Volume 1 — CHAPTER XLIV. REVENGE.

The duty of the nearest relative—Procedure—Blood-nights—Secret slaying—Incitement to revenge by women—Intentional wounding—Arbitration—Manslaughter—Murder by lunatics—Insults—Punishment of derision.

Revenge played a conspicuous part in the daily life of the Norsemen, and it was the duty of the nearest relative to avenge the death of a kinsman. This duty first belonged to the brother of the deceased, and, if he had no brother, to his next of kin. Relatives as far as the fourth degree were obliged, if there was no one nearer, to undertake the duty. If the relative could not find the murderer, his revenge fell upon the innocent kinsman of the murderer, or upon the servants of the latter.

Procedure depended on the nature of the case. If a man was slain in his own Herad, his wife or heir, or the nearest of kin present in the Herad, the same day that the death became known sent out an arrow from farm to farm through the Herad to summon the bœndr. The summons ordered them to meet the same day, or, if it was already late, the next day, at the place of murder, to attend the Arrow-thing. At the Arrow-thing those more especially had to appear to whom the murderer had announced the slaying, with his name and residence; those assembled examined the circumstances of the slaying, and what was practically a coroner’s inquest took place.

“Thither came nine bœndr who lived next to the slaying-place. Mörd (who caused the slaying and declared it) had ten men with him. He showed to the bœndr the wounds of Höskuld, and named witnesses to the wounds, and one to every wound except one. He feigned not to know who had given it, for he had given it himself. He declared that Skarphedin had slain him, and that his brothers and Kari had given the 585wounds. Then he summoned the nine neighbours of the slaying-place to come to the Althing, then he rode home” (Njala, 112).

The days and nights immediately following a murder were called blood-nights.

Hrolleif, the son of a witchcraft-knowing woman, slew the chief Ingimund. When he came home and told his mother what he had done, she said:

“‘It is my advice that thou goest away, for the blood-nights are the quickest for revenge’”^[581] (Vatnsdæla, c. 24).

“Glum went out one day to slay Sigmund; he put on the blue cloak, and had a spear in his hand, ornamented with gold. When he had killed him he rode off to his brother Thorstein, who, seeing blood on the inlaid ornaments of the weapon, asked if he had struck anyone with it just before. Glum said: ‘It is true, I forgot to tell thee that I have slain Sigmund Thorkelsson to-day.’ Thorstein answered: ‘That will be bad tidings to Thorkel (Sigmund’s father) and the Esphol men, his sons-in-law.’ Glum added: ‘It is an old saying, that during the blood-nights every one is most passionate; but they will think little of it as time passes’” (Viga Glum’s Saga, c. 8).

If at least twenty-seven bœndr had come to the Thing, and the nearest kinsman of the murdered man was present, and the slayer himself, after having received truce (grid), appeared, or it was stated that although the arrow had reached him he did not desire to appear, the Arrow-thing possessed the right to at once render judgment in the case.

The fifth day the prosecution took place at the Fimtarthing, which was an extraordinary Heradsthing.

To this Thing the slayer, or the person accused of the murder, was summoned, and here the case was carried to completion, and judgment given by the Thingsmen.

If the slaying was murder, and there was no certainty as to the murderer, then the next of kin could require three persons, on whom his suspicions had fallen, to free themselves one after the other, by tylftareid (an oath of suspicion).

“If the king accuses a man of land-treason (high-treason), 586he must repel the charge by a tylftareid. Charge of murder and of breach of faith must also be repelled in this way. Six men, equal to him (the accused) in rétt, shall be summoned on both sides of him, two of them selected, then two of his nearest kinsmen, himself as the fifth, and seven fangavattar (witnesses summoned at random)” (Gulathing’s Law, 132).

“Further, if thou findest a man slain out on the field, thou shalt hide the body and tell the first man whom thou meetest, and then go to his heir if he is in the Fylki; else thou shalt cut a Thing-summons and call a Thing. The man that does not come to the Thing is fined six aurar, called the large Thing-fine, and proves himself to be the slayer if the heir wants to accuse him of it” (Gulath., 161).

If a reconciliation took place between the slayer and family of the slain, the nearest of kin to the slain at once assured the slayer of intermediate truce (grid), and later, when the indemnity was paid, which generally took place in several instalments, assured him of security (tryggdir), whereby the matter was regarded as completely settled.^[582]

If the slayer left the weapon in the wound of his foe his act was not considered murder, but only a lesser crime, termed “secret slaying.”

“One morning, just before day-light, while Véstein was still in bed, some one entered the room, thrust a spear through his breast, and went out again. When Vestein tried to rise he fell dead. His sister Aud called upon a thrall of hers, Thord the faint-hearted, and bade him take the weapon from the wound. It was the custom for the man who pulled the weapon from a wound to be obliged to avenge the slain; but it was called secret slaying, and not murder, if the slayer left the weapon remaining in the wound” (Gisli Sursson’s Saga).

To slay a man for revenge at night, or to put any one to death at night, was considered murder.

“King Olaf sat down in his seat when the room had been prepared, and was very angry. He asked where the slayer was. He was told that he was guarded out on the balcony. The king said: ‘Why is he not slain?’ Thorarin Nefjulfsson answered: ‘My lord, do you not call it a murder to slay men 587at night?’ Then the king said: ‘Put him into fetters, and slay him to-morrow’” (St. Olaf’s Saga, c. 126).

“Then Arinbjörn said: ‘The king will not let himself be incited to all thy nithing-deeds. He will not let Egil be killed this night, because night-killings are murders.’ The king replied: ‘It shall be as thou askest, Arinbjörn, that Egil shall live this night’” (Egil’s Saga, c. 62).

Incitement to revenge was often given by women. Thorbjörg, the wife of Indridi, heard that her brother Hörd had been treacherously slain by Thorstein Gullknapp.

“When she and her husband came into their bed in the evening, Thorbjörg drew a sax and thrust it at Indridi; but he parried the blow with his hand and got much wounded. He said: ‘Thorbjörg, it is difficult to know what to do, and thou art very hard upon me. What shall I do that we may become friends again?’ ‘Thou canst do nothing but fetch the head of Thorstein Gullknapp for me’” (Hörd’s Saga, c. 37).

To him who performed nabjargir (ceremony attending the dead) belonged the duty of avenging the dead.

Höskuld, a son of Njal by his concubine Hródný, was found wounded with sixteen wounds. Hródný laid him against the wall in Njal’s sheephouse and went in to Njal’s bed, as it was night.

“She asked if Njal was awake. He answered: ‘I have slept, but now I am awake. Why art thou here so early?’ Hródný replied: ‘Rise from the bed of my rival and go out with me, and also thy wife and thy sons.’ They rose and went out. Skarphedin said: ‘Let us take our weapons with us.’ Njal did not speak, and they ran in and fetched their weapons. Hródný walked on in front, and when they came to the sheephouse she went in and asked them to follow. She took up a lantern and said: ‘Here, Njal, is thy son Höskuld with many wounds on him, and he needs to be healed.’ Njal answered: ‘I see death-marks on him, and no life-marks; why hast thou not given him nabjargir, as his nostrils are open?’ ‘I intended Skarphedin to do that,’ she answered. Skarphedin walked up to Höskuld’s body and closed the nostrils, eyes, and mouth. Then he asked his father, ‘Who, sayest thou, is the slayer?’ Njal answered: ‘Lýting of Samstadir and his brothers have probably slain him.’ Hródný said: ‘I give it into thy hands, Skarphedin, to revenge thy brother; and I expect thee to behave well and perform the greatest part (in the revenge), 588though he was not legitimate.’ Bergthóra (Njal’s wife) said: ‘It is strange that you slay men for slight reasons, while you ponder over and digest this matter until nothing comes of it; Höskuld Hvitanesgodi will soon be here and ask you to come to terms, and you will grant him them; if you intend to do anything, do it now.’ Skarphedin said: ‘Now our mother incites us with lawful provocation’” (Njala, c. 98).

Then follows in the Saga a long account of how the two brothers of Lýting were killed, and how he himself was wounded and escaped. Lýting went to a man called Höskuld, who was a godi, and asked him to reconcile him with Njal and his sons. Höskuld consented, and went with him to Njal’s home.

If a man intentionally wounded an innocent man, or offended him in such a way that full rétt was due to him, the offended could slay him if he had not offered surety.

It was not uncommon to resort to arbitration when cases of revenge occurred for which weregild would have to be paid.

Gunnar of Hlidarendi, the famous champion, with his brother Kolskegg had slain eight men. After the prosecution of the case had begun at the Althing, some proposed that good men should arbitrate.

“It was determined, according to the advice of the wisest men, that all the suits which followed should be submitted to arbitration; six men to arbitrate, and it was done at once at the Althing. It was decided that the death of Skamkel should not be paid for, the wound of the spur making up for the wergild; for the other a befitting payment was made. The kinsmen of Gunnar gave property, so that all the weregilds were at once paid at the Althing” (Njala, c. 56).

Manslaughter was murder if it was not acknowledged by the slayer; if there was no witness to the deed, he had to acknowledge it at the farm nearest to the place of slaughter, and tell his name and home. If kinsmen of the slain were present, he might pass the place; but in no case could he go further than the third farm without declaring it.

“Further, if men meet at the crossing of roads, and the one slays the other, and the man is alive when people come to him, then he is the slayer whom the man declares to be, unless the great evidence help him. If another man declares himself to 589be the slayer, then they are both slayers, though there is only one wound on the dead man. When a man declares the slaying lawfully, he goes from the place in whatever direction he likes, and declares it at the next house, unless kinsmen on male or female side or near relatives of the dead are there; in this case he shall pass on to the next house, unless they (kinsmen) are also there; then he shall go to the third house and declare it, whoever are in it. He is neither called Ulf (wolf), nor Björn (bear), unless it be his name. He shall tell the jartegn (by which he is known), and tell where he slept last night. At the Arrow-thing evidence of the declaration of the slaying shall be given” (Gulathing’s Law, 61).^[583]

If a man acknowledged a slaughter lawfully, and also in the presence of witnesses gave surety that he would pay weregild and thegngildi (weregild for a thegn), he thereby made himself holy and sacred, so that he could not be slain.

“If a man wounds an innocent man, or injures him publicly by deeds liable to full rétt, and revenge is taken by the man or his kinsmen before a lawful offer with full surety has been made, then the one who first broke the peace is outlawed, whether he has been slain or outraged in other ways, unless the king and other men of good sense think otherwise. But if he offers full surety he is peace-holy, and the one who slays him is outlawed” (Frostath., Introd. 6).

An insane man who committed murder, though not accounted responsible for his actions, was expelled the country.

“If a man becomes mad so that he breaks his chains and kills a man, he shall leave the land, and have all his property in half a month’s truce during summer, and one month during winter” (Frostath.).

“If a father becomes so mad that he slays his son, or a son slays his father, or a brother his brother, he shall be outlawed, and leave the land, and never come back again” (Frostath., iv. 31).

Among the insults which were most resented were those caused by “nid,” or derision. Derision was of two kinds: the first called “tungunid,” tongue derision; that is, derisive or 590mocking words, which were chiefly in songs and lampoons (nidvisur), which sometimes were also thought to possess magical power, thus scaring away the guardian spirits, and bringing misfortune on the person in question. The second were trenid (wooden derision), that is, derisive images carved or traced on wood. These were placed at spots where they would draw attention, generally on the grounds of the enemy; and some of them must have corresponded to the caricatures of our own times.

These derisive songs were so much resented that Harald Gormsson, King of Denmark, intended to go to Iceland to take revenge upon the people for a derisive song which had been made upon him by an Icelander.

“Harald Gormsson King of Denmark heard that Hakon jarl had cast away Christianity, and made warfare in many places in his lands. Then he levied a host and went to Norway, and when he came into the realm of Hakon he plundered there, and devastated the country, and went with his host to the islands called Solundir. Only five farms were left in Laradal, and all the people fled to the mountains and forests with all the loose property they could take with them. Then he wanted to sail^[584] to Iceland, to take revenge for the derision (nid) which all the Icelanders had made on him. The Icelanders had enacted a law that as many nid-songs (derisive songs) should be made about the King of Denmark as there were noses (heads, men) in the country. The reason for this was that a ship owned by Icelanders had been wrecked in Denmark, and all the property on board taken by the Danes, who called it wreckage; this was done by the king’s steward Birgir, and the derision was on both of them”^[585] (Olaf Tryggvason’s Saga, c. 36).

Derision was forbidden by law, and punished by outlawry.

“No man shall make tongue-nid (derision) on another, nor wood-nid (nid carved on wood). If it be known and proved that he has done this, he is liable to outlawry; he shall redeem the offence with an oath of reconciliation; he falls as an outlaw if he is slain. No man shall make exaggeration or 591slander about another: that is exaggeration if a man says about another what cannot take place, or will not, or has not, saying he is a woman every ninth night, and has borne a child, and calls him gylvin (she-wolf). He is an outlaw, if it is proved; he shall redeem the offence with an oath of reconciliation; he falls as an outlaw if he is slain” (Earlier Gulathing’s Law, 138).

END OF VOL. 1.

592

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

THE LAND OF THE MIDNIGHT SUN.

ASHANGO LAND.

EXPLORATIONS IN EQUATORIAL AFRICA.

* * * * *

STORIES OF THE GORILLA COUNTRY.

WILD LIFE UNDER THE EQUATOR.

LOST IN THE JUNGLE.

MY APINGI KINGDOM.

THE COUNTRY OF THE DWARFS.