Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 136

höfundar naf n
A N THO NY FAU LK ES

OUTLAWS IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND
AND ICELAND

Various studies have been made of the similarities between early English
and Icelandic outlaw legends. These have generally concentrated on similarities of incident and story-motif. In what follows I have tried to go further into the attitudes to outlaws and outlawry in the two traditions.
For some years there has been controversy among English historians about
the Robin Hood legends (a continuation of the dispute begun between R. H.
Hilton in ‘The Origins of Robin Hood’, Past and Present 14 (1958), pp.
30–44, and J. C. Holt in ‘The Origins and Audience of the Ballads of Robin
Hood’, in Past and Present 18 (1960), pp. 89–110). The dispute was notprimarily about the historicity of Robin Hood — it is more or less agreed
that the name is a generic one and that the legends, insofar as they had any
historical foundation, were based on stories about various English outlaws— or about his date: he is first mentioned in Piers Plowman (about 1377)
and the earliest surviving ballads about him are from the fifteenth century,
so there may have existed ballads about him from any time after 1300, andthe historical figures underlying the ballads may have been from as early as
1200 down to the time of the extant texts. The controversy was about his social position. Literary historians have inclined to the view that he was ofyeoman or even aristocratic status, while many social historians havewanted him to be a representative of the peasant class, and the stories tohave reflected the increasing conflict between peasants and landowners inmedieval England. It is likely that in the Middle Ages, different ballad-makers and different audiences would have interpreted Robin Hood’s conflictwith the establishment in various ways according to their own political affiliations, but the fact that many early ballads seem to have been used asentertainment in the halls of local nobility make it rather unlikely that theidealised figure of the outlaw in them was often identified with the peasantry, while the earliest full account of Robin Hood’s life, the Geste of Robin
136

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 137

greinarhe it i
Hood, was first published as part of a volume in about 1500, and other ballads about him were printed as broadsides, and may therefore have appealed
to romantic alienated readers in towns.
There have been no such controversies about the outlaws of medieval
Iceland. The heroes of the three major sagas of outlaws (Grettis saga, Gísla
saga, Har›ar saga) were well-known historical figures who lived in thesecond half of the tenth century (Gísli and Hör›r), while Iceland was still
pagan, or in the first half of the eleventh century (Grettir), during the Christian period. Gísla saga was probably written about 1230 and Har›ar saga
and Grettis saga in the fourteenth or even fifteenth century, by which time
Iceland was no longer an independent commonwealth. Of course, not all
the stories told of these outlaws can have been historical (all three sagas
contain some supernatural elements), but the main outlines of their careers
were. Since the three heroes all lived before the advent of literacy to Iceland,
the sagas about them must be largely based on oral traditions of some kind,but there were no ballads of the European type in Iceland then and the traditions are likely to have been prose ones (the fragments claimed to be ofballads from thirteenth-century Iceland are all from lyric poems, like theearly references to dansar, and there is no trace of narrative poetry in ballad form in medieval Iceland). Nor can there be much disagreement about
the social status of these outlaws. There was little social stratification inearly Iceland, but all three outlaws came from independent landowning
farmer families, as did almost everyone else in the country at that time.
There were no authorities and no ruling class or government. The law wasadministered by local courts presided over by local chieftains or by theAlþing, a general assembly attended by the 36 (later 39) local chieftains
from the whole of Iceland, who appointed judges for each case and chose
one of themselves to preside over the whole assembly for terms of 3 years(known as the lawspeaker), and their followers, who were able to choose
which chieftain they allied themselves with. The Alþing met for a fortnighteach summer in the open air. There were no permanent officers or lawyers
in the system, and all lawsuits had to be brought by individuals and the verdicts implemented by them too.
The law of medieval Iceland was set up with the establishment of theAlþing in 930. It is said to have been based on the laws in parts of Norway,
but the constitution had the fundamental difference that Iceland had no king(until, that is, 1262–4, when Iceland accepted the rule of the king of Norway). It was oral (and had to be recited by the lawspeaker over his three-year137

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 138

höfundar naf nterm of office) until the early twelfth century, when it was written down on
the initiative of the then lawspeaker. The law at that time was not objectified as something imposed on the people from above; it embodied their culture, their customs, their way of life. It defined their society and theiridentity. There was no concept of ‘breaking the law’ in medieval Iceland.
The penalties imposed by the courts were seen not as punishments or deterrents. They were perceived as compensation to others who had been injured in some way, either physically or in some abstract way. That is, theoffences were against another’s person or property or honour, and all offences that were acknowledged could be compensated for. (One major difference in Icelandic law from all other European law systems was that thecompensation for a death, the wergild, was the same for all free persons:
there was no distinction made for the social status either of the injured party
or of the perpetrator.)
There were three sanctions for offences in early Icelandic law: fines,
which could be paid partly to the injured person and his family, partly to thelawspeaker; the lesser outlawry, which was for three years; and full outlawry, which was permanent (though some sagas say that full outlawry wassuspended after 20 years). The fines were graded according to the severityof the injury to someone’s person or honour, and were seen as atonement orcompensation. The outlawry was designed to prevent the violence and hostility from perpetuating itself. An outlawed person normally went abroad forthe term of his outlawry; he was allowed time to get abroad, but if he failed
to go by the allotted time he could be killed with impunity by the person
who brought the case against him. It was also illegal for anyone to help,
feed or shelter an outlaw. He thus ceased to have any social existence in
Iceland and had no protection from the law and no rights and could own noproperty. It also followed that he could not be prosecuted for further offences committed while he was an outlaw. The only way for an outlaw tocontinue a normal life was to go abroad.
Nevertheless, the three heroes of the outlaw sagas stayed in Iceland until
they were killed, Grettir for 19 years, Gísli for 13 and Hör›r for 5, and thesagas mention many other outlaws who lived in the waste places in the middle of the country. They rarely formed a community anything like Robin
Hood’s band of merry men, but a group of outlaws and malcontents gathered around Hör›r (and his wife and children) and lived with him for a whileon a small island in Hvalfjör›r in western Iceland (one can compare Hereward the Wake with his followers on an island in the Fens). They lived on138

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 139

greinarhe it ifood, mainly sheep, raided from the mainland farmers, and it was this raiding that caused a group of farmers to organise an invasion and capture, leading to the execution of the whole group. Gísli spent his outlawry alone, but
was for periods sheltered, sometimes in an underground hideout, by his wifeor various farmer friends in the north-west of Iceland. Grettir was also mostof his 19 years alone, being only for very short periods able to stay withpowerful sympathisers, but he was at times joined by other outlaws whowanted to benefit from his protection, though these generally turned out tobe traitors to him, paid by his enemies to betray him. In his last years, which
he spent on the little island of Drangey in Skagafjör›r in northern Iceland,
he was joined by his young brother, who died defending him, when he himself was too ill to fight, from an attack of his enemies, a group of farmers
who were tired of his stealing their sheep and banded together to attack him
on the island.
The Icelandic interior is an inhospitable place. The climate in summer
is not much worse than the north of Scotland, but there is little food available except the sheep that were allowed to roam over the mountains; there
were fish in the rivers and lakes and plenty of birds, including geese, butthey were difficult to catch without equipment that outlaws rarely possessed.
They would also have had little opportunity to cook meat: Grettir managed
to keep a fire going on Drangey (he had on one occasion to swim to a mainland farm to get fire) and there were in some places hot springs that could
be used for cooking. The winters can be very unpleasant, with the averagetemperature about freezing point, and very wet and windy. No one in theirright mind would voluntarily go and live there for long. There were woods
in a few places, but mainly of birch and willow which rarely grew large
enough to provide any shelter. In some places there are caves in the lava,
and these could be used as secret hideouts. If an outlaw constructed a hut,
he would be seen from miles away and his enemies would be able to find
him and kill him. Their only means of transport would be stolen horses. But
Grettir is said to have found a warm valley high up between the glaciers
which was sheltered and fertile, where there were hot springs and many
sheep there for the taking and fish easily caught. There he was befriended
by a troll-like half-human solitary who lived there with his daughters. In
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century folk-stories there are many accountsof such útilegumenn (out-lying men, men who lived in the waste places);these were not necessarily útlagar (outlaws, people outside the law), andthey are sometimes described as living in communities separate from nor139

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 140

höfundar naf n
mal human ones in ideal surroundings up in the mountains. These legends
then merge with those of trolls and elves, who similarly had communities,
and sometimes even their own churches and villages, parallel to human society but kinder and happier than humans; they used to steal men andwomen — particularly girls — from human societies to take to live withthem, and these sometimes did not wish to return (Maid Marion, whoever
she was, does not appear in medieval stories of Robin Hood). There are also
stories of humans who voluntarily went to live with the trolls or elves,
though relations were more often hostile. These stories come closest to theromantic ideal of life in the greenwood as it appears in later ballads in England and in some of Shakespeare’s plays (As you like it, Midsummer night’s
dream, Two Gentlemen of Verona; compare also The Tempest for an island refuge). In Iceland these stories are all post-medieval. There, in the
Middle Ages, the forest (the world ‘outside’; Latin foris ‘beyond the threshold’) was a wild, dangerous, frightening place, full of strange beings, as in
Old English literature (the usual term for an outlaw in Old Icelandic is skógarma›r, ‘man of the forest’). It was opposed to the social world of men
who were protected by their laws and their relationships. In Anglo-Saxon
England and in medieval Iceland, it was a misfortune to have to go out into
the forest, and anyone who was forced to would try as hard as he could toget back into the safety of human society again. This misfortune is describedin Old English poems like The Wanderer and The Seafarer, where unnamed
men, perhaps outlaws, are described as suffering immense hardships in their
exile. It may be only with the development of towns and cities in western
Europe in the fifteenth century that the countryside outside the towns cameto be idealised as a place to escape to, kinder and less dangerous than thewicked and unjustly organised concentrations of people in urban areas. In
this, renaissance European tradition harks back to the romantic ideals of theclassical pastoral. Only in early medieval Ireland are the waste places idealised as refuges for hermits, some of whom evidently actually went to Iceland on their coracles to escape the perils of human society; they all leftwhen the vikings turned up there in the late ninth century.
In fact, the Icelandic outlaw sagas share more motifs with Old English
literature than with the contemporary Middle English narratives. The short
Anglo-Saxon poem Wulf and Edwacer, as far as its context can be understood from the surviving text, seems to be about a man (called Wulf; Icelandic outlaws were often referred to as vargar ‘wolves’) who got into afeud and was outlawed and separated from his sorrowing wife, just like140

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 141

greinarhe it i
Gísli in tenth-century Iceland. But it is in Grettis saga that the closest analogy with an Old English poem is found. In his wanderings in the wastes hemeets many alien creatures, often described as trolls, which originally wasa term describing any monstrous or non-human creatures, who were in manycases transformed revenants of wicked men who have died. One is the evil
Swedish shepherd, Glámr, who is haunting a remote farm. Grettir manages
to haul him out of the buildings, and there is mesmerised by the creature’seyes seen by moonlight, and he is cursed by Glámr before he manages to destroy him and is forever afterwards afraid of the dark — very inconvenient
for an outlaw living out of doors in Iceland in the winter. Another is thetroll-wife of Bár›ardalr, whom Grettir similarly hauls out of the building
after most of the interior has been smashed in their wrestling. He then severs her arm, and she escapes under a waterfall. Grettir dives down and finds
a giant in the cave behind the waterfall and kills him. This is so similar to
Beowulf’s fight with Grendel and Grendel’s mother (even though the maleand female monsters have exchanged roles), the similarity including theverbal correspondence of weapons described respectively as heptisax andhæftmece, that some sort of relationship has to be assumed. Possibly bothstories derived from an early Scandinavian heroic lay about the exploits ofa bear-like hero, a figure who turns up quite often in Icelandic and Danish
tradition (e.g. Hrólfr kraki). Not only the incidents in the two works, butalso the roles of the two heroes are similar. Grettir, like Beowulf, is a protective hero who successfully goes into the other world of alien creaturesand cleanses the world of men from their depredations; they are saviour figures, able to cross the threshold out of the world of human society and conquer the forces of the other world, though in the end they succumb and are
defeated themselves by it in a sort of retribution. In this aspect of his situation, Grettir’s outlawry could be seen as incidental, but it is this that forces
him to leave the world of men and invade the wastelands. And Grettir, withhis huge strength and his inability to accommodate himself to human society, already half belongs to the world of monsters before his outlawry. He
was an outsider from his childhood, refusing to cooperate with his father andbreaking everything he touched, and like Hör›r, with an ungovernable temper.
There are some striking similarities between incidents in the Icelandic
outlaw sagas and those in the Robin Hood ballads. Both Grettir and Gisli are
adept at disguising themselves and tricking their enemies, and thus repeatedly escape capture; Grettir, like Robin Hood, enters the communities of141

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 142

höfundar naf n
men in disguise to take part in games, which of course, he always wins. Unlike Robin Hood, none of the Icelandic outlaws shows much devotion to either Christ or the Virgin Mary, but Grettir, though he will not accept his
sentence of outlawry, is devoted to King (later Saint) Óláfr of Norway, justas Robin hood rejects the authority of the sheriff of Nottingham but submits
to the king of England. Grettir goes to Norway to meet King Óláfr andprotest his innocence, and offers to prove it by ordeal. The king agrees tothis, and is inclined to favour the outlaw, but a devil in the congregation of
the church provokes Grettir to violence within the sanctuary, preventing thetrial from taking place — another example of retribution by an other-world
creature for the hero’s having crossed the border into the other world, towhich he now irretrievably belongs. Grettir and Hör›r are killed in a last
fight with their enemies after being betrayed by someone they trusted, andRobin’s death is caused by a prioress, a cousin, to whom he had gone for
medical treatment.
But the differences between the English and Icelandic stories are greaterthan these occasional similarities, which are anyway not of motifs speciallycharacteristic of outlaw stories — they are rather general story-motifs thatcan be found in a wide variety of narratives. The first major difference is in
the medium. All the early references to Robin Hood are to him as the subject of ballads and the earliest surviving texts are ballads, usually printed,
though they were presumably originally transmitted orally. They are mostly
quite short and comprise one episode in Robin’s life, though the Geste approaches epic proportions and contains four episodes. In these respects the
traditions of Hereward the Wake are quite different. Hereward’s story is
first told in Latin prose monastic chronicles, and he rapidly became an embodiment of Saxon resistance to the Norman conquerors, though not for along time among the unlearned. The Icelandic narratives are all in lengthy
written prose sagas which are virtually biographies of the heroes, only Gísla
saga not giving an account of the hero’s childhood (it does tell of the early
exploits of Gísli, who originated with his family in Norway). They may bebased on oral traditions, but are not now thought to have existed as oral
prose narratives in anything like their present form; nor were stories told of
these heroes in verse until after the sagas were written. Narrative ballads, as
alread stated, were not cultivated in medieval Iceland. The rímur that doexist are of epic proportions, though they are in ballad-like metres, and aremostly of literary and post-medieval origin. Neither the sagas nor the rímur
are in any sense folk-literature. The sagas are best regarded as imaginative,142Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 143

greinarhe it ithough realistic reconstructions of historical traditions.
The reasons for Robin Hood’s outlawry are nowhere made clear, but his
main enemy is the sheriff of Nottingham; his victims are wealthy churchmen and other establishment figures; he favours poor people and low-ranking yeomen and artisans. The Icelandic heroes are outlawed as a result ofkilling men in feuds of various kinds, and their enemies are often part oftheir own or their wife’s kin-group. They are often on good terms with certain chieftains and with the lawspeaker (the lawspeakers in Grettir’s lastyears tried hard to get him released from outlawry). Their outlawry does
not result from unprovoked crimes, and they could all have atoned for what
they had done if the lawsuits against them had gone as they should, but inthese they were unlucky. All three are outlawed in their absence, Gísli and
Hör›r being let down by the relatives or friends who were supposed to defend them. They are ógæfumenn, unlucky men, more sinned against thansinning, though they also have defects of character that lead to their misfortunes. They are tragic figures who bring suffering upon themselves thatis disproportionate to their sins. There are comic episodes in the outlaw
sagas, but on the whole they are serious studies of gifted men who seemfated to meet opposition greater than they can cope with, though fate is nota concept often invoked in the sagas. Grettir sometimes robs rich and arrogant men, but only those who have deliberately sought him out; the threeoutlaws generally rob only to survive. They are all let down by those they
trust. Those they seek help from, like their enemies, are nearly all men
morally inferior to themselves.
In the accounts of the childhood and youth of Grettir and Hör›r there
seem to be some attempts to explain the antisocial behaviour which develops as one of their chief characteristics in later life. Hör›r’s mother Sign‡
was married against her will and that of her brother to an old and unpleasant man. Relations between her and her husband were not good. Before her
son was born she had a dream of a great and beautiful tree that grew out ofher marital bed, but bore little blossom. The child was physically precocious, becoming large for his age and handsome, but at the age of three hestill did not walk. His mother was sitting admiring her beautiful necklace
which was on her knees when Hör›r took his first stumbling steps. He went
towards her and fell on her lap, breaking the necklace. She was angry andsaid:‘Ill var› þín ganga in fyrsta, ok munu hér margar illar eptir fara, ok munþó verst in sí›asta.’ (Evil were your first steps and many other evil ones
143

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 144

höfundar naf nwill follow this one, but your last ones will be worst.)
At fifteen he goes to Norway and then Sweden, and there breaks into a
Viking grave-mound, winning a sword and helmet and a ring which has acurse on it. Thus, like Grettir, he invades the world of the dead and is punished for it.
He returns to Iceland and settles down to farm, having married thedaughter of an earl in Gautland (which is, incidentally, where Beowulf camefrom). Most of Hör›r’s troubles thereafter result from his association withthe rogue Helgi, son of the vagrant Sigur›r, whom Hör›r, against his better judgment, had allowed himself to take pity on, letting him enter his
household as a servant. There was a dispute with a neighbour, Au›r, about
horses from the two farms being allowed to mix. Helgi quarrelled with
Au›r’s son and killed him, and then Hör›r quarrelled with Au›r over thecompensation, which he was willing to pay but Au›r refused, delegating
the case to Hör›r’s alienated maternal uncle Torfi. After considerable provocation, Hör›r lost his temper and killed Au›r. He sent Helgi to ask his
brother-in-law to defend him at the Alþing, but Helgi handles the negotiation badly, and both he and Hör›r are outlawed.
During his outlawry, Hör›r continually, but unsuccessfully, tries to restrain the villains who gather round him from unnecessary depredations on
the countryside for their supplies. The farmers of the district band together
and send an emissary to their island hideout, who tricks many of the outlaws
into leaving for the mainland under a false promise of safe conduct. Hör›r
is unconvinced, but when he is accused of cowardice he goes, and finds that
all his friends had been slaughtered as soon as they reached the shore. He
puts up a heroic defence, but three times a herfjöturr ‘war-fetter’ (panic
paralysis) afflicts him, which he attributes to witchcraft. Helgi is wounded,and Hör›r carries him on his back and kills thirteen of his attackers before
succumbing, but he kills Helgi with his own hands, saying he was not goingto allow his foster-brother to be killed before his very eyes.
After his death, his wife Helga heroically swims from the island to theshore with their two young sons; all three survive to achieve vengeance for
Hör›r.
In all his adventures and troubles, Hör›r is depicted as a well-intentioned
man afflicted with a violent temper, who is able to see clearly through magical deception and treachery but is unable to avoid the consequences. His
failures and eventual death are brought about by the gullibility and wickedness of his friends and relations.
144

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 145

greinarhe it i
Gísli’s troubles arise from a feud between himself and his sister’s husband Þorgrímr. A prophecy is made that they will become enemies, and to
avert this, Gísli sets up an oath of foster-brotherhood between himself, hisbrother Þorkell, his wife’s brother Vésteinn and his sister’s husband Þorgrímr. Such an oath imposes a duty of revenge on the participators towards
each other which was equivalent to the duty to a natural brother. At the last
moment Þorgrímr refuses to take part. He overhears some gossip between
the women involving his wife and Vésteinn, and during a storm at night heenters Gísli´s farm and secretly kills Vésteinn. A secret killing (that is, one
where the killer did not formally announce his responsibility in public) leads
to full outlawry and cannot be compensated for. Þorgrimr’s reponsibility
for this killing is never made public; but this does not make the story a whodunnit, since it is apparent that it was he, and saga-authors characteristically narrate only public reaction to events, never giving their own
interpretations. Gísli secretly kills Þorgrímr (as he was compelled to do byhis oath) and buries him in a manner mimicking Vesteinn’s death and burial. His secret is guessed by his sister, and she betrays him to Börkr, herdead husband’s brother, whom she has now married. He has meanwhile
paid a sorcerer to put a curse on whoever killed his brother that he shallnever get help or shelter from anyone in Iceland. Gísli is outlawed by Börkr.
His brother Þorkell fails to support Gísli at the Althing, and though subsequently asked on several occasions for help, gives Gísli only minimal support. He is helped on various occasions by farmers living on islands notcovered by the curse, and also by his wife Au›r, who actually takes part in
the fighting at Gísli’s last stand on a lone bluff in Geirþjófsfjör›r, having insultingly refused a bribe to betray him. After Gísli’s death, his sister injures
one of his attackers and divorces her husband (as any Icelandic woman was
easily able to do by a simple ceremony of declaring her divorce before witnesses) after he has offered compensation for this injury.
During his outlawry Gísli has dreams prefiguring his death and also the
new religion, Christianity, which arrives in Iceland some years after his
death. All his killings, including those committed in Norway before his family’s emigration to Iceland, were carried out in defence of his own or his sister’s honour, or in fulfilment of his oath of brotherhood, though he ispersuaded to renounce vengeance in the case of the sons of Vésteinn’s
killing of his brother Þorkell. He is not depicted as a bloodthirsty man.
Among other things, the story seems to illustrate the transition, presumably
under the influence of Christianity, from a person’s primary duty being to145

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 146

höfundar naf n(his or her) blood family (and sworn brothers) to one to his or her spouse andspouse’s family; and also the transition from the requirement of vengeancefor damage to one’s own honour to that of forgiveness towards those who
defend their own honour.
In Grettis saga, the hero only makes his appearance in chapter 14. The
first 13 chapters are about the earlier history of his forebears, at first in Norway, later in Iceland. It is implied that Grettir, a big, very strong and violent man and a poet, and his brother Þorsteinn drómundr, handsome, kindand gentle, inherited their characteristics from two strains with contrasting
characteristics running in the family. As a child Grettir is described as mjökódæll … fátala›r ok óþ‡›r, bellinn bæ›i í or›um ok tiltek›um ‘very unmanageable … not very talkative and not a great mixer, antagonistic in bothwords and deeds’. He is his mother’s favourite but is not loved by his father,on whom he plays some cruel and violent tricks when asked to contributeto the work of the household. His first killing is of a farm-hand from a farmin a neighbouring valley, after a dispute about the ownership of a lost knapsack. He is condemned to lesser outlawry (for three years). On his journey
to Norway he is shipwrecked on an island off the coast there, and whilestaying with the local farmer invades and robs an ancient grave-mound —the first of his invasions of the other world (the world of the dead). He thensaves his host’s wife and daughter from some marauding berserks who attack the farm at Christmas — the first of his many acts of altruistic heroism,in the role of saviour of people belonging to ordinary human society fromthe depredations of antisocial outsider figures. He has many more adventures of both kinds, sometimes in the double role of saviour and invader ofthe other world. His full outlawry resulted from his second journey to Norway (he had returned to Iceland for a year after serving his first term abroadfor three years), when, again shipwrecked, he saves the lives of the ship’screw by swimming a sound to fetch fire to warm them. When he got acrossthe sound, he entered a hall where some men were having a party, and when
they they saw this huge ugly creature with ice all over his clothes, looking
like a troll, they thought it was an óvættr, ‘evil creature’ or monster. They
threw brands from the fire at him, and he picked one up and swam back to
his companions with it, but one of the other brands set fire to the hall andall the men in it were burned to death. He was unable to convince anyone
that he had not killed them deliberately, and so he was made full outlaw.
He killed a great number of people during his outlawry, usually withsome provocation, and robbed many farmers for food and some others to146

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 147

greinarhe it ipunish them for presumption. He was greatly liked by his friends and family, and much hated and feared by those who had become his enemies.
The chief explanation expressly offered by the saga-writer of Grettir’s
fate is that he was an ógæfuma›r. Gæfa is ‘a disposition to success’, its contrary ógæfa is ‘a disposition to failure’. Gæfa is sometimes personified as
an influence, almost like a guardian angel (or a malicious demon) attachingitself to individuals or families, which they could lose if they transgressedcertain boundaries of behaviour. It is in some ways similar to the classicalconception of Fortuna - it is arbitrary in whom it attaches itself to, and there
is often irony in the way in which attempts to overcome it can have a contrary effect. It is a little bit like ‘Sod’s Law’ (or Murphy’s Law), which operates on people arbitrarily if they are subject to it.
These Icelandic outlaw sagas differ from English outlaw ballads (and, incidentally, from the Swiss legends of William Tell) in very fundamental
ways. Firstly in the medium — long prose written narratives, as opposed tocomparatively short oral ballads. Secondly in the historical, social and legal
background — a commonwealth of free and equal farmers without any government or executive, with a traditional law system embodying the culture
and identity of a small homogeneous population, as opposed to a monarchy
with an alien government and a law imposed from above on an increasingly
alienated peasantry. Thirdly in the moral assumptions behind the stories.
The Icelandic heroes are caught up in feuds not of their own making,obliged to defend the native conception of honour, but surrounded by people motivated by envy and greed who are uninhibited by any concern for abstract justice and lacking in human charity, as opposed to the rather
simplistic situation of an alienated aristocrat (or yeoman) rejecting normal
society because of its injustice, avenging himself on an alien administration and establishment by robbing the rich to benefit the poor. It is the detail of the characterisation and the meticulous concern to explain the actionsof the hero, which can easily be seen to be cruel and heartless, in the best
possible light that give a special quality to the Icelandic sagas. While theEnglish ballads are basically romances about alienated groups creating analternative ideal society in a mythical greenwood, the Icelandic sagas are realistic attempts to show how basically well-motivated people can run foulof their society’s conventions and unwittingly find themselves outcast in
spite of their best endeavours to reintegrate themselves and atone for their
mistakes. They are tragedies in the true sense of the term.
147

Umbrotid nota:Vesteinn umbrot 26.des. 08 8.1.2009 08:56 Page 148

höfundar naf nGrettir, in particular, has seemed, not only to Icelanders, to embody thesituation of a lonely person struggling to accommodate himself to a society
from which he finds himself increasingly alienated. Indeed many Icelanders
have seen him as a sort of symbolic representative of the Icelandic nation,
misunderstood and despised by other nations, but with a fierce determination not to abandon its traditional values and independence in spite of its isolation and lack of means to exist independently. Among foreign devotees,
William Morris has best encapsulated a characteristic feeling of affinity thatsome readers find with Icelandic outlaws. He wrote of Grettir:
A life scarce worth the living, a poor fameScarce worth the winning, in a wretched land,
Where fear and pain go upon either hand,
As toward the end men fare without an aim
Unto the dull grey dark from whence they came:
Let them alone, the unshadowed sheer rocks standOver the twilight graves of that poor band,
Who count so little in the great world’s game!
Nay, with the dead I deal not; this man lives,
And that which carried him through good and ill,
Stern against fate while his voice echoed still
From rock to rock, now he lies silent, strives
With wasting time, and through its long lapse gives
Another friend to me, life’s void to fill.

B IBLIOG R A PHY
The English and Scottish Popular Ballads, ed. Francis James Child. 5 vols. Boston 1882–98.
Rymes of Robyn Hood, ed. R. B. Dobson and J. Taylor. Stroud 1997.
Three Icelandic Outlaw Sagas, ed. Anthony Faulkes. London 2004.
Kirsten Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland. Oxford 1985.
Victor Head, Hereward. Stroud 1995.
Maurice Keen, The Outlaws of Medieval Legend. London 1961.
Joost de Lange, The Relation and Development of English and Icelandic Outlaw Traditions.
Haarlem 1935.
The Story of Grettir the Strong, translated by Eiríkr Magnússon and William Morris. London
1900.

148