ــ خواندهام. طبعاً به قوت آثار نیمۀدوم کارنامه و حتی آثار دورۀ انتقال نبود، اما همچنان صحنههای کوبندهای داشت. ضمناً رشتههای قوی پیوند ایبسن با تراژدیهای یونانی را هم خیلی خوب نشان میداد، مدهئا در سرتاسر اثر حی و حاضر بود.
با ترجمۀ مهدیان «براند» ایبسن را هم خوانده بودم و به اعتبار همین دو ترجمه میتوان او را از بهترین مترجمین فارسی ایبسن شمرد. هیچ نمیشناسمش و کاش میشد اطلاعات بیشتری از او جست.
با ترجمۀ مهدیان «براند» ایبسن را هم خوانده بودم و به اعتبار همین دو ترجمه میتوان او را از بهترین مترجمین فارسی ایبسن شمرد. هیچ نمیشناسمش و کاش میشد اطلاعات بیشتری از او جست.
January 6, 2023
وایکینگها در هلگلاند یکی از بهترین نمایشنامه های هنریک ایبسن بود از نظر من. نمایشنامهای در مورد جنگ، انتقام و عشق. اگر به داستانهایی تو این سبک علاقه دارید، اگر از بازی تاج و تخت و این داستانها لذت میبرید، این نمایشنامه کوتاه براتون مناسبه.
داستان این نمایش در مورد زنی جنگجو و جذابه که باعت رودررویی دو دوست میشه. داستان کوتاه اما سراسر ماجراس و تو هر پرده حقیقتی رو میشه که گفتن از اون، ماجرا رو لو میده. پس اگر به این سبک داستانها و نمایشنامهها علاقه دارید، خودتون داستان رو بخونید.
داستان این نمایش در مورد زنی جنگجو و جذابه که باعت رودررویی دو دوست میشه. داستان کوتاه اما سراسر ماجراس و تو هر پرده حقیقتی رو میشه که گفتن از اون، ماجرا رو لو میده. پس اگر به این سبک داستانها و نمایشنامهها علاقه دارید، خودتون داستان رو بخونید.
August 17, 2018
Some thrilling moments but not an easy read; there’s much mistaken identity, pride, vengeance, secret and irrelevant true love, and lots of dead bodies.
July 14, 2019
Tragic. Nobel vs Ignoble. Marriage vows must be eternal to result in an eternal marriage.
October 23, 2020
Hjördis would whip Hedda and Nora in a fight. With her eyes closed. Could stand her ground with Xena or Buffy too for that matter. Just saying.
December 5, 2022
Shockingly good, Ibsen was so much more fully formed in this play than I expected. You can see the seeds of Brand/The Master Builder/Hedda Gabler already. Rich, poetic writing.
March 20, 2025
Melodramatic context for Ibsen’s realism.
July 10, 2025
Hedda Gabler men i vikingtida så å si
September 17, 2025
A historical play. Honor among vikings.
April 3, 2015
Vikings´s version of Romeo and Juliet plus blood, gore, and female Valkyries
Who has better credentials than Henrik Ibsen, a true blue Norwegian himself, to write a play about ancient Vikings and their royal matrimonial chaos and bloody feuds?? Given the current wave of Vikings mania sweeping the world, thanks to the adventures of Ragnar Lodbrok and Rollo Rodbrok, there is extra zing in reading this short but very exciting play. Though short, it coveyed all the Vikings honor, savagery, romance, and the influence of Christianity on their religious beliefs. Many quotable quotes. My favourite quote is from the brave and honorable Sigurd who became a Christian, thanks to King Athelston.
SIGURD. Man´s will can do this and that; but fate rules in the deeds that shape our lives - so has it gone with us twain.
Who has better credentials than Henrik Ibsen, a true blue Norwegian himself, to write a play about ancient Vikings and their royal matrimonial chaos and bloody feuds?? Given the current wave of Vikings mania sweeping the world, thanks to the adventures of Ragnar Lodbrok and Rollo Rodbrok, there is extra zing in reading this short but very exciting play. Though short, it coveyed all the Vikings honor, savagery, romance, and the influence of Christianity on their religious beliefs. Many quotable quotes. My favourite quote is from the brave and honorable Sigurd who became a Christian, thanks to King Athelston.
SIGURD. Man´s will can do this and that; but fate rules in the deeds that shape our lives - so has it gone with us twain.
June 9, 2024
Peer Gynt is one of my all time favourite plays. I just plucked it off a library shelf, read it and realised it was amazing from start to finish. Therefore I decided I must be a big Ibsen fan, despite the fact I hadn't read (or seen performed) any of his other works. So I tried Brand and liked it, but not as much. Now I have tried The Vikings of Helgeland and it falls somewhere in between those two other works in my estimation.
There is absolutely no comedy or light relief in this play, that's the first thing that must be said. It is very doomy, gloomy, powerful and bloody. But it is done extremely well, with menace in almost every verbal exchange, even when the characters are pledging eternal friendship to each other. A masterful work, a dense tragedy set in a time when honour was so important that it was worth ending many lives for its sake.
There is absolutely no comedy or light relief in this play, that's the first thing that must be said. It is very doomy, gloomy, powerful and bloody. But it is done extremely well, with menace in almost every verbal exchange, even when the characters are pledging eternal friendship to each other. A masterful work, a dense tragedy set in a time when honour was so important that it was worth ending many lives for its sake.
April 3, 2015
At last that I read a play about vikings of past by the revered Ibsen, who being Norwegian, cannot be more qualified to write this tale of Romeo and Juliet, Viking style. With the benefit of watching the three seasons of Ragnar Lodbrok of Vikings (History Channel), there is more zing reading this play that is just right in length (2 hours of read). The settings, the feasting rooms, the armour and ax has been faithfully replicated by the TV series.
April 6, 2015
My favorite line from this wonderful viking play is “ Man´s will can do this and that; but fate rules in the deeds that shape our lives”。
This play, in short, is a Romeo and Juliet story, viking style. I prefer the viking version because it has a more authentic, more maturity, and greater long suffering involved.
Who has better credentials than Henrik Ibsen, a true blue Norwegian himself, to write a play about ancient Vikings and their royal matrimonial chaos and bloody feuds??
This play, in short, is a Romeo and Juliet story, viking style. I prefer the viking version because it has a more authentic, more maturity, and greater long suffering involved.
Who has better credentials than Henrik Ibsen, a true blue Norwegian himself, to write a play about ancient Vikings and their royal matrimonial chaos and bloody feuds??
April 6, 2015
誰比易卜生更有资格憑據去寫劇本關於古代維京人及其皇室婚姻的混亂和血腥爭鬥呢？易比生本身是一個真正的藍挪威人，刚好这个时候，鑑於海盜熱潮席捲全球的電流波形，這要歸功於維京人朗納爾•洛德布羅克 Ragnar Lodbrok和羅洛•洛德布羅克 Rolo Lodbrok的冒險经历，如能讀這篇短剧本，会更令人興奮的發揮額外的尖嘯聲。雖然剧本短，它能傳達了所有維京人的榮譽，野性，浪漫，还有基督教對他們宗教信仰的影響。許多新書報價。我最喜歡的名言是勇敢和可敬西格爾德誰成為基督徒，感謝英国王Athelston。
书里我最欣赏的 一句真言是：”人將可以做這做那; 但最终是命運塑造我們的生活事蹟規則”
书里我最欣赏的 一句真言是：”人將可以做這做那; 但最终是命運塑造我們的生活事蹟規則”
April 6, 2015
誰比易卜生更有资格憑據去寫劇本關於古代維京人及其皇室婚姻的混亂和血腥爭鬥呢？易比生本身是一個真正的藍挪威人，刚好这个时候，鑑於海盜熱潮席捲全球的電流波形，這要歸功於維京人朗納爾•洛德布羅克 Ragnar Lodbrok和羅洛•洛德布羅克 Rolo Lodbrok的冒險经历，如能讀這篇短剧本，会更令人興奮的發揮額外的尖嘯聲。雖然剧本短，它能傳達了所有維京人的榮譽，野性，浪漫，还有基督教對他們宗教信仰的影響。許多新書報價。我最喜歡的名言是勇敢和可敬西格爾德誰成為基督徒，感謝英国王Athelston。
书里我最欣赏的 一句真言是：”人將可以做這做那; 但最终是命運塑造我們的生活事蹟規則”
书里我最欣赏的 一句真言是：”人將可以做這做那; 但最终是命運塑造我們的生活事蹟規則”
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews