|
INDEX
|
|
|
NOW men returned from the Thing, and Glum staid
at home all the summer: everything was quiet in the district till it came
to the time of the "Leet," 1 when they assembled
at that court. Glum, however, was not there, and nothing was heard of
him. Márr was at home in his dwelling; but in the autumn, five weeks before
winter, he held a wedding-feast, and invited men to it, so that not less
than a hundred and twenty people came together. This invitation appeared
strange to everybody, for those who were concerned in the wedding were
not persons of any consequence. That evening all the men of Eyjafirth
were seen riding in from the dales two or five at a time, and the people
who came down into the district were all collected in one body. Glum was
there, and Asgrim, and Gizor, with three hundred and sixty men, and they
came in the course of the night to the homestead, and sat at the wedding-feast. Footnotes1 The Haust-thing, or autumn assembly, was the same as the Leid or Leet, and was held not earlier than fourteen days after the Althing, for the purpose of making known in each district what had been done at the general assembly. It had, like every other Thing, to be helgad, "consecrated," or opened by the Godi. See Maurer, ss. 171-174; Dasent, Preface, p. lxvi. 2 The god probably means Thor. See Maurer, § 157. 3 It is impossible to represent this oath of Glum’s in English, or any other language, so as to make the point of the story clear; but it may thus be explained--There is in the Icelandic language, or rather there was, and enelitic negative at (sometimes abbreviated to a or t), which is attached to the verb. It occurs only in the ancient tongue, and there only in poetry and legal formulæ. Thus var ek or vark means simply "I was," ek being the pronoun of the first person; but vark-at means "I was not." So vák (or vá ek) means "I slew;" but vák-at means "I slwe not." But at is also a preposition corresponding to our preposition "at," and vark at, pronounced as two separate words (with the accent on at) would mean "I was at it." the reader will thus see that the deceit practised by Glum consisted in so pronouncing the verb and the particle at, that his enemies took it for the negative and not for the preposition. The sense depended entirely on the question whether it was or was not an enclitic. Glum’s adversaries understood him to say, "I was not there; I slew him not there; I reddened not edge nor point on him there;" whereas his own construction of what he swore to was precisely the opposite and in fact expressly asserted his guilt. The whole of this story is most curious as illustrative of the manner and character of the people, and also in a philological point of view. The reader who wishes to know more of the extinct negative suffix may consult Grimm’s Grammar, b. iii. s. 715. Grimm is mistaken in saying that this form occurs only in the old poetry, as is sufficiently shown by this very Saga; but it is confined to the poetry and the laws. I may add that Grimm’s attempt, at p. 718, to explain the origin of this negative appears to me unsuccessful. I shall have occasion to remark hereafter that this oath of Glum’s was not in itself part of a judicial proceeding, but was imposed upon him as a special condition of an exceptional character, when his adversaries agreed to compound their suit. 4 See above, chapter vi. The parting with these gifts is the turning-point in Glum’s story. Henceforth his luck is departed.
|
Family TreesDedicationPrefaceChapter IChapter IIChapter IIIChapter IVChapter VChapter VIChapter VIIChapter VIIIChapter IXChapter XChapter XIChapter XIIChapter XIIIChapter XIVChapter XVChapter XVIChapter XVIIChapter XVIIIChapter XIXChapter XXChapter XXIChapter XXIIChapter XXIIIChapter XXIVChapter XXVChapter XXVIChapter XXVIIChapter XXVIIISupplementary Note |