A

THE RELATION
AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ENGLISH AND ICELANDIC
OUTLAW-TRADITIONS

J. DE LANGE

BIBLIOTHEEK DER
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT
UTRECHT.

IJ'

■ ' -y-: ■

-T'^'.^vv^^'ttjj^ ■

Äii-s-i

e -

lice

THE RELATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH
AND ICELANDIC OUTLAW-TRADITIONS

Z^'L-itii

RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT TE UTRECHT

1779 2619

/

THE RELATION AND DEVELOP-
MENT OF ENGLISH AND ICE-
LANDIC OUTLAW-TRADITIONS

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT

TER VERKRIJGING VAN DEN GRAAD VAN
DOCTOR IN DE LETTEREN EN WIJSBE-
GEERTE AAN DE RIJKS-UNIVERSITEIT TE
UTRECHT. OP GEZAG VAN DEN RECTOR
MAGNIFICUS Dr. H. BOLKESTEIN, HOOG-
LEERAAR IN DE FACULTEIT DER LETTE-
REN EN WIJSBEGEERTE, VOLGENS BESLUIT
VAN DEN SENAAT DER UNIVERSITEIT
TEGEN DE BEDENKINGEN VAN DE FACUL-
TEIT DER LETTEREN EN WIJSBEGEERTE,
TE VERDEDIGEN OP VRIJDAG 24 MEI 1935,
TE 3 UUR DOOR

JOOST DE LANGE

GEBOREN TE AMSTERDAM

HAARLEM - H. D. TJEENK WILLINK amp; ZOON N.V. - 1935

BIBLIOTHEEK DER
RiJKSUNIVERSITEIT
UTRECHT.

ïj
M

I
$

i
►

I

TO MY OLD FRIEND AND TEACHER,

Mrs. M. M. TYBERG

(wSf^l-v

es

Het is voor mij een groote voldoening bij het voltooien van
mijn academische studie mijn hartelijken dank te betuigen aan
allen, die tot mijn wetenschappelijke vorming hebben bijgedragen.

In de eerste plaats denk ik daarbij aan U, Hooggeleerde van
Hamel, gewaardeerde promotor, en aan den grooten steun en
vriendschap, die ik van U heb mogen ondervinden.

Hooggeleerde Fijn van Draat, U hebt mij tijdens mijn studie
steeds met raad en daad terzijde gestaan, Uw belangstelling en
Uw colleges zal ik immer in dankbaarheid gedenken. Ook aan Uw
colleges, Hooggeleerde Swaen, zal ik altijd een aangename her-
innering blijven bewaren.

Ten slotte een woord van oprechten dank aan de redactie van
de Nederlandsche Bijdragen op het Gebied van Germaansche
Philologie en Linguistiek voor de eer, die zij mij bewezen heeft
door dit proefschrift in deze serie op te nemen.

yiedBaeÈtóé ÈÊtâs.

.^Ji'm

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.................. 1

CHAPTER I: Hereward the saxon........ 3

CHAPTER II: The tale of gamelyn........33

CHAPTER III: The robin hood ballads......44

CHAPTER IV: The development of the English out-
law-matter .............76

CHAPTER V: The Icelandic outlaw-sagas.....86

CHAPTER VI: The saga of an bogsveigir.....108

CONCLUSION...................124

notes.......................132

INTRODUCTION

The subject of this treatise was suggested to us by the chapter
on Outlaw Legends in H. G. Leach's remarkable work: Angevin
Britain and Scandinavia The reading of this book stimulated
our desire to make a closer study of the relation between the
English and the Scandinavian outlaw-matter and the conditions
which influenced their development in either country. The
last paragraph of the above-mentioned chapter reads as follows:

Though racial characteristics are nebulous things and to dogmatize
in such matters would be foolish, it may be ventured that, far apart as
are the Icelandic outlaws and those of Sherwood in the outward circum-
stances of their lives, there is in both such a vigorous sense of fair play
and such a hatred of injustice that one may attribute it to a common
heritage. Yet when we find in the Japanese story of the Forty-Seven
Ronins an outlaw tale close in motivation, incident, and outcome to
the Icelandic, we dare hardly claim that the kinship of Robin Hood and
Grettir is more than a pleasant hypothesis

We hope to show in the following pages that the kinship of
Robin Hood and Grettir is indeed more than a h5T)othesis, instead
of hardly more than a hypothesis. The merry outlaw of Sherwood
Forest is not a direct descendant of the gloomy skogarma^r of the
Icelandic outlaw-sagas, but they possess common ancestors, who
infested the forests of Norway in a period previous to the
settlement of Iceland. The proofs of this statement may be
derived from the fornaldar-saga of An the archer, in which may
be found a kindred tradition to the outlaw-matter of England
and Iceland. The existence of a body of outlaw-traditions in
this saga about the forngld, has enabled us to put the whole

investigation on a sounder and less hypothetical basis, and to
state with greater accuracy the exact relation of the English
and Icelandic traditions.

Our object in view will be then to investigate the points of
contact between the English and the Icelandic matter, and the
historical, social and traditional currents, by which the outlaw-
traditions in both countries have been influenced. To see,
furthermore, whether the two developments have influenced
each other directly or whether their similarity is due to a common
source. Incidentally we intend to show that the English outlaw-
matter forms a logical sequence of related traditions, from the
end of the llth to the middle of the 14th century, which only
changed externally on account of altered social conditions.

CHAPTER 1
HEREWARD THE SAXON

The first of the Enghsh outlaws about whom there exists
a consecutive story is Hereward, a historical figure of the
Norman Conquest, the last of the Saxons to resist the Norman
invaders. He naturally loomed large in the popular imagination
and a network of fictitious matter has been woven around his
exploits.

The few historical facts about Hereward's life are found
in the following sources: 1. Doomsday-book, a Survey of land-
owners compiled during the reign of William the Conqueror i;

2.nbsp;the Peterborough-version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

3.nbsp;the Worcester-version of the same chronicle The quoted
Survey informs us of the fact that Hereward held land in
Lincolnshire at the time of Edward the Confessor (1042—1066).
A certain Oger the Briton is mentioned who holds land of the
Abbey of Croyland, which had formerly been held by Hereward,
but of which Ulfcytel, the abbot of Croyland, resumed possession
on account of Hereward not keeping the agreement. Afterwards
Hereward fled from the country Abbot Ulfcytel was appointed
in 1062, so that Hereward's flight, which probably implied the
status of outlawry, must have taken place after the above-
mentioned date.

The Peterborough-version of the A.S. Chronicle furnishes
a lengthy account under the year 1070 of the sack of Peterborough
by Hereward and his genge The reason for the ravaging of the

monastery was the appointment of the stern Norman abbot
Turold after the death of abbot Brand. The Worcester-version
touches only lightly upon this event, which is due to the entry
being of purely local interest The entry about the year
1071 is almost identical in both chronicles and reads as follows:

Earl Morkere comes to Ely by ship and with him are Siward
Barn, bishop Aegelwine and many hundreds of men. King
William, fearing this concentration of rebel forces at Ely, besieges
the island, by land and by sea, constructing an enormous bridge
to get across the treacherous marshes. The besieged are soon
discouraged and throw themselves upon the mercy of the King,
except Hereward, who escapes with several companions.

Later chroniclers, i.e. Florence of Worcester, Simeon of Durham
and Henry of Huntingdon, who mention the revolt of Ely, all
base their notices upon this entry in the A. S. Chronicle.

The only other fact relating to Hereward, which may rest
upon historical foundations, is his quarrel with Frederick of
Warren. It is found in the very pro-Norman Liber de Hyda
written between 1120 and 1136 and probably belonging to
Lewes and not to Hyde Abbey The trustworthiness of this
text is not above suspicion, as it attributes to Hereward the
old viking-trick of feigning death in order to enter a town that
is resisting a siege. This story is clearly transferred to Hereward
from the wellknown tale of the viking Hasting at the siege of
Luna. The presence of this fictitious matter warns us to be
careful in making use of the Hyde-book as a historical source.

Recapitulating we get the following bare outline of the
life of the genuine Hereward: He is bom in Lincolnshire, flies
from the country after 1062, returns to England and bums
Peterborough with a band of outlaws, probably a mixture of
Saxons and Danes, in 1070 and assists at the defense of Ely in
the following year. He is one of the few that do not surrender to
the King and he escapes across the fens. To this may be added

perhaps the quarrel with Frederick of Warren, who is secretly
killed by Hereward.

Around these historical facts popular tradition soon collected
a wealth of tales, which were committed to writing as early as
the beginning of the 12th century. These pseudo-historical
sources are the following:

1.nbsp;Gesta Herwardi

2.nbsp;Geoffrey Gaimar: Lestorie des Engles (line 5466—5710)

3.nbsp;Liber Eliensis

4.nbsp;Ingulf: Historia Croylandensis ^^

5.nbsp;A genealogical roll of the lords of Brunne and Deeping

6.nbsp;The so-called Chronicle of John of Peterborough

Of these, only the Gesta and Gaimar represent independent
sources. The writer of the Gesta was a monk of Ely, as may
be ascertained from the Liber Eliensis, written by another
monk of Ely, named Thomas, between 1174 and 1189. Thomas
uses the Gesta and speaks of a certain Richard, formerly a monk
of Ely, but already dead at the time of writing, as being the
author of the Gesta. Richard provides us with information,
as to the sources used, in the introductory part of the Gesta,
in which he says that he compiled the work, partly from a
book in the English language by Leofric the Deacon, Hereward's
priest at Brunne, who collected stories about giants and heroes,
and partly from oral tradition. Now the Gesta does indeed
consist of two rather unequal parts; the first contains a great
deal of general and romantic matter about Hereward's adventures
abroad and the second is made up of semi-historical and
traditional matter pertaining to Hereward's outlaw-Hfe in
England. This proves that the statements about his sources
are probably correct. A further proof lies in the fact that Richard
used an extant written source for the first part of the Gesta,
as we hope to prove below. The Gesta was written in the first
half of the 12th century, probably about 1130quot;.

Gaimar's Lestorie des Engles was written about 1140. The
author is evidently impressed by Hereward's deeds, as he
devotes about 250 lines to the Saxon outlaw. Gaimar knows
nothing of Hereward's hfe before the siege of Ely, and from other
facts, which he notes and which are not in the Gesta and con-
versely, it is plain that Gaimar did not know Richard's work
and that he may be considered as an independent source.

The Liber Eliensis, which has been treated above, is based on
the Gesta and does not constitute an independent source.

Ingulfs Historia Croylandensis is now generally considered
as an imposture of the 14th century i®. The historical Ingulf,
succeeded Ulfcytel as abbot of Croyland after the latter's
deposition by William the Conqueror in 1085. At first the
Hereward-story in the pseudo-Ingulf gives the impression of
being older than the Gesta, but on closer inspection it becomes
clear that it is only an abridgment of the latter work. A writer
of the 14th century could hardly have used independently the
same combination of written and oral sources as the author of
the Gesta. If we take into account the object of the two writers,
the difference in the treatment of the subject-matter may
easily be explained. Richard diligently collected everything
that he had heard and read about his hero, so that in the second
part of the Gesta, where the author has only oral tradition to
go upon, the narrative sometimes becomes a tiresome stringing
together of unrelated events. He is careful not to leave anything
out. The author of the pseudo-Ingulf, on the other hand, has
only one object in view, the glorification of the Church, but
especially of his own abbey of Croyland, so he carefully selected
only the subject-matter that interested him in the Gesta. Here-
ward's adventures abroad are only cursorily mentioned, but
he dwells at length on Hereward's first wife, Turfrida, because
she takes the veil at Croyland. Hereward's second wife, on the
other hand, is not mentioned at all. Hereward's exploits at

Ely are passed over lightly, but his being knighted by Brand,
abbot of Peterborough and the ceremony attendant upon it,
is told in detail. From these examples it is obvious that the short
form of the Hereward-story in the pseudo-Ingulf is not due to
the fact that the latter is based on older sources than the Gesta,
but to the fact that the writer of the spurious work had a very
different object in view in comparison with Richard's.

Before leaving Ingulf there is one other point to be cleared
up in this connection. Freeman writes

As to the wife or wives of Hereward, there can be little doubt that
Gaimar and the false Ingulf preserve two independent stories, which
have been awkwardly rolled together by the writer of the Gesta. Though
independent, they are not necessarily contradictory, as Turfrida may
have died before Aelfryth made her proposals to Hereward. But the
notion of Turfrida going into a monastery to make way for Aelfryth
is plainly another form of the story in Ingulf which makes, not herself
but her mother, do so.

In other words Freeman accepts Ingulf as an independent
authority older than the Gesta. On examining the passage in
Ingulf we found that there is another interpretation possible,
which is much more probable. The author, after noting Here-
ward's marriage with Turfrida, goes on to say that a daughter
is stiU living, who married Hugo Evermouth, lord of the village
of Deeping and wellknown to the abbey of Croyland. The next
sentence reads as follows:

Mater autem Turfridae veniens cum viro suo in Angliam, vidensque
caduci seculi multiplicia volumina, tandem cum viri sui licentia relicta
omni seculi pompa sanctimonialem habitum in nostro monasterio
Croylandiae de manu Wlketuli abbatis accepit.....quot;

The following sentence treats of Hereward and his deeds and
commences:

Pater quidem Herwardus cum praedicta uxore sua natale solum petens .. .

Freeman construed the first sentence as pertaining to the
mother of Turfrida, i.e. the mother of Hereward's wife. The

greatest objection to this interpretation is that it does not
account for the contrast that is clearly implied in the two
sentences. Moreover, according to this reading cum viro suo
in the first passage must refer to Hereward's father-in-law, which
would seem improbable. So we must look for another solution.
Now there are two possibilities:

1.nbsp;Turfridae is a clerical error for Turf rida.

2.nbsp;Hereward's daughter was also called Turfrida and Mater
Turfridae is equivalent to Hereward's wife.

Sub 1 fits in better with the contrasting sentence-structure,

but necessitates an alteration of the text.
Sub 2 assumes something that is not clear from the text.

We are inclined to accept the interpretation sub 1, because
if Hereward's daughter was also called Turfrida, the author
would have mentioned her name on her first appearance in the
story. The writer of the genealogical roll of the lords of Brunne
and Deeping, mentioned sub 5, has evidently used the second
interpretation, because he calls Hereward's wife as well as his
daughter, Turfrida. At any rate it is obvious that mater Turfridae
does not refer to Hereward's mother-in-law. Therefore we reject
Freeman's conclusion that the Gesta took these facts from Ingulf
and combined them with the story in Gaimar. We assume exactly
the opposite, viz. that Ingulf took his data from the Gesta, but
left out Hereward's second wife, because she was of no interest
to him (cf. above).

The genealogical rolls sub 5 are of no importance, as they rely
mainly on Ingulf for their subject-matter. The author must
have seen the Gesta, however, as he speaks of Turfrida as
Hereward's uxor prima and uxor légitima, which presupposes
knowledge of Hereward's second marriage.

The Chronicle, incorrectly attributed to John of Peter-
borough was compiled in the 14th century and contains some
entries about Hereward under the years 1068, 1069 and 1071.

These notices have been taken from the Gesta or perhaps from
pseudo-Ingulf, which also seems to have served as a source for
other passages in this chronicle The similarity of the following
entry in the said chronicle to the corresponding notice in pseudo-
Ingulf, seems to point rather to derivation from the latter than
from the Gesta:

Ingulf: Hoc in tempore defuncto abbate Burgi praedicto Brando
patruo Herwardi, successit Thoroldus alienigena ex collatione
regis Willielmi

Chron.: Obiit etiam Brando abbas Burgi, patruus dictie Herewardi le
Wake, cui ex regis collatione successit

In both cases abbot Brand is called Hereward's uncle, a fact
not mentioned in the Gesta.

The compiler of this chronicle has made some additions and
corrections in the matter from which he derived his facts.
He is the first to add the cognomen le Wake to Hereward's
name, a practice which has been followed by many modem
writers on the subject. Besides, he has invented the date 1068
for the year of Hereward's return to England, as this date is
mentioned in no other source. It is probably approximately
correct. The compiler has made one correction in accordance with
the Peterborough tradition at his disposal. He has taken the
story of the capturing and ransoming of abbot Turold, either
from the Gesta or from Ingulf, but he has put it in the chrono-
logically correct place, i.e. before the siege of Ely and not after.
This question will be treated more extensively in connection
with the corresponding passage in the Gesta.

From the above investigation into the sources of the Here-
ward-story, we may draw the conclusion that there are only two
independent sources to be examined, viz. the Gesta Herwardi
and hne 5466—5710 of Gaimar's Lestorie des Engles. Of these
two the Gesta is the more important from our point of view in
being the older and the more elaborate.

As we saw above, the Gesta may be divided into two distinct
parts, of which the first embodies the story of Hereward's
youth and his adventures in Northumbria, Cornwall, Ireland
and Flanders. The second part deals with his outlaw-career
in England, his stubborn resistance of William the Conqueror
and his final reconciliation with the Norman king. For the
sake of clearness we shall insert a short analysis of the first part,
with a sectional numbering.

1.nbsp;Hereward is born in Lincolnshire, his father is called Leofric
of Brunne and his mother Aedina, both of noble birth.
Hereward is an agile, strong and courageous youth and he
excels in play and games. He is always getting into trouble
at Brunne and its neighbourhood. At last his father is at his
wit's end and asks king Edward to proclaim the boy an exile.
Hereward is 18 years old at the time.

2.nbsp;Hereward sets out on his wandering with one servant, named
Martin Lightfoot. His first abode is at the court of his
godfather, Giselbert of Gant in Northumbria. The latter
has at his court a collection of wild beasts to try the mettle
of his young warriors. Hereward wants to fight against the
largest bear but Giselbert thinks he is too young and he
will not allow it. This bear is called the offspring of that
famous Norwegian bear which, according to the tale of the
Danes, was half human and whose father had ravished a
maiden in the woods and begotten by her BjQrn, king of
Norway. Hereward gets his chance, however, the next day,
when the bear breaks loose and he kills it. He is greatly
admired, but at the same time the other warriors envy
him and secretly try to murder him. He foils their attempts
and decides to leave Northumbria.

3.nbsp;Hereward now arrives at the court of a petty king of Cornwall,
called Alef. He gets into trouble with Ulcus Ferreus, a
warrior famous among the Picts and Scots, who is expected

to marry the Cornish princess. It ends in a combat; Hereward
is quicker than his adversary and kills him. The followers
of Ulcus are furious, but king Alef and his daughter are glad
to be rid of the unwelcome suitor and they protect Hereward
by putting him in prison. The princess secretly releases him,
offers him the sword of Ulcus and sends him on an errand
to her lover, an Irish prince.

4.nbsp;Hereward is received with great honours at the Irish court,
but shortly afterwards his two cousins, Siward the White
and Siward the Red bring him a message that his father has
died and that he has inherited his estate. Before returning
to England, Hereward promises to aid the Irish king in the
battle against the king of Munster. In this battle he kills
the hostile king, who is watching the fight, lying in his tent;
with great difficulty Hereward and his followers return to
their own army. Some are killed and Hereward's cousins
are severely wounded. He gains fresh fame from this exploit.

5.nbsp;While fighting in the extreme part of Cornwall, a message
reaches the Irish prince that his love is again in difficulties,
as a new suitor has arrived. The prince immediately sends
an embassy of forty men to stress his claims. Hereward
also goes to the Cornish court, but in secret and in disguise.
When he arrives, he is informed that the marriage-feast
is to take place that very day and that the bridegroom is
leaving with his bride for his native country the day after.
The Irish embassy has been thrown into prison, moreover.
Hereward enters the hall as a stranger, and behaves very
rudely at the banquet, as he will only accept the drinking-
cup from the hands of the princess. She recognizes him,
gives him a ring and excuses his bad manners, saying that
he is a stranger and not versed in their customs. The minstrel
is not satisfied, however, and ridicules the stranger. Hereward
snatches the harp from his hands and delights everybody

by his playing and singing. The princess presents him with
a cloak and the bridegroom promises him anything he wants
except his wife and his country. Hereward demands the
release of the Irish embassy. A courtier warns the bridegroom
that this stranger might be an enemy in disguise. They
intend to capture Hereward and his three companions
secretly, but the princess warns Hereward and he escapes.
On the next day he waylays the bridegroom, who is returning
to his own country with the princess and the Irish prisoners.
The princess and the prisoners are liberated and taken to
the Irish prince, who can marry her now at last.

6.nbsp;Hereward now starts on his intended voyage to his own
country, though the Irish king wants him to stay at his
court and even offers him one of his relatives in marriage.
Unfortunately Hereward is twice shipwrecked, once at
the Orkneys and the second time in Flanders, where he
lands at St. Bertin. At the court of Flanders, he is at first
known as Harald, but after some years his real name and
identity are discovered. He aids the count of Flanders,
Manasar the Old, against his vassal, the count of Guisnes.
Hereward vanquishes a nephew of the latter in single combat.
This fact greatly impresses the rebel vassal, because his
nephew, Hoibrictus, is his principal warrior. So he imme-
diately offers his submission to his feudal lord.

7.nbsp;At St. Omer lives a maiden, called Turfrida, beautiful
and versed in the arts, who is deeply in love with Here-
ward. The latter has a rival in a noble youth of St. Valéry,
who wants to take his hfe. They meet by chance at a kind
of tourney that is held near Pictavia (Poitiers!) and Pontesia
(Pontoise). His opponent wears Turfrida's colours. Here-
ward vanquishes him and sends the captured emblem to
Turfrida, together with tokens of his own. He secretly
visits his lady-love and he presents himself to her as his

cousin Siwaxd the White, but she recognizes him and shows
him aU her treasures. Several attempts are made against
his life, but they all miscarry. He returns to his lord and is
covered with honours, but he does not accept anything before
he has won the maiden, Turfrida.

8. Hereward next aids the count of Flanders against Scalde-
mariland (Zeeland), which has refused to pay its tribute.
He and another commander are sent with an army to re-
enforce the count's claims. The inhabitants threaten to
annihilate his army, but Hereward restores confidence in
his ranks and overcomes the rebels by means of a stratagem.
He offers to settle the issue by single combat, the enemy
agree and send their strongest men against him. He kills
them one after another by his superior skill. This infuriates
his opponents and they rush at him in a mass, but by a
feigned retreat he draws them on to where his own forces
are lined up and the hostile army is completely destroyed.

After this disaster a new force is recruited from the islands,
and the people of Scaldemariland are so sure of their
superiority that they send envoys with the following message:
the army will be allowed to retreat, but some vessels and
the two commanders, Hereward and Rodbritus, shall be
delivered to them. They have even brought carts to take
away the spoils. After having burnt the carts before the eyes
of the messengers, Hereward sends some of the envoys
back to their army with rich gifts, the others he keeps in his
camp as hostages. In the meanwhile he draws up his army for
the coming battle. Some of the rebels, seeing the messengers
returning laden with gifts, decide to attack the hostile camp
separately in order to get more plunder. They are, however,
attacked and driven back by a small body of picked soldiers.
The whole rebel army advances to the attack now, clad in the
bark of trees, permeated with pitch, resin and incense or

in tunics of boiled leather. Of every two warriors, one is armed
with lances and the other carries a sword or battle-axe and
a shield, with which he must also protect the other. As they
come rushing on, the leader of the Flemish army retreats
slowly, drawing them more and more away from their camp.
Hereward with a body of horse and foot at the right moment
attacks the camp, kills the guards and burns the tents. The
rebels bewildered by this sudden attack in their rear, are
put to flight. During the night Hereward again attacks the
hostile camp and kills many of the leaders of the opposing
army. The people of Scaldemariland beg a week's truce,
which is granted.

Hereward hears of an exceedingly swift mare in one of
the islands. He captures it together with its foal and calls
them Swallow and Lightfoot. He has great difficulties in
reaching his army again, the island being infested by robbers.
At the end of the week's truce the people of Scaldemariland
submit and agree to pay twice the tribute they have formerly
paid. The army returns home with rich gifts and hostages.
In the meantime both the ruling count and his heir have died
and everybody in Flanders is in mourning. There is some
trouble about the rewards to be offered to the army for
its victorious campaign, but in the end everything is satis-
factorily settled and Hereward is reconciled with the new
count. Shortly afterwards Hereward returns to his native
country, taking with him his trusted servant Martin Light-
foot. Turfrida, who has become his wife, is left behind in
the care of the two Siwards.

The amount of historical truth contained in sub 1 can only
be ascertained from the evidence drawn from the Doomsday-
book. Brunne or Bourne was held at the time of Edward the
Confessor by Earl Morkere; there is no mention of Leofric. The

only connection with Hereward is that Brunne passed to the
same Oger the Briton, who according to the Survey also held
lands that formerly belonged to Hereward. So we have no
certainty about Hereward's parents, as his mother, Aedina or
Ediva, as she is called in Ingulf, is not mentioned in other
sources either. We have seen above that there is evidence of
Hereward being outlawed after 1062, but whether this happened
at the instigation of his father seems very problematical. The way
in which Hereward's youth is related reminds one of the youth
of the Icelandic Grettir, who had the same troubles at home
and who was also outlawed for the first time at an early age.

Sub 2, the fight with the bear, is a wellknown feature of Nor-
wegian and Danish heroic Uterature. Grettir fights with a bear
and so does Bgdvarr Bjarki at the court of Hrolfr. The story
of the bear, who ravishes a maiden in the woods and begets
by her a son called Bjem, king of Norway, is a reminiscence
of the descent of the famous Siward, earl of Northumbria, who
lived in the time of Edward the Confessor and whose traditional
story is full of Scandinavian features We reject Deutschbein's
hypothesis that the bear-episode in the Gesta has its origin in
a similar event in the story about Bgdvarr Bjarki We possess
three sources for this episode, viz. the second book of Saxo Gram-
maticus^s, the Bjarkarfmur«« and the saga of Hrolfr kraki
All these sources agree in one particular, namely, that Bjarki
after killing the bear forces his cowardly companion Hjalti
to drink of the animal's blood to gain strength and courage.
This is the aim of the bear-episode in the stories about Bjarki,
whereas in the Gesta Hereward's kilhng of the bear serves no
other purpose than to illustrate his prowess at an early age.
The fact that the animal is called a Norwegian bear clearly
points to the Scandinavian origin of the episode, but the details
do not agree with any particular existing saga.

The keeping of wild animals at the courts of kings and noblemen

is also reported in other sources. Of Emperor Henry the Holy
it is said that he staged fights between bears and men covered
with honey (about 1019) Another instance is told of the
count of Ardres, who goes to England, where he possesses land,
and returns with a bear for the recreation of the people, especially
on festival-days (about 1095)

The origin of sub 3 has also been attributed to an event
in the career of Bgavarr Bjarki, viz. the Bjarki-Agnarr episode,
by Deutschbein so, and again we venture to disagree with him.
The saving of a princess from an unwelcome suitor is quite a
common feature in the tales of the Middle Ages and it even occurs
twice in the present story (cf. sub 5). In other stories and fairy-
tales the suitor often takes the shape of a giant. If this episode
is to be derived from the Bjarki-story, it should have details in
common with it beside general features. Now it is exactly this
similarity in detail which we fail to detect.

In the Bjarkarimur the fight between Bjarki and Agnarr
takes place during a battle Bjarki is the vassal of king Hr61fr
and Agnarr is the latter's enemy. By killing Agnarr, Bjarki has
procured the victory for his lord and he receives Hrolf's daughter,
Drffa, in marriage as a reward for his services. It is obvious that
the setting is entirely different from the situation at the court
of king Alef. The story in Saxo's second book has a greater
resemblance to the tale in the Gesta Agnarr has married
Hrolf's sister Hriit and a big marriage-feast is held. One of the
usual jokes at table is the throwing of bones. An altercation
ensues between Agnarr and Bjarki about this game and Agnarr
challenges Bjarki to single combat. Agnarr being of nobler
birth, has the first blow. He cuts through Bjarki's helmet and
wounds his skull. Bjarki now gives a mighty stroke and cuts the
body of his enemy in two. Agnar's followers want to avenge
their lord, but they all fall before Bjarki's sword Laufi. Bjarki
in his turn receives Hr61f's sister Hriit in marriage. Bjarkamal

has substantially the same account of the fight, but is much
shorter and leaves out the bone-throwing and the attack of
Agnar's companions at the end. One detail that occurs in all
three sources is the fact that Agnarr dies smiling.

It is clear that there is an outward resemblance between
Saxo's version of the story and the Ulcus-episode in the Gesta,
especially, if we accept Olrik's theory that the bone-throwing
is an interpolation If we examine the details of the combat,
however, we find important differences. Agnarr and Bjarki
fight with swords and it is the excellency of the latter's brand,
Laufi, that decides the combat. In the Gesta only Hereward is
armed. He is quicker in his movements than Ulcus, who tries
to catch hold of his adversary in order to bring his greater bodily
strength into play. He neglects his covering, however, and
Hereward gets a chance to thrust his sword into his armour.
Ulcus, dying, bewails the misfortune that he has given his
trusted sword to his future bride, because otherwise he would
never have been killed by such a stripling. Afterwards Hereward
receives the sword of Ulcus from the hands of the Cornish
princess. It is not clear from the context why Ulcus gave the
sword to the princess. It may have been just as a present, but
she might also have asked for it in order to save Hereward, and
Ulcus relying on his superior strength might have given it to
her. This is, however, only a hypothesis which cannot be proved
from the text.

The differences between the Ulcus-episode and the Bjarki-
Agnarr-episode are too great to allow us to accept Deutsch-
bein's conclusion. There is. — to give one more example —,
a distinct dissimilarity in the way Agnarr dies with a smile
on his lips, a feature all the Bjarki-sources have in common,
and the death of Ulcus, who bewails his ill-luck in giving away
his sword! This does, of course, not preclude a northern origin.
Stories about saved princesses are of no less common occurrence

in the fornaldar-SQgur than in many other departments of
medieval hterature. The scene where the Cornish princess hands
the sword of Ulcus to Hereward recalls the recovery of a sword
for Hr61fr Gautreksson by the daughter of the Irish king in
the saga of Hr61fr Gautreksson 34.

Sub 4 contains a reminiscence of a historical event, viz. the
battle of Clontarf (1014), as Deutschbein has already pointed
out 3®. In this case we meet with a detailed resemblance. In
the description of the battle in the Gesta, the main interest is
centred around the combat of Hereward with the king of Munster.
The peculiar feature of the story is that the king takes no
active part in the battle, but stays in his tent. His curious
behaviour is entirely accounted for, when we compare this
episode with the description of the battle of Clontarf in the
Irish and Norse sources. The historical battle was fought between
the famous king Brian of Munster and the king of Dublin and
his viking allies from England and Scotland. It was the decisive
blow which broke up the supremacy of the vikings in Ireland.
King Brian, being too old to lead his army to victory in person,
stays in his tent and prays, while an attendant tells him about
the progress of the battle at regular intervals. Suddenly a small
body of vikings approaches under Earl Brodar, who does not
recognize the king at first. He takes him for a priest, but one
of his followers apprises him of Brian's rank. King Brian cuts
off Brodar's legs with one blow, but his own head is cleft by a
stroke of the eari's sword. He kills one other viking before he
dies. This is the Irish account®«; in the Icelandic sources
Br66ir kills Brian, his followers are slain, but he himself is
taken prisoner and disembowelled alive

The details of the battle of Clontarf explain the inactive
part of the king of Munster in the Gesta. Moreover, there are
other reasons for linking this historical event to the present
episode. One of the allies of the king of Dublin, i.e. the Irish

king in the Gesta, is the Orkney jarl Sigur9r HlgQvisson. One
of the Irish traditions however, mentions two SigurSs:

Then arrived there Siograd Finn (the White) and Siograd Donn (the
Brown), two sons of Lothair, earl of the Orkney Islands, with the armies
of the Orkney Islands with them.

The agreement with Hereward's cousins, the two Siwards, is
too striking to be ignored. Brodar, the earl who kills Brian,
is called earl of York in some of the Irish sources and ruler
of northern Saxonland in others. These data correspond quite
satisfactorily with Hereward's native country. The fact that
Brodar is kiUed and Hereward is not, may be explained, of
course, by the different character of the two stories. The one
represents a historical event, the other makes use of a tale
current about this event and uses just as much of it as will
fit in with the rest of the narrative. As Hereward had to be
kept alive in order to undergo other adventures, it will be plain
why the tragic ending of the historical source was changed.

There are sufficient grounds for assuming, with Deutschbein,
that the description of the battle between the Irish king and
the king of Munster was taken from an Irish tale about the
battle of Clontarf, current in England in the 11th century.

In sub 5 we return again to the realm of popular story and
fairy-tale. We meet with the same theme that dominates sub
3, i.e. the deliverance of a princess from an unwelcome suitor, cast
in a different form. In sub 3 the combat holds the centre of the
scene, whereas in sub 5 the interest lies in Hereward's behaviour
at the wedding-feast.

Sub 5 is clearly a variation of the returning husband motif,
so popular among medieval story-tellers. There are signs,
moreover, which point to the conclusion that Hereward has
replaced the lover or the husband of the underlying version
of this episode. In sub 3 the princess not only admires Hereward's
boldness of speech and action, but also his exterior, his hair

and his face, and Ulcus evidently fears Hereward as a rival in
love. In sub 5 the princess bursts into tears at the banquet,
because the stranger's figure reminds her of Hereward! This
personal and emotional interest of the princess in Hereward is
extremely suspicious and it seems that Hereward is made to
play the part that was originally reserved for the lover. The
fact that Hereward marries Turfrida in Flanders satisfactorily
explains why Hereward could not play the part of the lover at
the Cornish court.

The return of the hero in disguise, whether as a minstrel, a
pilgrim or a beggar, is also a common feature with this type of
story. It occurs, for instance, in the different Horn-versions and
in Tristan. The drinking-cupscene and the old nurse, who also
recognizes Hereward and strengthens the princess in her belief,
are particulars that occur time and again in connection with
this theme.

Section 6—8 we may call the Flemish episode of Hereward's
life; to this should be added his second sojourn in Flanders,
which is analyzed below in connection with the second part
of the Gesta, because it evidently belongs to the other Flemish
adventures, the subject-matter being distinctly similar.

The Flemish episode is a strange mixture of history and
fable. The proper names are for the greater part correct, the
geographical as well as the historical ones. The scene is laid in
the present north-western part of France, which at that time
belonged to the county of Flanders. Guisnes, St. Bertin, St.
Omer, St. Valéry, at the mouth of the Somme, all lie quite close
together. Pontoise lies somewhat farther south at the confluence
of the Seine and the Oise, its usual Latin name was Pontisara,
though Pontesium is sometimes found. The connection of
Pontoise with Poitiers is very strange, because these places lie
miles apart. Poitiers is evidently an error for some other name.
The vice-comes de Pynkenni (Picquigny, on the Somme be-

tween Abbeville and Amiens), mentioned as an adversary of
Hereward during his second stay in Flanders, is correctly named.
Lambert of Ardres speaks of a vice-dominus de Pinkinio of the
same period The tournament scenes reflect the early days of
chivalry, i.e. the latter half of the 11th century. Count Baldwin

Vnbsp;of Flanders (1035—1067) took possession of Walcheren and
other islands of Zeeland. He waged war with Dirk, count of
Holland, on account of these islands in 1045, and in 1061 he
presented them to his son, Robert the Frisian. The latter had
^married Gertrude, the widow of the Dutch count, and acted as
guardian for her young son. This Robert also wages war in Frisia
and the name Rodbritus, Hereward's fellow general in the war of
Scaldemariland, may be a reminiscence of this pugnacious son
of Baldwin V.

Leaving aside the place-name Pictavis (Poitiers), which must
be an error, we are faced with the following difficulties: 1. Manasar
the Old, count of Flanders; 2. Harald and Turfrida; 3. the primi-
tive nature of the people of Scaldemariland.

The name Manasar or Manasse does not occur among the
genealogies of the counts of Flanders. Moreover, the name
is quite rare among the rest of the Flemish nobility. One instance
of the name is found among the nobility present at the con-
secration of Phihp I of France in 1059. This Manasse is hsted
among the lesser counts and his family or territory are not
mentioned. The only families in which we have been able to
trace the name, are the related houses of Guisnes and Ardres,
but not before the last decades of the 11th century. The first
count of Guisnes of this name was a friend of William Rufus,
the son of William the Conqueror. Manasse married an Enghsh
wife, Emma, the widow of Odo of Folkstone. His daughter also
married an Englishman Hereward's adventures in Flanders
must have taken place, however, during the reigns of Baldwin

Vnbsp;and Baldwin VI (1067—1070). The curious point is that the

name Baldwin is mentioned during Hereward's second sojourn
in Flanders, but not in his quality of count of Flanders. He is
called quidam praeclarissimus miles. The connection of the
house of Guisnes with English families seems to point to the
conclusion that the author of the Gesta or his written source
for the first part of Hereward's adventures, substituted the
name of a Flemish nobleman, who was better known in England
than the Flemish count himself. Liebermann has come to a
similar conclusion but he has gone one step further by asserting
that the apposition the Old is due to the fact that the author
was acquainted with the existence of another Manasse, a relation
of the count of Guisnes of that name, who lived in the middle of
the 12th century. We reject this conclusion as being too hypo-
thetical.

Lambert of Ardres also has a fantastical story about the
viking-origin of the house of Guisnes The first count of
Guisnes is supposed to be the bastard-son of a Danish leader,
Sifridus, a relative of the Danish king, who landed at the site
of the present town of Guisnes in 928.

The names Harald and Turfrida (ON. îgt;orfriôr) are evidently
of Scandinavian origin. How did they get into this story, which
for the rest is based upon historical facts? There seems to be
no plausible reason why Hereward, upon his arrival in Flanders,
should conceal his identity from the count and why he should
adopt the Scandinavian name Harald. We suppose that these
names are remnants of a tale about viking activities in Flanders,
which must have been current in the north-eastern districts of
England in the llth century. Hereward's fighting a rival for
the hand of Turfrida may be compared to such bride-winning
stories as, for instance, the one contained in the second chapter
of the saga of Hrolfr Gautreksson. To this viking-tale must also
have belonged the war in Scaldemariland, which contains
descriptions that clearly point to a period previous to the llth

century. The primitive character of the warfare and the weapons
of the people of Scaldemariland is not in accordance with the
art of war as it was practised at the time of the Norman Conquest.
It looks more hke a description of some of the tribes that the
vikings must have encountered on their expeditions two centuries
before Hereward ever came to Flanders. The fictitious story
about the mare Swallow and its foal Lightfoot may also have
belonged to this Scandinavian tale. The mare is also mentioned
in some of Hereward's adventures in England, but the name
may have been interpolated by Richard in his oral sources,
as it does not occur in the other traditions which we possess
about Hereward, viz. Gaimar's Lestorie des Engles.

On these grounds we assume Hereward's Flemish adventures
to have been based upon historical tradition in the main, but
with interpolations from an earlier tale of viking-origin.

The second part of the Gesta treats of Hereward's adventures
in England during his struggle against the Norman Conqueror.
It covers approximately two thirds of the whole work and
contains mostly historical or pseudo-historical tradition. We
may divide these exploits into the following three sections:
1. Hereward collects a band of followers and starts the insurrection
against the king; 2. the defense of Ely; 3. Hereward's outlaw-
career after Ely has surrendered and his submission to the
king.

The contents are in short as follows:

1. Hereward returns home and finds the Normans in possession
of his lands. His younger brother has been killed in an
attempt to protect his mother and his estate against the
invaders. Hereward steals up to the castle at night with
his servant, Martin Lightfoot, and surprising the Normans
at their revels, kills them all, while Martin takes care that

no one escapes at the door. When Hereward's return becomes
known, the Normans fly from his estates, but the Enghsh
flock to his standard. He forms a staunch band of forty
vahant men. His forces increase day by day and to augment
his authority, he asks abbot Brand of Peterborough to knight
him, whUe a monk of Ely, Wilfumus, does the same for two
of his followers, Winter and Gaenoch. This Wilfumus had
been a great friend of Hereward's father and they had sworn
oaths of brotherhood. The custom of persons being knighted
by monks was continued at Ely, especially at the time when
Hereward defended the island, though the Normans despised
this way of conferring knighthood. When Hereward returns
from Peterborough, he hears that Frederick, the brother
of William, earl of Warren, is out to capture him. Hereward
surprises him in Norfolk, however, and despatches him.

Next he leaves for Flanders to fetch his wife, after pro-
mising his companions to return within a year. In Flanders
he fights for a certain Baldwin against the viscount of
Picquigny. The ruler of Brabant is also present. Hereward
distinguishes himself by valiantly defending himself against
superior numbers, when he is surrounded by a large body of
adversaries. They try to capture him alive, because it is
held a crime to kill such a courageous warrior. One of his
companions manages to rescue him, however.

Hereward returns to England in company of his wife,
Turfrida, the two Siwards and another pair of brothers,
Hugo Britannicus, Hereward's priest, and Wivhardus, both
men of a military disposition. He discovers that the Normans
have not dared to take his lands again and that everything
has remained as he left it. Three signal-fires are lit on the
heights of BruneswEild as a sign for his followers to assemble.
Then follows a list of names, which has evidently been copied
from two different sources without the author taking the

trouble to compare them, because many names occur twice.

2. The chief centre of active resistance against the king is
the monastery of Ely and the abbot having heard of Here-
ward's success sends for him to aid them in the defense
of the island. Hereward arrives at Ely notwithstanding
an attempt of the earl of Warren to ambush him on his way
from Lincolnshire.

The king lays siege to the island and builds a bridge
across the marshes. His first attack is frustrated, however,
because the bridge breaks down under the weight of his
army, and haU his forces are drowned in the fens. Even
at this time, the author writes, rusty harnesses are sometimes
found in the marshes. Only one soldier, called Deda, reaches
Ely. He is treated with great courtesy by the besieged and
is shown around the island to impress upon him its great
natural resources and its impregnability. He is released upon
condition that he shall relate everything that he has seen to
the king. William listens to Deda's narrative and decides
to raise the siege. Some of his generals persuade him to make
one more attempt, this time with the aid of a witch, upon
the advice of Ivo Taillebois. The final attack proves a failure,
Hereward has hidden soldiers in the rushes everywhere
and when the witch starts her incantations, the rushes are
set on fire. The witch is burned alive and the Norman soldiers
have the greatest difficulty in escaping the same fate. The
king now raises the siege and only leaves a cordon of troops
around the island to prevent the insurgents from pillaging
the adjacent country. Several adventures are told of Here-
ward in connection with the siege. Once he enters the hostile
camp in the disguise of a potter, he gets into difficulties with
the servants of the king, who try to make him drunk and it
is only the fleetness of his mare Swallow that saves him from
certain death. Another time he and his companions disguise

themselves as fishermen and bum the wooden bulwarks that
have been constructed by the enemy.

After the last attack of the Normans the three earls,
Morkere, Eadwine and Tostig, who have aided in the defense
of the island, leave Ely and join the successful rebellion of
Ralph of Wader in Norfolk. Although the siege is raised, the
end of the resistance at Ely is approaching. The king has
confiscated all the estates of the monastery outside the island
and the monks decide to make their peace with the Normans
to get back their possessions. Negotiations are entered into,
without the knowledge of Hereward, and the island is surren-
dered, the monks having to pay a big sum for the
reconciliation of the king. Hereward barely escapes across
the fens with only a few followers and takes refuge in the
Bruneswald.

3. Hereward wages a sort of guerilla warfare in the fastnesses
of the Bruneswald. The forces of seven shires are called into
action against him and his faithful followers. Ivo TaUlebois
and Turold, the abbot of Peterborough are his principal
opponents, but he evades being captured by all kind of
stratagems. A favourite trick is the reversing of the shoes
of his horses. Once he even captures Turold and only releases
him at a ransom of 30.000 pounds (!). He bums and pillages
Peterborough to punish Turold, but he returns the treasures
at the command of St. Peter, who appears to him in a dream.
On their joumey back from Peterborough they lose their
way in the forest. The appearance of a white wolf that acts
as a guide saves them and candles that suddenly bum at the
ends of their spears light their way. At dawn the wolf and
the candles disappear, but they are on the right road to
Stanford. He meets a former enemy of his in this town and
scares the wits out of him, but does him no harm.

Hereward finally marries the widow of count Dolphin

and makes his peace with the king. His first wife, Turfrida,
enters Croyland. According to the author Hereward's
proverbial luck left him after this event. In the Bruneswald
he comes upon a Saxon, named Lethold. The two parties
fight, but Hereward finds his match in Lethold. He is unable
to overcome him and the combat remains undecided. Here-
ward now travels to the court with a picked body of men.
He is received with great honours, but his followers are
not allowed entrance in order to avoid trouble with the other
courtiers. He dismisses his bodyguard and stays at court
with only two companions. The courtiers are envious of the
favours bestowed upon Hereward by the king and they elect
Oger as their champion to meet him in single combat.
Hereward, who is drawn into this affair against his wish,
wounds Oger in the arm. He is imprisoned by the king at
the instigation of the courtiers. The warden, Robert de
Horepol, is a friend of his, however, and when Hereward
is to be removed to the castle of his former enemy, Ivo
Taillebois, Robert warns two of Hereward's old comrades.
The convoy, which is to take Hereward to Ivo's castle, is
ambushed by Hereward's comrades and Hereward is liberated.
Robert persuades the king to treat the outlaw mercifully
and the latter is again reconciled with the Norman king.
He dies in peace on his estate, which has been restored
to him by king William.

These last three sections have been built up on a historical
foundation, whereas the author has filled out his story with
traditional matter, current in an oral form in the fenlands of
East AngUa. The historical facts that have been handed down
about Hereward are very scanty, as we have already seen at the
beginning of this chapter. It is indeed possible that a great
deal of the subject-matter of the latter part of the Gesta is

historical, though we have no other evidence to corroborate the
statements of Richard.

On a few points he deviates from the historical facts, known
to us. The sacking of Peterborough took place before Hereward
came to Ely, as may be proved from the entries in the Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle (cf. above). In the Gesta the reason for the
sacking lies in the fact that abbot Turold, on being released
by Hereward, breaks his promise. This story is clearly a var-
iation of the entry in the A. S. Chronicle, in which the burning
of Peterborough is attributed to the nomination of the Norman
abbot Turold. This is proved, moreover, by the fact that in
the so-called Chronicle of John of Peterborough, which is based
either on the Gesta or on Ingulf, the capture and the ransoming
of Turold are placed before the siege of Ely. This different order
of events in the Gesta must have been a part of the oral traditions
about Hereward, because Gaimar, writing independently, uses
the same order as Richard. Another mistake, historically
speaking, is the connection of earl Eadwine with the siege,
because the two brothers Eadwine and Morkere parted company,
after secretly escaping from the Conqueror's court Eadwine
tried to reach Scotland, but was killed in the north of England.
Morkere took refuge at Ely. The revolt of Ralph of Wader,
which is mentioned in relation to the events at Ely, took place
four years after the siege. This mixing up of history and tradition
may safely be put down to the oral nature of Richard's sources.
These are only a few cases, which we can verify from authentic
accounts; how many more may there not be, which we are not
able to compare with reliable sources? We shall leave this
historical aspect of the question to more competent men and
turn to the more literary aspect by attempting to detach from
Richard's account the more general outlaw-features.

Hereward has been endowed by tradition with an invincible
strength, but beside this quality he possesses another, namely

cunning. This is revealed in the numerous instances in which
he, either alone or with only a few companions, fools his enemies.
In these cases a certain humorous element is often present.
This is especially the case with his adventure at Stanford,
where he chases a former enemy all around the town and, when
the latter in his fright takes refuge in the privy, Hereward
magnanimously lets him be! Disguise is one of his favourite
stratagems, as it is with later outlaws. The same disguise of a
potter, in which he enters king William's camp at Ely, is also
assumed by Robin Hood and Eustache the Monk. He proves
himself to be a master of guerilla warfare by the way he continual-
ly evades and defeats the forces of Ivo Taillebois and abbot
Turold in the Bruneswald, making the most of his advantageous
position in the impenetrable woods.

Before proceeding to Gaimar we must point to the curious
story of the white wolf, who guides Hereward and his followers
through the forest at night, and the candles that are suddenly
lit at their spear-heads, quae vulgus appellant candelaenimpharum,
as Richard says. These are evidently remnants of old pagan
tradition, probably of Scandinavian origin. The candelae
nimpharum are the will o' the wisps, which occur largely in
Norse folklore and with the wolf we may compare, for instance,
Grettir's intercourse with supernatural beings during his outlaw-
period. Supernatural occurrences are hardly ever featured in
Anglo-Saxon literature in such a distinctly pagan shape. This
traditional account evidently replaces the miracles of a more
Christian nature that are related about the church-relics and
their fate in the A.S. Chronicle version of the sacking of Peter-
borough.

Gaimar covers the same ground as Richard, but he begins
at the siege of Ely. His narrative is somewhat shorter, the
greater part being taken up by Hereward's deeds after the
siege. The story of the fisherman has been combined with the

tale of the potter. Hereward escapes with only seven comrades
from Ely, but at every town his company grows. His strength
is said to be that of seven men. Most of the names of Here-
wards' comrades which are mentioned by Gaimar, also occur
in the Gesta. The Saxon lady, who becomes Hereward's wife,
is called Aelfthryth by Gaimar, but the latter is unacquainted
with Hereward's first marriage. According to the author of
the Estorie des Engles, Hereward after making his peace with
the king, fights for the Conqueror in Maine. The chief difference
between the story in the Gesta and in the Estorie is the way in
which Hereward's death is recounted. According to Gaimar
Hereward is surprised at his castle by a number of his Norman
enemies. He is the victim of the carelessness of his chaplain,
Ailward, who falls asleep instead of being on the look-out.
Hereward is assaulted before he can arm himself properly, but
he defends himself Hke a Hon. Four of his opponents are killed
by his sword before it goes to pieces on the helmet of the fifth.
He then kills two with his shield, but not being able to protect
himself, he is pierced through the back by four lances. He sinks
to his knees and with his last strength he hurls the shield at one
of his opponents and kills him. They both die at the same mo-
ment. Indeed, a death in keeping with Hereward's whole life!
It reminds one of the last gallant struggles of Gisli and Grettir;
Grettir is also the victim of his servant's carelessness and Gisli
also ends his fight upon the rock by hurling his shield at one of
his adversaries and killing him. Two other sources relate Here-
ward's violent death, but in a very different way. The Liber
de Hyda tells us that:

.... quadam die cum omnibus sociis ab hostibus circumventus mi-
serabiliter occubuit.

In this version Hereward is evidently thought to have been
killed during his outlaw-career together with his companions.

which is perhaps the most probable solution from a historical
point of view. The 15th century rolls, mentioned above, has
connected the fact that Hereward was killed by Norman noblemen
with the name of Hugo de Evermouth, Hereward's son-in-law
according to Ingulf. Hereward is killed in a brawl by Hugo.
Except for the last case, which is obviously an invention, all
these endings are historically possible, though the version of
the Liber de Hyda seems to us the most probable. Nothing can
be said with certainty, however, as we possess no reliable
information on this point.

Returning to the Gesta once more as our chief source for
the traditional matter about Hereward, we may conclude
from internal evidence that Richard compiled his work from
two distinct sources. The first part, adventures abroad, including
his second trip to Flanders, consists of tales which are of too
romantic and too general a nature to have ever existed as
separate traditions about Hereward. This is particularly the
case with the adventures in Northumbria, Cornwall and Ireland;
the Flemish episode seems to be founded upon historical matter
combined with an old viking-tale from those parts. The second
part is based upon historical facts, probably taken from the
chronicles, to which the author has added a great deal of oral
tradition. This state of affairs is corroborated by Richard's
assertion about his sources in the introductory section of the
work. After telling his readers that he has found a mutilated
copy of a book by Leofric the Deacon about Hereward's deeds
in the Enghsh language, he continues:

In quibus (i.e. Angliae Uteris) vero licet non satis periti aut potius
exarare deleta incognitarum literatum, ad iUum locum tamen de illo
usque collegimus ubi in patriam et ad pristinam domum reversus fratrem
occisum invenit.....

An infinitive seems to have disappeared after periti, but
for the rest the sentence is quite clear and proves, according to

our view, that Richard had a written source in the vernacular
before him, which supplied him with subject-matter for Here-
ward's real and supposed adventures abroad.

In conclusion we may say that the Gesta is the most elaborate
collection of romantic material about Hereward, whereas
Lestorie des Engles contains mostly material in relation to
the forest-outlaw, which we shall meet again in Robin Hood
and Gamelyn. Both show a marked Scandinavian influence,
Gaimar especially in his account of Hereward's death. This
is only natural, if we bear in mind that Hereward was born
in Lincolnshire and that most of his adventures take place
in East Anglia, a district which had been settled by a large
body of Scandinavians only a hundred years before and whose
inhabitants must stiU have possessed a wealth of Scandinavian
lore. Hereward's companions must partly have been Danes
or men of Scandinavian descent, as is proved by names like
Tostig, Thorkell and Osbjgrn.

CHAPTER II
THE TALE OF GAMELYN

From the semi-historical figure of Hereward we turn to
Gamelyn, the hero of an outlaw-poem of the beginning of the
14th century. This poem occupies a place by itself in Middle
Enghsh poetry, as one of the few remnants of medieval popular
story-telling in the vernacular. The subjects and style of the
Enghsh gleemen, who told their stories to a company of country-
folk at inns and taverns, were usually not thought fit for com-
mitting to parchment for the use of the more cultured classes
of society.

The Tale of Gamelyn may be considered as a forerunner of
the numerous Robin Hood ballads which must have come into
vogue in the middle of the 14th century, as the scene for the
latter part of the poem is laid in the woods, where a maister
outlawe rules with his seven score of young men, who is obviously
the protot37pe of Robin.

The contents of this remarkable poem are in brief as follows:
A knight. Sir lohan of Boundys, on his deathbed divides
his lands between his three sons, lohan, Ote and Gamelyn.
The second brother disappears from the scene till the end
of the poem. The plot is mostly concerned with the elder
brother, the wicked lohan, and Gamelyn, the hero of the
story. The former deprives Gamelyn of his inheritance and
uses him as a servant. Gamelyn grows up and one day he

3

becomes conscious of his strength and of the mean way
his brother has treated him. He upbraids his brother for
his conduct and the neglected state his — Gamelyn's —
lands are in. The elder brother becomes angry, but being
afraid of Gamelyn's strength, he orders his servants to
give his brother a sound beating. Gameljni seeing the
servants approaching picks up a pestle and easily holds
his own against them. lohan now pacifies Gamelyn with
all kinds of promises. In the next episode of the story
Gamel}^! rides to a neighbouring fair and overcomes a
wrestling-champion. On his return to the castle he finds
the gate shut against him and his friends by his brother,
who had secretly hoped that Gamelyn would have broken
his neck in the wrestling-match. The gate is forced and
Gamelyn and his friends stay in the castle and feast for a
week. When the friends have gone home, Gamelyn is again
cajoled into a good temper by his brother and he even
allows himself to be bound on a very slight pretext. But
now at last the perfidious ways of his brother become
clear to him, for the latter has no intention of liberating
him. lohan exhibits him in his hall and tells his guests
that he has turned mad. Gamel5m is, however, secretly
aided by his father's old servant, Adam the spencer, and
when lohan has a company of clergy to dinner one Sunday,
the spencer sees to it that Gamelyn's fetters are unlocked.
Gamelyn first pleads with the guests to procure his release,
but when they all abuse him, he throws off his fetters and
breaks the arms and legs of his abusers with a staff, while
Adam guards the door to let no one escape his punishment.
The sheriff hears of the outrage, however, and Gamelyn
and Adam fly to the woods. There they meet the king of
outlaws and his seven score of young men and after a time
Gamelyn becomes their chief, the former king having made

his peace at home. Gamelyn is visited by a number of his
tenants, who inform him that his brother has become
sheriff and that he has proclaimed him an outlaw. Gamelyn
immediately returns home, but is captured and put in
prison. At this point the second brother. Sir Ote, re-enters
into the story. He bails Gamelyn out till the justice comes
to try him. Gamel}^! goes back to the woods for a while,
but returns just in the nick of time to save Sir Ote from
the gallows, to which he had been condemned in Gamelyn's
place. Gamelyn and his fellows now hold a mock-trial and
lohan, the justice and the twelve assisors are all hanged.
The poem ends with Gamelyn and Sir Ote making their
peace with the king.

The preservation of the poem is due to its occurrence in several
MSS of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. This accounts for the
fact that some of Chaucer's editors published it as one of the
Canterbury Tales, though most of them admitted the Tale to
be spurious. Tjn-whitt in his edition of the Canterbury Tales
(1775—78) is the first to omit the Tale as not belonging to
Chaucer. The following reasons may be adduced for repudiating
Chaucer's authorship, as Skeat ^ and Lindner ^ have already
pointed out: 1. the Tale does not occur in all of the MSS of the
Canterbury Tales and its omission in some of the best, viz. the
Ellesmere MS, the Hengwrt MS and the Cambridge MS, marked
Gg. 4.27., looks suspicious; 2. the Tale is inserted after the Cook's
tale, though there is no reason for the Cook telling two tales.
In the best MS of Gamelyn, Harleian 7334, a gap has wisely
been left between the Cook's tale and the Tale of Gamelyn and
at the end of the latter. In the other MSS the rubricators have
added verses at the beginning of the present Tale to make it
appear as if the Tale belonged there; 3. the structure of the verse
is irregular, but mostly the line contains six stresses, a metre not

found elsewhere in Chaucer's poems; 4. the poet of the Tale
has a strong aversion to the clergy in general, which he shows
clearly in several parts of the poem. Chaucer, on the other hand,
when he points out the evils of the time, is always careful to
take a single instance and not to condemn a whole class for the
excesses of some of its members.

After considering these points it will be clear that the poem
is an interpolation in the Canterbury Tales, but from sub 3
it is also evident that the Tale, unhke other interpolations in
Chaucer's works, was not written by a subsequent author with
the intention of filling up a gap in the Canterbury Tales. If that
had been the case, the interpolator would have used one of
Chaucer's measures. Moreover, the poem makes an older im-
pression than Chaucer. Skeat has conjectured that Chaucer
procured a copy of our poem with the intention of remodelling
it into a Canterbury Tale, probably the Yeoman's Tale This
would be a way of accounting for the poem finding its way into
the Canterbury Tales, though it can never be more than a
conjecture.

As far as the authorship of the present poem is concerned,
nothing can be said. There is no internal evidence nor is the
poem mentioned anywhere in Middle Enghsh literature. The
only place, where the name Gamelyn occurs, is in the Robin
Hood ballads, in the form Gamwell and Gandeleyn. This con-
nection win be treated presently in the chapter on these ballads.
No clue is given as regards the author of our poem in this body
of poetry.

About the origin and the date of the poem we have to rely
solely on the internal evidence of the poem itself. We have not
been able to find any distinct parallel to our story either in the
Anglo-Norman or French stories or in Scandinavian sour-
ces. The story of the wicked elder brother, who oppresses
his younger brother is, of course, very old, but we have

not found it elsewhere with any of the details occurring in
the poem.

We propose to examine the internal evidence under the
following headings:

1.nbsp;the form and language of the poem

2.nbsp;social and pohtical indications

3.nbsp;the proper names occurring in the poem.

Sub 1 has been thoroughly treated by Lindner® and Skeat
As we agree on the main points of their investigations, we can
do little more than summarize their work. The different MSS
may be divided into two groupsThe fact that there is a close
agreement between the two groups proves that they are
both derived from one archetype. There are, moreover, distinct
signs that this original written source was noted down from oral
tradition. For instance, the poet makes a generous use of stock
expressions; he has a habit of using the same words close together
and the same vowels in successive pairs of rhyme-words. These
pecuharities point exclusively to an underlying oral tradition.
This is not the case with some of the other arguments which
Lindner uses The fact that some lines found in one MS are
missing in another, which Lindner accounts for by a lapse of
memory, might be attributed with a greater degree of probability
to the carelessness of copyists. The same may be said of such
variants as: hne 756, forth fro you (Sloane MS) — for soth fro you
(other MSS); line 351, selleer instead of soleer, which is clearly
meant; line 555, to fette away (Landsdowne MS) — be way (Corpus
MS) — by her fay (other MSS). The exclusively oral features of
these variants are not clear to us. We prefer to treat them as
clerical errors. We may safely say, however, on the grounds
which we have pointed out above, that the poem must have
existed in popular oral tradition in a form closely akin to the
texts in the various MSS.

Our next consideration will be the dialect in which the poem
has come down to us. This clearly shows a North East Midland
type with a comparatively small percentage of French words
and some specifically northern words of Scandinavian origin.
The word awe (ON. agi) occurs beside the southern form eye.
The word nyggoun (ON. hneggr) is only known from this poem
and Robert of Brunne's Handlyng Synne, in which it is spelt
nygun. Lithe (ON. h^da), the noun loft (ON. lopt), serk (ON. serkr)
SLTidskeet (ON. skjotr) are the other words that only occur in nor-
thern dialects The rhyming of words with i and y is another nor-
thern and N.E. Midland feature. The use of y for i in all positions
became general only in the middle of the 14th century in the
south. Other northern and Midland peculiarities are: 1. the perso-
nal pronoun I or Y, never ic or ich; 2. the Scandinavian form thei
and thai is mostly used instead of hi or he of the other dialects;
3. Scandinavian them is used in the dative and accusative plural
with different vowels, beside hem-, 4. the ending -is, -ys, beside
es in the plural of nouns. All these facts point to a N.E. Midland
dialect. The few southern forms may be explained as the work
of later copyists.

Sub 2. We saw before that the poet has a strong aversion
to the clergy in general. In one of the episodes he depicts with
obvious glee the flogging of a body of reUgious personages,
whereas of Gamelyn, the outlaw, it is said in line 780:

There was no man that for him ferde the wors

But abbotes and priours, monk and chanoun;

On hem left he no-thing whan he mighte hem nom.

Here we meet with the same antipathy towards the church as
is expressed in the Robin Hood ballads. The poet certainly
did not belong to the clergy and the poem was probably recited
in a time, when the clergy was also in disfavour with the audience,
in this case the common people. From the mention of a grey

friar in line 529 it is evident that these were already established
in England, when the present poem was made. At the end of
the 13th century the influence of the mendicant orders began to
diminish, but it is only in the 14th century that they become the
special butt of satirical and political songs i®. Now the poet of
the Tale of Gamelyn shows an extreme dislike for abbots and
priors, but the friar is only mentioned incidentally and does not
come in for abuse. This gives us a hint for the approximate
date of the poem, which is, moreover, corroborated by the
judicial facts in the story.

The chief points connected with the judicial proceedings
in the last episode of the Tale may be summarized as follows,
lohan, having become sheriff, gets up an enditement of out-
lawry against Gamelyn during the latter's absence in the woods.
Gamelyn comes back to plead his cause, but is put in the
King's prison without being heard. The second brother. Sir
Ote, bails him out till the next sitting of deliverance. The institute
of gaol-delivery may be traced to the beginning of the 13th
century, according to Maitland The sheriff has bribed the
twelve assisors on the quest into giving false judgment. From
lines 862—63,

....................who was on the quest

For to deme his brother. Sir Ote, for to honge,

it is clear that the twelve assisors were already more than
witnesses and that they functioned as a trying jury, which
gave a verdict, as may be proved from line 840, in which Sir Ote
says to Gamel5m,

For the quest is oute on me that I schulde honge.

Quest means in this case verdict. Neither line 840 nor line
863 is to be interpreted in such a way that the assisors decided the
punishment, because at no period in English history did the

assisors have the power to do this. The explanation is that
the assisors returned a verdict of guilty and then the judge
passed the sentence of death by hanging, this being the usual
punishment in such cases. So a verdict of guilty was virtually
equivalent to the sentence of hanging.

Opinions are divided as to the time when these trying assisors
first appear in criminal cases. Maitland holds that all jurors
in the reign of Edward I are as yet witnesses or sworn accusers,
not yet judges of fact Forsyth, on the other hand, says

In some such way as this I conceive that trial by jury in criminal
cases may have originated, and it certainly was in operation at the time
when Bracton wrote, in the reign of Henry III. But even then the jury
sometimes discharged both functions of accusers and triers.

From the examples adduced by Forsyth we see that the trjdng
jury began to function in the above mentioned reign, but
that it was as yet far from common, the older method of trial
by combat being favoured in that period. So for a time these
two methods existed side by side till at the end of the 13th
century the trial by jury ousted the older Norman mode of
trial. No mention is made of an alternative way or of the accused
having the choice between two modes in the present poem,
however, so that we may assume that it originated at a period
when the trial by combat had already fallen into disuse, i.e.
about 1300.

Some minor points belonging to this heading, which bear
witness to the popular character of the poem are the following.
Though the poem consists for the greater part of fighting episodes,
no weapon of chivalry is ever mentioned, the adversaries have
to rely on their own bodily strength or on such rude arms as a
pestle or staffs. In the outlaw-section the traditional bows
appear, but of swords or spears never a word is said. Another
contrasting point with the court-poetry of the Middle Ages is
the total absence of women and of the subject of love. The

audience seemed to want only a story of strength and fighting
and to have no use for the chivalrous ideas of the time.

Sub 3. The only proper names that occur in the poem are
those of the old knight. Sir lohan of Boundys and his three
sons: lohan, Ote and Gamel5m, and that of the servant, who
aids Gamel)^, Adam the spencer. All these names are of French
origin except Gamelyn. The name of the knight probably has
no other significance than Sir John of the Marches (Old French
bonne — a limit). Ote is an unusual form of Latin Otho, which
became Otto in German and Odo in the more southern Frankish
counties. A form that is more common in Anglo-Norman is Otoun,
derived from the Latin accusative Othonem. Another possible
derivation would be from ON. odi, the weak form of the adjective
6dr 'mad'. In both cases the t must be due to written sources.
We prefer the derivation from Latin Otho, as the appellation
(5di 'the mad' is not found anywhere in ON. or Norman sources.
Only the name of the hero is of distinctly Scandinavian origin.
The name Gamel or Gamelo occurs as a proper name in Anglo-
Saxon and Latin sources from the end of the 10th century
onwards, often in connection with other Scandinavian names,
hke Ketel and Orm. Gamel is derived from ON. gamoLl 'old',
Gamelo is a Latinized form of the weak adjective gamli 'the old'.
The word gamel or gomol is also found in Anglo-Saxon, but only
in the poetical language, in prose eald is always used. The ending
-yn is probably the Romance diminutive ending -in, as found
in Colin, Gerardin, Paulin etc. Bjorkman prefers the derivation
from the ON. adjective plus the article-suffix -inn The meaning
of the suffix being lost the i subsequently became a long vowel.
Personally we adhere to the former explanation of ON. gamall
plus the Romance diminutive ending, because it is a simpler
resolution of the problem. Skeat thinks that the name refers to
Gamelyn being the son of his father's old age i®. This explanation
is a little far-fetched, as the meaning of names hke Gamel and

Orm were no longer understood at the time when the poem was
made Moreover, if the name is a remnant of the time, when
the meaning was indeed understood, we should expect a Germanic
diminutive and not a Romance one.

Recapitulating we arrive at the conclusion that the poem is
evidently based on oral tradition and that it was originally
intended to be recited to the common people. On examining the
dialect of the poem we found that it was N.E. Midland of the
end of the 13th century, with a strong influx of northern and
Scandinavian forms. This conclusion is corroborated by the
information that may be derived from the judicial facts, as
these point to the same period. Other features that point to the
north eastern districts are: the connection with Robin Hood,
whose early exploits usually take place in south eastern York-
shire, and a resemblance to certain features in the Lay of Have-
lokquot;, which is connected with Lincolnshire. The wrestling-
episode may be compared with Havelok's putting the stone
farther than any of the champions at the fair. Similarly Havelok's
dispersing of the forty robbers is reminiscent of Gamel5m's
prodigious feats with the pestle and the cart-staff. It is evident
then, that the poem originated in its present form in the north
eastern counties about 1300. Lincolnshire with its extensive
Scandinavian settlement, seems to be the most appropriate
home for this remarkable poem. Like the Lay of Havelok the
story of Gamelyn must have been of Scandinavian origin,
which may be proved from the viking features which the tale
contains, — the extraordinary strength of the hero, the episode
with the pestle, the cudgelling of the guests. The Scandinavian
origin has been a great deal obscured by the social background,
which has become typically Enghsh. Compare, for instance,
the relation to the king, the judical proceedings, the dislike of
the clergy, all traits of medieval Enghsh Hfe. The English matter
has to such a large degree superseded the Scandinavian elements

of the story that it is practically impossible to eke out the
original substance of the Tale. There is a slight resemblance
to the Hereward-story in the following particular: Hereward,
when he returns to Brunne, goes to his former castle and kills
all the revelling Normans inside, while his servant guards the
door to let no one escape. We may compare this to Adam the
spencer guarding the door in the episode of the beating of the
guests in Gamelyn. Such analogies as this one and those between
the stories of Havelok and Gamelyn, only prove that such features
were the common property of the popular viking-tales.

As Gamelyn's connection with the outlaws as their second-in-
command is mentioned in the Robin Hood ballads as well, but
without his other exploits, the outlaw-matter of the poem must
be the primary fact around which the other adventures of
Gamelsm were grouped to account for his becoming an outlaw.
Gamelsm might have been the central figure of a whole cycle of
adventures, just like Robin Hood, the other stories having been
lost in the course of time. This cannot be determined, however,
as long as we have no other remnants of this cycle than the Tale
of Gamelyn. We shall have to content ourselves with the thought
that in the Tale we have a link between the older outlaw-
literature, represented by the Hereward-story, and the Robin
Hood ballads. The Scandinavian element is still clearly percept-
ible, but the background and the sphere has already become
distinctly English. This development has gone even farther in
the outlaw-matter, which we propose to treat in the next chapter,
viz. the Robin Hood ballads.

CHAPTER HI
THE ROBIN HOOD BALLADS

Our last example of the medieval English outlaw is by far
the most famous of all. A whole cycle of ballads, ranging from
the 15th to the 19th century attests the popularity of this
outlaw-figure. Robin Hood originally represents the type of the
woodland-hero and it is only from the end of the 15th century
and later that he came to be connected with the May-games
in which he and his loyal companion Little John were added to
the principal actors in the spring-festivals, the King and Queen
of May, Maid Marian and Friar Tuck. Some of the later ballads
treat this connection with Maid Marian and Friar Tuck, but it
is entirely foreign to the older cycle of Robin Hood

Of the older ballads, the Gest of Robin Hood is of the greatest
importance, as it is based on a representative collection of
ballads about Robin Hood, which must have been popular at
an early date. The oldest MS preserved is of the end of the 15th
century, but the language proves that the poem was probably
written about a century before The compiler of this ballad-
history of the great outlaw must have been a poet of some
skill, as he has succeeded in building up a consecutive story by a
clever adaptation of the different ballads at his disposal. The
eight fits may be summarized as follows:

Is^ fit. After a short introduction, describing Robin Hood

and his boon-companions, Little John, Scarlok and Much in the
forest of Barnesdale, we proceed to the first adventure. Robin
Hood likes to have a guest at table and the three companions
are despatched to fetch him one. They have instructions to
harm no husbonde, that tilleth with his floughe nor a good
yeoman or a knight or squire, that wol be a gode felawe. The
clergy, however, and especially the high sheriff of Notting-
ham, they are enjoined to beat and bind. The companions meet
a knight of very sad appearance and Little John conveys Robin
Hood's invitation to him. He accepts the invitation, though
he intended to dine at Blith or Dancaster. The knight is
courteously received by Robin Hood, but when the dinner is
over, the guest is unable to pay for it according to the outlaw's
custom, as he has only ten shillings. Little John is sent to
inspect the knight's coffers and the latter's declaration is found
to be correct. Robin Hood will not touch a penny and asks the
knight after the cause of his misfortune. The knight now tells
his story. How he needed money to save his son, who had slain
a knyght of Lancaster and a squyer bolde, and how he had borrowed
400 pounds from the abbot of St. Mary's Abbey, his land being
his security. As he has not got the money, his lands will be for-
feited. Robin Hood lends him the money and the Virgin will
be the knight's security. The outlaw, who is very religious and
especially devoted to the Virgin, accepts the security. Beside
the money to redeem his property, the knight is presented
with a new suit, boots and spurs, a palfrey and Little John is to
accompany him as a yeoman or squire.

2nd fit. Much to the surprise and annoyance of the abbot of
St. Mary's Abbey, who had hoped to confiscate the knight's
possessions, the latter turns up at the gates of the Abbey at
the appointed time. The knight, who has come with a large
retinue in fine apparel, orders his retainers to change into

simpler clothes. The knight enters the hall and feigns inability
to pay his debt. The abbot refuses to grant any respite, however.
The knight appeals in turn to the justice, the sheriff and the
abbot, but no one will aid him. The knight takes on such a
menacing attitude that the justice intervenes and an offer is
made to the knight to give up his claims for an additional 100
pounds. The knight refuses, of course, and disdainfully counts
out the 400 pounds and leaves the abbot and his company dumb-
founded. The knight and his followers dress in their fine clothes
again and go home. When the knight has collected the 400
pounds to pay his debt to Robin Hood, he sets out for Barnesdale
to keep his appointment. A wrestling-match along the way
causes delay, however, because the knight has to intervene on
behalf of the champion, who is attacked by his jealous com-
petitors.

Srd fit. Little John distinguishes himself at a shooting-match,
at which the sheriff of Nottingham is also present. The sheriff
is so impressed by John's skill that he hires him for a year from
the knight. John takes the name of Reynold Greenleaf. One
day the sheriff goes hunting and Little John is left behind,
because he is still in bed. He gets into a fight with the butler
and the cook, because he wants to have his dinner before the
sheriff comes home. The fight between the cook and Little John
remains undecided and they are so pleased with each other that
they decide to go to the greenwood together, taking with them
as much silver as they can find. Little John and the cook are
graciously received by Robin Hood and Little John goes into
the forest to find the sheriff. On meeting him he fools him by
saying that he has seen a ryght fayre harte with a herd of seven
score of deer and so he leads him to Robin Hood's hiding-place.
The sheriff has to eat and drink out of his own silver vessels, much
to his discomfiture. He is dressed in the Lincoln green of Robin

Hood's men and is forced to sleep on the ground like the rest.
After these trials he is released on the following morning on the
promise that he will never again do harm to Robin Hood or any
of his men.

Ath fit. The day of the knight's payment has arrived and
Robin Hood will not take his meal before some guest is found
to share his dinner. Again Little John, Much and Scarlok go
out and now they meet a monk, who travels with seven pack-
horses and fifty-two men. His followers are put to flight and
he himself is taken to Robin Hood to have his dinner. The
monk turns out to be the high cellarer of St. Mary's Abbey.
Robin Hood tells him of the money that he has lent the knight
and how the Virgin is his bond. Robin Hood and his men jocular-
ly consider the monk as a messenger from Our Lady to pay the
debt. The monk professes to have only twenty marks, but, when
his coffers are emptied, a sum of more than 800 pounds is
found. Robin Hood says that he could never have had a better
bond than Our Lady and the monk has to continue his joumey
without his 800 pounds. Shortly afterwards the knight and
his company arrive and he offers his excuses for not having kept
his appointment, as the wrestUng-match has delayed him. Robin
Hood entertains him with good grace and tells him that the
Virgin has already paid his debt. He will only accept a hundred
goodly bows and arrows as a present and and in return he offers
the knight the additional 400 pounds that Our Lady has paid
him. The knight leaves, blessing Robin Hood and his men for
their bounty.

5th fit. In the next adventure Robin Hood narrowly escapes
being trapped by the sheriff and his men. The sheriff proclaims
a shooting-match for the men of the north; the reward will
be an arrow of gold and silver. Robin Hood, Little John, Scarlok,
Gilbert of the White Hand, Much and Reynold go to the match.

while the rest of the outlaws stay at the border of the forest.
Robin Hood wins the arrow, but after the shooting they are
treacherously set upon by the sheriff and his men. Little John is
sorely wounded, but they manage to resist the sheriff and retreat
to the castle of Sir Richard at the Lee, who is identified with the
knight to whom Robin Hood has formerly lent the money.

Qth fit. The knight resists the sheriff's forces and tells him that
he will not dehver his guests without an order from the king.
Robin Hood and his men escape to the woods and the sheriff
sends messengers to the king to tell him what has happened.
The king is coming in person to punish the bold outlaws. The
sheriff avenges himself on the knight by unexpectedly attacking
him, while he is hawking, and imprisoning him in Nottingham.
Robin Hood is apprised of this by the knight's wife and he
goes to Nottingham and delivers the knight from prison. The
sheriff is killed by Robin Hood himself.

1th fit. The king arrives at Nottingham and hears of the
outrages that have been committed by Robin Hood and his fol-
lowers and he is naturally greatly enraged. Robin is nowhere
to be found, however. At last an old forester undertakes to
show the king Robin Hood's abode. They dress up like monks
and they meet with the outlaw indeed. The pseudo-abbot and
his monks are invited to dinner and are courteously treated
by Robin Hood. The abbot complains of the expensive life at
the court of the king, he can only offer Robin forty pounds
for his excellent meal. After dinner they play pluck-buffet,
i.e. a shooting-match, with the restriction that everyone
who fails of the mark is to receive a buffet from Robin
Hood. But it so happens that Robin himself fails with his
last shot, and now the abbot is to administer the buffet.
He strikes Robin Hood so hard, that the latter falls down

and in this way the king is recognized by his strength. Robin
Hood and his fellows and the knight, who also seems to have
been present, kneel down and pay homage to the king. The
king has enjoyed himself so much that he readily pardons
them all.

8th fit. The king determines to play a joke upon the citizens
of Nottingham. He dresses just hke the outlaws in Lincoln
green and the citizens are terribly scared, when they see
the large band approachmg. The general opinion is that the
king has been killed. He is recognized at last and the whole
town rejoices. Robin and his company follow the king to court,
but after a year or more he cannot stand it any longer at
court and he gets leave to pay a visit to the little chapel that
he has built in Bamesdale in honour of Mary Magdalen. When
he is in the greenwoods again, he blows his horn, the sevenscore of
wyght yonge men cam^ redy on a rowe and Robin decides to risk
the king's wrath and stay in the forest, where he dwells for
another twenty-two years, according to the story. He is treach-
erously killed by one of his relations, the prioress of Kjnrkesly,
who lets him bleed to death, when he comes to her to be let
blood. The poem ends with the stanza:

Cryst have mercy on his soule,
That dyed on the rodel
For he was a good outlawe.
And dyde pore men moch god'.

Clawson in his admirable treatise on the Gest has elaborated
the work of Child ® and Fricke ® about the original ballads on
which the Gest must have been based. We agree with the results
of his investigation in the main points.

The Gest may be divided into three principal parts. The
first division comprises fits I, II and IV, the story of the knight
and the payment of the debt. The second part consists of fits
III, V and VI, and describes Robin Hood's quarrel with the

sheriff, whereas the last part, fits VII and VIII, may aptly be
called the tale of Robin Hood and the King.

In the first division we have three principal features: 1. the
story of the knight, who is entertained by Robin and who
borrows 400 pounds on the surety of the Virgin; 2. the knight's
visit to St. Mary's Abbey; 3. the story of the monk, who is
entertained against his wish by Robin Hood and who is robbed
of 800 pounds. It is clear that there is a connection between the
story of the knight and that of the monk. Moreover, there are
many verbal agreements and contrasts, which prove that the
story of the monk has been used by the compiler as a foil to
the main tale of Robin Hood and the unfortunate knight. The
original ballad from which the story of the monk was taken
seems to have been concerned with two monks, as is proved by
certain discrepancies in stanza 213 ff.

stanza 213 Than were they ware of two blacke monkes,
lines 3—4 Eche on a good palferay.

stanza 214 I dare lay my lyfe to wedde

lines 3—4 That these monkes haue brought our pay.

hn^T ^^^nbsp;monke hath two and fifty men.

stanza 225 They brought the monke to the lodge-dore.
Whether he were loth or lefe.
For to speke with Robjm Hode,
Maugre in theyr tethe.

Fricke asserts that the ballad about the two monks was
the one underljdng this entire divisionthe story of the
knight having been modelled by the compiler himself after the
example of the Robin Hood and the monk story. We are more
inclined to accept Clawson's view that the two stories go back
to separate ballads The chief argument in favour of this as-

sumption is the existence of two similar stories, but unrelated,
in an earlier outlaw-tradition, viz. that of Eustache the Monk.
A merchant, who makes a correct declaration of the amount of
money he has with him, is allowed to keep it. An abbot, on the
other hand, hes about the amount and is robbed. The existence
of these stories separately in an older outlaw-tradition, makes it
extremely probable that similar tales were also told of Robin
Hood. The story of the knight's visit to St. Mary's Abbey in the
second fit shows some inconsistencies with regard to the first
fit, as Clawson has pointed out In the second fit the knight is
said to return from foreign countries, which does not tally with
the story in the first fit. Moreover, Little John goes with the
knight as his squire at the end of the first fit, but in the second
fit the knight has a large retinue and Little John is not mentioned
at all. So here again the compiler has made use of an older ballad
and skilfully inserted it in his plot.

The second division (fits III, V and VI) comprises: 1. the story
of Little John as the sheriff's man; 2. the sheriff's treachery at
the shooting-match; 3. the aid of Sir Richard at the Lee to the
outlaws; 4. the capture of this knight by the sheriff and his
dehverance by Robin Hood. The story of Little John as the
sheriff's man contains many typical outlaw-features, which
are also found in some of the extant ballads. The most important
of these features are the theme of the hero meeting his match
(the fight between Little John and the cook) and the capture of
the enemy under false pretences (Little John pretends to have
seen a fine stag and leads the sheriff to Robin Hood's haunt).
The first theme occurs in a number of Robin Hood ballads and
is one of the main features of later imitations. An earlier example
is found in the Gesta Herwardi, in the fight between Hereward
and Lethold the Saxon. This tradition has been combined with
the story of how the outlaw or one of his followers takes service
with the enemy. Whether Little John or Reynold Greenleaf

was the hero of the original ballad is of little importance.
The second adventure, the tricking of the enemy into entering
the outlaw's hiding-place, is found in two ballads, which are
closely related, viz. Robin Hood and the Potter, and Robin Hood
and the Butcher. In both poems Robin gets into a fight with
a tradesman, who has the best of the fight. They are reconciled
and Robin Hood disguises himself in the other's clothes. He
goes to the sheriff and fools him by teUing him, in the case of
Robin Hood and the Potter, that he knows Robin Hood's
hiding-place and, in the case of Robin and the Butcher, that he
has a herd of horned beasts in the forest. In both cases the sheriff
is allowed to depart unharmed. An eariier tradition, which is
closely connected with this version of the story, is found in the
story of Eustache the Monk. Here also the enemy is released
without any promise. The tradition which shows the closest resem-
blance to the adventure in fit III of the Gest is the story of
the capture of King John in the tale of Fulk Fitzwarin. Fulk
disguised as a charcoal-burner meets his enemy. King John, in
the forest. Fulk offers to show the king a large stag and leads
him into an ambush. The king is released after promising to
restore the outlaws to their possessions. In this case we also
meet with the promise, which does not occur in the ballads
mentioned above.

Robin Hood's next adventure with the sheriff, the latter's
treachery at the shooting-match, is clearly based on a simple
ballad, which probably ended in the outlaws' escape into the
woods. The compiler has connected this ballad with another
one about Robin Hood and a knight. Sir Richard at the Lee.
For the sake of unity the compiler identified Sir Richard with
the unnamed knight of the first section. That they are not one
the same person is proved by the fact that the unnamed knight
is said to Uve in Verysdale, at present Wyresdale to the south-
east of Lancaster, whereas Sir Richard must have lived in the

neighbourhood of Nottingham. The underlying ballad probably
treated of the capture and rescue of Sir Richard. This type of
rescue-ballad has also been handed down with relation to Robin
Hood in the baUad of Robin Hood rescuing Three Squires. It
occurs, besides, in the northern ballad of Adam Bell and in the
Tale of Gamelyn, — Gameljm's rescue of Sir Ote. Some discrepan-
cies between the connective stanza at the beginning of the sixth
fit and the stanzas about the capture and rescue increase the
probabiUty of a separate underlsdng ballad for the latter part
of this fit Fricke has attempted to prove that there are also
signs of a second ballad in this part of the sixth fit He assumes
quite correctly that stanza 333 does not fit in with the sequence
of the story.

332nbsp;Toke he (i.e. the sheriff) there this gentyll knight

With men of axmys stronge.
And led hym to Not5nigham warde,
Bounde bothe fote and hande.

333nbsp;The sheref sware a full grete othe,

Bi hym that dyed on rode.
He bad leuer than an hundred pound
That he had Robyn Hode.

334nbsp;This harde the knyghtes wyfe,

A fayr lady and a free;
She set hir on a gode palfrey.

To grene wode anone rode she.

Is is evident that stanza 333 is an interpolation, 332 and
334 making a perfect order. Fricke thinks, moreover, that
Robin Hood's hatred, as expressed in the latter part of the
sixth fit, could not have been caused only by such a secondary
event as the capture of the knight. Therefore he assumes the
influence of another ballad, which must have treated of Robin
Hood's revenge on the sheriff, because the latter had put a

price on his head. Beside stanza 333, which must be a remnant
of this ballad, stanza 329 must also have belonged to it. This is
proved, according to Fricke, by a comparison with the three
opening stanzas of the ballad of Robin Hood and the Butcher
(version A), which are acknowledged by everyone to be an
interpolation of some other ballad.

Robin Hood and the Butchernbsp;Gest, fit VI

1.nbsp;But Robin he walkes in the 329. Rob}^ Hode walked in the

greene fforrestnbsp;forest.

As merry as bird on boughe.nbsp;Under the leuys grene;

But he that feitches goodnbsp;Thereof he had grate tene.

Robin's head
Hee'le find him game enoughe

2.nbsp;But Robine he walkes in the

greene fforrest.
Under his trusty-tree;
Sayes, Hearken, hearken, my
merrymen all.
What tydings is come to me.

3.nbsp;The sheriffe he hath made a 333. The sheref sware a full grete

cry,nbsp;othe,

Hee'le have my head i-wis;nbsp;Bi hym that dyed on rode.

But ere a tweluemonth comenbsp;He had leuer than an hundred
to an end pound

I may chance to light on his.nbsp;That he had Robyn Hode.

We venture to raise the following objections against this
hypothesis. Robin Hood's anger against the sheriff is not at all
irrational in connection with the events described in the Gest.
The sheriff has broken his promise by treacherously attacking
Robin Hood at the shooting-match, which would seem a suffi-
ciently logical cause for Robin's hatred i®. Moreover, in the type
of capture-and-rescue ballad, to which the underlying ballad of fit
VI must have belonged, the sheriff is always killed (cf. Robin
Hood and the Monk, Robin Hood and Guy of Gisbome, Robin
Hood and the Three Squires, Adam Bell and the Tale of Game-
13m). So the killing of the sheriff is a standing feature in this

type of ballad and Robin's anger is logically explained by the
preceding events in the Gest. We agree with Fricke that the
three opening stanzas of Robin Hood and the Butcher must
have belonged to a ballad describing Robin Hood's revenge
and ending with the death of the sheriff (cf. the last hnes of
stanza 3). We fail to see clearly, however, the distinct similarity
between these stanzas and stanza 329 and 333 in the Gest. The
first two hnes of 329 are of too general a nature to be of any
value for a comparison; similar lines are found over and over
again in the Robin Hood ballads. The last two hnes of 329 have
no counterpart in the stanzas from Robin Hood and the Butcher,
and are entirely in keeping with the story in the Gest. The
meaning is that the sheriff is angry at Robin having escaped
him again. It is clear then that 329 cannot be separated from
the context of the sixth fit, as is the case with 333. The agreement
between the third stanza in the ballad and stanza 333 of the
Gest is also very slight. Besides, neither stanza speaks of the
sheriff having put a price on Robin's head. The phrase: He had
leuer than an hundred -pound That he had Robyn Hode, is only
used as a measure for the sheriff's hatred and desire to catch
the obnoxious outlaw. In a similar manner the phrase is used in
the ballad of Robin Hood and GuyofGisbome, when Guy says:

stanza 25 'I seeke an outlaw', quoth Sir Guy,
'Men call him Robin Hood
I had rather meet wit him upon a day
Then forty pound of golde.'

On these grounds we reject Fricke's hypothesis. The only
conclusion to be drawn is that stanza 333 of the Gest is an inter-
polation from another ballad and that stanzas 1—3 of Robin
Hood and the Butcher belong to a ballad describing Robin
Hood's revenge on the sheriff. Stanza 333 may also have be-
longed to this ballad, but there is no reason whatever for assuming

that the compiler has used two ballads for the latter part of the
sixth fit.

The last section (fit VII and VIII) narrates the meeting of
Robin Hood and the King, Robin Hood's visit to court and his
death. It is curious that no separate ballad has been handed
down of Robin Hood's meeting with the King, as the theme of
the King visiting his subjects in disguise has been celebrated
in numerous ballads and in connection with different kings.
Examples of the outlaw's pardon and his reception at court may
be found in the Gesta Herwardi, the Tale of Gamel5m and the
ballad of Adam Bell. The last stanzas of the Gest describing
Robin Hood's death seem to have been based on an older version
of the existing ballad of Robin Hood's Death.

From the above investigation, which is mainly based on the
work of Clawson, Child and Fricke, we see that the author or
compiler of the Gest took a number of ballads and ingeniously
fitted them together into a ballad-history of Robin Hood, often
changing his sources and inserting connective passages of his
own to obtain a greater unity.

From the geographical indications it is evident that the
underlying ballads belonged to different cycles. In the first
section (fit I, II, IV) the scene is laid in Bamesdale, in southern
Yorkshire, north of Doncaster. Verysdale, the home of the
unknown knight, hes to the south of Lancaster. The second
division (fit III, V, VI) evidently plays in the neighbourhood
of Nottingham, which lies about fifty miles farther south than
Bamesdale. The third division (fit VII, VIII) plays in the same
district, only the last few stanzas describing Robin Hood's death
belong to the Bamesdale cycle. Robin Hood's abode near Notting-
ham must have been the famous Sherwood forest, though the
name is not mentioned in the Gest. This forest, which all of the
later ballads and stories have connected with the name of
Robin Hood, hes just to the north of Nottingham and is mentioned

as Robin's hiding-place in the early ballad of Robin Hood
and the Monk. Wyntoun in his chronicle of Scotland i®, written
about 1420, says about Robin Hood

Ljrtill Ihon and Robyne Hude
Waythmen ware commendyd gude;
In Yngilwode and Bamysdale
Thai oysyd all his tyme thare trawale.

Inglewood or Englishwood was a forest between Carlisle
and Penrith in Cumberland, close to the Scottish border. It was
the abode of the three outlaws mentioned in the northern outlaw-
ballad of Adam Bell. The compiler of the Gest evidently made
use of the Barnesdale cycle as well £is the Sherwood cycle and
mixed them indiscriminately.

Beside the Gest the following ballads are of importance to
our investigation, either in representing the spirit of the old
Robin Hood cycle or in containing subject-matter, which shows
traces of an older stage of Robin Hood poetry:

1.nbsp;Robin Hood and the Monk

2.nbsp;Robin Hood and Guy of Gisbome

3.nbsp;Robin Hood and the Potter

4.nbsp;Robin Hood and the Butcher

5.nbsp;Robin Hood and the Ciurtal Friar

6.nbsp;Robin Hood's Death

7.nbsp;Robin Hood Newly Revived

1. Robin Hood and the Monk. This ballad is found in a MS of
the middle of the 15th century and is one of the oldest that
have been handed down. It is regarded by many critics as one
of the finest ballads of the English language. Before entering
into the peculiarities and merits of the poem, we shall give a
short s3aiopsis of the contents.

The ballad opens with the traditional description of the forest
in the month of May. Little John enjoys the weather, but Robin
Hood is sad, because he has not been to mas nor matyn for more
than a fortnight. He decides to go to Nottingham with pe
myght of mylde Marye. Much advises him to take twelve men
with him, but Robin will not hear of it, and will only allow
Little John to accompany him. On the way they shoot for
pennies and Little John wins five shillings from his master.
Robin denies the fact and after a short altercation Little John
leaves him and goes back to Sherwood. Robin Hood continues
his journey alone and arrives at St. Mary's church and says his
prayers. He is recognized by a monk, who apprises the sheriff
of the fact. All the gates of the town are shut and the sheriff
attacks Robin Hood with a large body of men. Robin is sorry
now that he has quarreled with Little John, whose aid would
have stood him in good stead. He defends himself bravely, but
at last he breaks his sword on the head of the sheriff. The next
passage is obscure on account of a great number of stanzas
having dropped out. Apparently Little John and the rest of
Robin's followers have received the news that their master has
been captured. They are in very low spirits and only Little John
is not discouraged and trusts in Our Lady, saying that she will
never let Robin Hood die in this miserable way. Somehow the
outlaws have got word that the same monk, who has betrayed
Robin, is on his way to the court as a messenger. Little John
and Much waylay him and after kiUing the traitor, they take the
sheriff's letters to the king. The latter greatly rejoices at the
capture of the dangerous outlaw and sends them back to Notting-
ham with the message that Robin Hood is to be brought to court
alive. The disappearance of the monk is explained to the sheriff
by Little John by the fact that the king liked him so much that
he made him abbot of Westminster! The two comrades rescue
Robin at night, while the sheriff is heavy with wine. Robin Hood

and Little John are, of course, reconciled, and the latter stays
with the outlaws. The king is angry, because he has been fooled
by Little John, but he admires his staunch adherence to his
master, Robin Hood.

The moral of the ballad hes in the unselfishness of Little John,
who sets aside his personal grievances to save his master. The
poem is written in a fine ballad-strain and Robin is again depicted
as a thoroughly religious person, who puts his trust in the
Virgin. We possess a similar story of the same period in Bower's
interpolation of Fordun's Scotichronicon Robin has masses
sung regularly at Bamesdale. One day the sheriff and his men
are planning an attack. Robin is wamed, but refuses to
fly and with a few men he utterly defeats the sheriff's force.
This event only strengthens his piety. The tale in the Scoti-
chronicon is obviously based upon a lost baUad of the same
nature as the one we are discussing.

There is a controversial point about the the first two lines of
the thirtieth stanza, where the gap in the manuscript begins.
Two readings have been suggested for the first line of this stanza,
which seems to be almost illegible. Madden's reading runs:

Robjms men to the churche ran

whereas Skeat reads:

Robyn into the churche ran

The last reading is the more logical one, as there is no clue
as to where Robin's men should come from all of a sudden. The
preceding stanzas describe Robin's single-handed fight against
the sheriff and his men, and the gap occurs just when he is on
the point of being captured. The lost stanzas must have con-
tained Robin Hood's capture and the delivery of a message to
his followers, relating his imprisonment and the intended journey
of the monk. The rest of the story is told quite consecutively.

Fricke has followed Madden's reading and in building another

hypothesis on this obscure hne, has entered upon dangerous
ground, in our opinion He asserts that Robin Hood and the
Monk is an extended form of an older ballad of which the
context must have been about as follows: Robin goes to Notting-
ham to say his prayers, he is recognized and betrayed by a monk.
He fights single-handed against the sheriff and his men, but is
finally rescued by his own men. How his followers came to the
rescue is not clear, Fricke states that a stanza is probably lost,
telling of Robin blowing his horn. We consider Fricke's explana-
tion forced, to say the least of it, especially as it is based upon
such a weak fovmdation as a questionable interpretation of a
line. Another reason for his hypothesis is the last stanza, which
runs:

Thus endys the talkyng of the munke
And Rob3m Hode i-wysse;
God pat is ever a crowned kyng,
Bryng us all to his blisse.

Fricke asserts that this is the end of the ballad as reconstructed
by him, since there is no reason for speaking especially of the
monk, who is only one of the minor personages in the present story.
We agree with Fricke that this stanza may have been taken
from another ballad, but we do not think this sufficient reason
for building up a h)7pothesis of the above kind. Moreover, the
intrigue of the ballad runs on perfectly smoothly, if we accept
Skeat's reading, so there is no need of such a far-fetched ex-
planation.

The present ballad has a close affinity to the northern ballad
of Adam Bell, Clim of the Clough and WiUiam of Cloudesley.
These three outlaws Uved in Inglewood near Carlisle in the same
manner as Robin Hood and his fellows. William is married and
against the advice of Adam Bell, he goes and visits his wife at
Carlisle. He is betrayed by an old woman, who Hves at his
house. William is besieged by the justice and his men, who in the

end set fire to the house. WiUiam's wife and children escape
through the window, but the outlaw himself keeps on shooting
till his bow-string is burnt in two. He is at last overpowered
and put in prison. All the gates are shut and a new pair
of gallows is erected for his hanging. A little boy brings the
news to Adam and Chm in the woods. They manage to get
into the town by showing the porter a letter, which is supposed
to bear the king's seal. They kill the porter and take his keys.
WiUiam is rescued in the nick of time, and the justice and the
sheriff are killed by the arrows of the two outlaws. After a great
skirmish they get out of the town by the gate of which they
have the keys, and escape to the greenwood. This is only a part of
the ballad, the rest tells of their sojourn at court and their
shooting-achievements. The outline of the above part of the
ballad is the same as that of the ballad of Robin and the Monk.
The hero goes to the town of his chief enemy, in the one case
to pay his devotions, in the other to see his wife. He is betrayed
and overpowered by his enemy. His fellows rescue him in the
disguise of the king's messengers. It is evident that the two
stories originally rely on the same tradition, which proves that
the rescue of the hero by his comrades in the disguise of the
king's messengers is an essential part of the story. According to
our point of view this conclusion effectually establishes the
unsoundness of Fricke's hypothesis.

The last point to be discussed is the stanza in which the monk
betrays Robin Hood to the sheriff:

Jgt;is trajrtur name is Robyn Hode,
Under {)e grene-wode l5mde;
He robbyt me onys of a hundred pound.
Hit shalle never out of my mynde.

Childquot; asserts in opposition to Frickequot; that this stanza does
not necessarily refer to the story of Robin Hood and the monk.

as it is narrated in the fourth fit of the Gest. He asserts that
there were probably several tales about the outlaws robbing
the clergy. Fricke considers this stanza to be a remnant of an
older version of the story in the Gest, the sum of a hundred
pound being changed to eight hundred on account of the amount
of the knight's debt. We have seen already, however, that
Fricke has quite correctly suggested that the tale in the Gest
was probably based on a story containing two monks. We do
not understand how Fricke intends to reconcile these two
contrasting conclusions.

2. RoUn Hood and Guy of Gisborne. The opening stanzas of the
poem again contain the usual spring-scenery. Robin seems
to have had a dream of being bound and beaten by two young
men, though the context is not entirely clear on account of a
stanza having dropped out. Robin Hood and Little John go out
to find the two yeomen of the dream. They meet a man, well-
armed, leaning against a tree. Robin quarrels with Little
John about the question of who is to accost the man and Little
John goes back to Bamesdale. Great disaster has befallen
the other outlaws in the meanwhile, for they have been routed
by the sheriff and his men. Little John wants to take one shot
at them, but his bow breaks and, though the arrow kills one of
the sheriff's followers. Little John is taken prisoner. He is bound
to a tree and the sheriff assures him that he will hang on a high
hill.

In the meantime Robin has greeted the stranger and the
latter tells him that he is looking for Robin Hood. They hold a
shooting-match in which Robin shows his mastery. The stranger
is astonished at the other's skill and asks his name. Robin tells
him who he is, and the stranger turns out to be Guy of Gisborne.
Swords are drawn and for a long time the fight is undecided,
but in the end Guy is killed. Robin cuts off his enemy's head.

disfigures it with his sword, so that it cannot be recognized
and sticks it on his bow. He then puts on Guy's clothes and
throws his green coat over the body. The sheriff hearing the
sound of Guy's horn, joj^ully calls out that Robin Hood is
slain. Robin goes to the sheriff and the latter thinking it is Guy,
readily grants his request that he may also kill the knave, now
that he has killed the master. Robin Hood releases his com-
panion, gives him Guy's bow and together they put the sheriff's
company to flight. Little John kills the flying sheriff.

This ballad seems to be a counterpart to the preceding one.
Robin again quarrels with Little John, but now he is able to
repay his companion by rescuing him from the sheriff. There
are some inconsistencies in the poem, which point to the story
being made up of different ballads. The most striking is the
fact that Robin Hood disguises himself in Guy's clothes with
the obvious intention of rescuing Little John, whereas there
is no sign in the ballad that he knows anything about the mis-
fortune that has befallen his comrade.

The most probable solution is that the present ballad is based
upon two older ballads, which described: 1. the capture and the
rescue of Little John; 2. Robin Hood's fight with Guy of Gisborne.
The fact that Barnesdale is mentioned in the first part of the
poem as Robin's haunt is an indication that the tradition about
Robin Hood and Guy belongs to the Barnesdale-cycle, whereas
the capture of Little John by the sheriff of Nottingham must
have been a part of the Sherwood-cycle. An earher example of
the principal theme of this ballad is found in the tale of Fulk
Fitzwarin. Fulk at one time kills his pursuers, except their
chief. Sir James of Normandy, who is bound and gagged and put
into Fulk's armour. They dress up in the armour of the vanquished
knights and go to King John. The latter taking them to be
Sir James and his knights, is very pleased and intends to hang
the supposed Fulk. The real Fulk gets the king's horse to pursue

the rest of the outlaws. At the last moment the trick is discovered,
when the hehnet of the captured Fulk is taken off and Sir James
is found in the armour.

The principal features of this episode are the same as those
in the story of Robin Hood and Guy: 1. the fight with the enemies
sent in pursuit; 2. the disguise in the clothes of the pursuers;
3. the chief-enemy, fooled by the disguise. This proves that the
theme was evidently based on an old outlaw-tradition. The
capture-and-rescue theme which forms the basis of the other
part of the ballad is one of the stock incidents in outlaw-tradition
(cf. the sixth fit of the Gest). A dramatic fragment, based upon
Robin Hood and Guy of Gisbome, preserved in a MS of 1475
or possibly a little earlier, is another proof of the antiquity of
the ballad.

3. Rohin Hood and the Potter. After the usual 'spring-open-
ing' the poem describes Robin meeting a potter. He wagers
for forty shillings with Little John that he will floor the fellow.
Little John is not so sure, as he has already experienced the
fellow's strength on a former occasion. The potter with his
stick manages to overcome Robin, who fights with sword and
buckler. Little John and his companions come to the rescue and
Robin Hood admits that he has lost his wager. The potter
makes friends with the outlaws and Robin changes clothes with
him and goes to Nottingham with the potter's cart to play his
pranks. As he sells the pots too cheap, he is sold out in a moment's
time, except for five pieces of crockery which he presents to
the sheriff's wife. On account of this present he is invited to
dinner at the sheriff's. After dinner they go to a shooting-match
and everybody is surprised at the potter's skill in archery. The
potter tells the sheriff that he has often shot with Robin Hood
in the forest and at the sheriff's request he promises to take
him to Robin Hood's retreat next day. When they arrive in the

woods, Robin blows his hom and Little John and his fellows
come running along at a brisk pace, when they hear the familiar
sound. The sheriff realizes that he has been fooled by the supposed
potter, but it is too late for escape. He is allowed to return to
Nottingham, however, without his horse and his money. Robin
gives him a white palfrey to present to his wife in return for
her hospitality. The potter is paid for his pottery by Robin
and invited to stay with ifhe outlaws, whenever he comes their
way.nbsp;f

Robin Hood and the Potter is the oldest ballad to describe
the famiUar story of Robin Hood meeting his match. Gradually
a whole string of these ballads arose connecting Robin Hood
with some locally famous man, and Robin Hood often cuts a
very poor figure and is sometimes ignominously defeated in
these poor imitations of the older cycle.

The poem, which is preserved in a MS of the end of the 15th
century, presents the following features: 1. Robin Hood meets
his match; 2. Robin Hood fools the sheriff in the disguise of a
potter; 3. Robin magnanimously lets the sheriff off. Sub 1 has
been connected with outlaw-traditions from the time of Here-
ward, as we have seen above, when speaking of Little John's
fight with the cook in the third fit of the Gest. Sub 2 and 3
also occur in the same fit of the Gest, though the Gest in both
cases presents a slightly different form of the traditions (cf.
above).

4. Robin Hood and the Butcher. This ballad is based for the
greater part upon the preceding ballad. The oldest version
of the ballad tells of Robin meeting a butcher and getting
into a fight again, because he has killed the latter's dog. Again
it is battle between a sword and a staff, but we have to guess
at the result, as some stanzas have dropped out, which must
have described the fight and the change of clothes in a similar

fashion as in Robin Hood and the Potter. After the gap Robin
appears to be in Nottingham, disguised as a butcher. He lodges
again at the sheriff's house and sells his meat too cheap. A
second gap occurs, which seems to have contained a conversation
with the sheriff about cattle, which the latter wants to buy
from Robin. Robin leads the sheriff and seven butchers to the
forest and shows them a herd of deer. These are my horned beasts,
he says, and at the same time he blows his horn. His companions
come running along and the gap in the manuscript that follows
probably contained a similar conversation as takes place in
Robin and the Potter. The sheriff is saved by the hospitality
his wife has shown Robin and allowed to return home with the
loss of his money.

The resemblance between this ballad and the preceding one is
obvious and it is clearly modelled along the same lines as the
older ballad.

1.nbsp;Robin fights with the butcher in the same way as he fights
with the potter and he is probably overcome in the same
manner, though the description of the fight is lacking in
the present ballad.

2.nbsp;He sells his meat too cheap, just as he did the pots in the
preceding ballad.

3.nbsp;He lodges at the sheriff's house in both cases.

4.nbsp;The sheriff is beguiled into going into the forest with the
supposed potter as well as with the supposed butcher.

5.nbsp;The sheriff is suffered to go home with only the loss of his
money on account of his wife's hospitality.

The only interesting point about this ballad is the fact that
the three opening stanzas seem to belong to another ballad.
These stanzas state the fact that the sheriff wants to kill Robin
Hood, but that within a year's time Robin may take the sheriff's
head. Fricke has taken these stanzas to be the beginning of a
ballad on Robin Hood's revenge on the sheriff, the end of

which would be Robin's attack on the sheriff in the sixth fit
of the Gest. As we have already discussed the merits of Fricke's
hypothesis, there is no reason for entering upon this question
once more.

5. Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar. The oldest version, pre-
served in the Percy MS, presents the same difficulties as the
preceding ballad, viz. that gaps occur at regular intervals
on account of the lower halves of the leaves having been
cut off. There are later versions, which apparently did not
differ appreciably from the older version and which supply
us with a large part of the subject-matter of the lost
stanzas.

Robin Hood hears of a curtal (cutted?) friar of Fountains
Abbey who can shoot better than Little John and Robin to-
gether, according to Scarlok's report. Robin vows neither to
eat nor to drink till he has met this man. They meet him on
the banks of a stream and Robin goes to him, while the others
remain concealed in a fern-brake. He accosts the friar and asks
him to carry him across the stream. The friar does so, but on
the opposite bank he threatens to kill Robin, if he does not
carry him back. Robin in his turn carries the monk over and
again Robin asks the monk to take him across. The friar does
not say a word, takes him on his back and drops him in the
middle of the river. Both of them swim to the shore, where Robin
Hood draws his bow, but the friar wards off Robin's arrows with
his buckler till they are all spent. They fight from ten o'clock
in the morning till four in the afternoon without coming to a
decision and then Robin asks for a favour, viz. to blow his
horn. The friar tells him to blow till his eyes fall out. At the
horn-signal fifty yeomen come running along; the friar now
blows in his fist and fifty bandogs come all on a rowe. The friar
wants to match a dog against each man, but Robin stays him

and makes his peace with the strong monk, inviting him to
become one of his followers.

The story of the dogs is told differently in the later version,
where they tear Robin's cloak from his back and catch the
arrows aimed at them in their mouths. This is apparently
a fantastical innovation of a later writer.

The ballad is another example of the hero meeting his match,
as it is likewise described in Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin
Hood and the Butcher and in the third fit of the Gest, where
Little John meets his equal in the sheriff's cook. All of these
ballads are of course apt to show similarity in some of the
details.

The ballad was entitled in the Percy MS: Robin Hood and
Friar Tuck. This title must be a later addition of a cop)dst,
because there is no sign in the ballad itself that the friar of
Fountains Abbey is identical with Friar Tuck. The title was
inserted after Robin had been connected with Friar Tuck on
account of the May-games. The unknown friar was replaced
by the better-known Friar Tuck, a common procedure. It is
uncertain whether the friar was a cutted friar, i.e. a Franciscan
with a short frock, as he is called in the older version, or a
curtal friar, as the name is in the later version. Curtal may
mean the same as cutted or according to Child, may be derived
from curtilarius meaning someone taking care of the curtile or
kitchen-garden

6. Robin Hood's Death. This ballad, preserved in the Percy
MS, has the same defects as the other ballads of this collection,
viz. that there are several gaps on account of the lower halves
of the leaves having been cut off. The later version is of httle
use in this case, because the lost stanzas evidently contained
features that are not preserved in the later version. The ballad
describes Robin Hood's death in a similar manner as the account

handed down in the Gest, only with more detail. The present
ballad and the latter part of the Gest are probably based upon
the same original. The fact that the Red Roger of the ballad
is called Roger of Doncaster in the Gest shows that the notice
in the Gest is not directly derived from the present ballad. This
conclusion is, moreover, corroborated by the way the name of the
nunnery is spelled in the two stories. In the baUad the speUing
is Churchlees, in the Gest Kyrkesly. The latter being the original
place name and the other only a southern form of it, the more
concise story of the Gest cannot be directly derived from the
present poem.

Robin Hood feels iU and wants to go to Churchlees to be let
blood. Scarlok warns him to be careful and take fifty bowmen
with him, just as Robin is wamed in other baUads before going
on a dangerous expedition. Robin says he will take Little John
with him to carry his bow. Exactly hke in Robin Hood and the
Monk, Little John tells him to carry his own bow and proposes
to shoot for a penny. They arrive at a black water with a plank
across it, on which an old woman is uttering imprecations
against Robin Hood. Robin asks her why she does so, but
the answer will never be known on account of a gap. The miss-
ing stanzas seem to have contained the conversation with the
witch and possibly with another person. The ballad continues
with an imperfect stanza:

'To give to Robin Hoode;

Wee weepen for his deare body,

That this day must be lett bloode.'

Robin Hood is not afraid, however, because the prioress of
Churchlees is his cousin and nie unto his kinne. He presents her
with twenty pounds and promises more, if she needs it. The
prioress prepares her irons and performs the operation, but
Robin soon understands that he has been betrayed. He sees the

thin blood coming after the thick has stopped running. Little
John asks:

•What cheere my master?' said Little John.
'In faith, John, litle goode;

At this point the second gap in the MS occurs. In the missing
stanzas Robin evidently meets Red Roger of Doncaster, the
paramour of the prioress, who has probably had a hand in the
plot. The story continues with Red Roger thrusting his sword
through Robin's side, but the latter is still quite strong and cuts
the traitor's head off. Little John asks leave to set fire to the
nunnery, but Robin does not want to hurt any woman, even if
she has betrayed him. Little John is enjoined to take him on
his back and make a full fayre grave, of gravell and of greete.
Robin's sword is to lie at his head, his bow at his side and his
arrows at his feet.

It is a pity that the ballad is defective, because the meeting
with the witch, for instance, is rather a curious point, which has
no parallel in any of the other Robin Hood ballads. The situation
after the second gap is not clear and the later version is of no
avail here, because Red Roger and the witch are both missing
in it. Little John is apprised of his master's plight by a faint
blowing of the horn in the later ballad.

7. RoUn Hood Newly Revived. This ballad is of a much later
date and is only mentioned here, because it contains allusions
to the Tale of Gamelyn. It treats again the story of Robin
Hood meeting his match. In this case his antagonist turns
out to be Young Gamwell, a cousin of his. The latter says:

For killing my father's steward,
I am forc'd to this Englishwood
And for to seek an uncle of mine
Some call him Robin Hood.

Robin greatly rejoices at this unexpected meeting and says
to Little John:

But he shall be a bold yeman of mine.
My chief man next to thee'.
And I Robin and thou Little John
And Scarlet he shall be.

Young Gamwell must be young Gamel}^ of the Tale of
Gamel)^. There are other similarities which point to the same
conclusion, beside the coincidence of the names. Line 686 in
Gamel}^:

He (the king of outlaws) made him master under him over hem alle

may be said to agree with the first two lines of the last quoted
stanza. As Little John was already known to the author of the
ballad as Robin Hood's chief man, Gamwell could only become
Robin's second aide-de-camp. In the Tale of Gamelyn the
hero and Adam Spencer fly to the woods, because they have
killed the porter and broken the heads of several of the sheriff's
men. In Robin Hood Newly Revived the reason for Young
Gamwell's flight is the killing of his father's steward. There is a
distinct agreement, but at the same time it is obvious that the
ballad is not based on the Tale of Gamelyn, because then there
would have been a closer adherence to the facts as given in the
Tale. The author of the present 17th century ballad may have
had access to an older tradition which treated of the relation
between Gamel}^ and Robin Hood, or he may have modelled
his poem after the example of another 17th century ballad, viz.
Robin Hood and Little John. This ballad describes how Little
John became a member of Robin's outlaw-band. We also meet
with the feature of the change of name, John Little being dubbed
Little John. The evidence of the Tale of Gamelyn points to the
fact that there must have been an old tradition about the relation

between Robin Hood and Gamel5m, of which no mention has
been made in the ballads of the older Robin Hood cycle that
have been handed down. It seems doubtful whether the present
ballad is based on this tradition; we prefer the assumption that
it was written as a parallel to the ballad of Robin Hood and
Little John to account for the connection between Scarlok or
Scarlet and the outlaws. That the story of Gamelyn was still
known at the end of the 16th century is proved by the use
Lodge and Shakespeare made of it for dramatic purposes. The
belief that the outlaws lived under assumed names may be
illustrated by the tendency in the 16th century and later to
identify Robin Hood with some famous nobleman of the 14th
century.

After this discussion of the contents of the older Robin Hood bal-
lads and their internal relation, two questions remain to be decided :
the origin and evolution of this cycle during the Middle Ages
and the origin of Robin Hood as a person. As the former question
is treated in the next chapter, we shall only concern ourselves
with the second. The following are the theories that have been
propounded on the subject:

1.nbsp;Robin Hood is a mythical personage.

2.nbsp;Robin Hood is a historical person.

3.nbsp;Robin Hood is a fictitious character originating in the popular
imagination.

Various German philologists have attempted to prove that
Robin Hood is identical with Wodan. One of the chief exponents
of this theory is Kuhn who tried to trace the name of the
ballad-hero to a sort of Kentish traditional masquerade during
the winter-season, the principal feature being a hobby-horse,
consisting of the wooden head of a horse nailed to a pole about
four feet long. To this head a cover was attached, in which the

horseman concealed himself. This sport was called hooding or
hoodening, which obviously means covering, as it does in old-
fashioned Enghsh hooding-cloth, a curtain. Why this hobby-
horse or its rider are to be identified with Robin Hood only on
account of a slight and mistaken similarity in name, is as much
a puzzle to us as it was to Child, who entirely refuted Kuhn's
arguments in his preface to the Gest Moreover, it remains
an open question whether this Kentish hobby-horse is really
a reUc of Wodan.

Thos. Wright has based his arguments for the mythical
point of view on Robin Hood's connection with the May-games
and on the fact that his name has been used for all kinds of
trees, mounds and stones all over England But as we have
already seen above, Robin Hood originally had no connection
whatever with the May-games and his appearance together with
Friar Tuck and Maid Marian in these festivals is of a later
date. Of the geographical names containing the name Robin
Hood, there is not one that is actually proved to be older than
any of the older ballads about Robin Hood, so it is clear that
these names were invented long after the period when the
ballads originated.

The historical theory, which was for the first time expounded
by Ritson22, is also built on weak foundations. Ritson even
affixed a life of Robin Hood to his edition of the ballads. He
assembled his material for this biography from various historians
from the 15th century onwards, without reahsing that these
accounts had all been based upon ballads and been furnished
with purely arbitrary dates (cf. Child) In this way Wyntoun
in his chronicle of Scotland (about 1420) assigned the date 1283
to Robin, because he probably knew a ballad about Robin Hood
and King Edward, whom he supposed to be Edward I. Bower
takes Robin Hood to be one of the followers of Simon de Mont-
fort, without giving any plausible reason. Major is somewhat

more careful in his utterances and places Robin Hood in the
reign of Richard I, circa haec tempora, ut auguror The usual
date assigned to Robin by the adherents of the historical theory,
is the latter half of the 12th century. Grafton adds to these
various pseudo-historical narratives the fact that Robin was of
noble birth, a supposition that has entered in all subsequent
accounts The most extensive of these older biographies occurs
in the 16th century Sloane MS. We take the liberty of referring
to Fricke 2®, who has conclusively proved that the Sloane MS
is entirely based upon the ballads and the older chronicles,
thus having no value as an independent source. In Munday's
tragedy. The Downfall and the Deathe of Robert, Earle of Hunting-
ton, otherwise called Robin Hood (1601), the author has gone still
further, and from a man of noble birth, Robin has become Earl
of Huntingdon

The principal objection to the historical theory is that the
eariiest mention of Robin Hood in chronicles or other historical
works dates of the beginning of the 15th century and that
there is no trace of him in any of the histories contemporaneous
with his supposed life-time, either during the reign of Richard
I or under Edward I. So we may with fairly great certainty
assume that all entries in the 15th century chronicles are based
on ballads, some of which have been handed down and others
which have presumably been lost. Moreover, we have attempted
to show in the preceding pages that Robin Hood is not a political
personage, but a traditional character, which has gradually been
developed in the popular imagination from the time of the
Conquest.

This brings us to the third theory, which is adhered to by
Child, Kiessmann Fricke and others. As Child puts it: Robin
Hood is absolutely a creation of the ballad muse. From the dis-
cussion above it is evident that several standing features of the
Robin Hood poetry were already popular in the 13th century.

They were even of such widespread interest that they were
embodied in such hterary works as the stories of Fulk Fitzwarin
and Eustache the Monk. It is clear that the adventures of Robin
Hood and his band are entirely traditional. The name may have
belonged to a historical outlaw-figure, around whose name the
traditional outlaw-matter was grouped. This outlaw must have
Uved in the 14th century, as the author of the Tale of Gamelyn
does not mention the name yet, and because the notice about Robin
Hood in Langland's Piers Ploughman cannot be earlier than
1377 2». On the other hand, the name may be entirely fictitious
or the invention of some minstrel or gleeman, who may possibly
have corrupted it from a name like Robin of the Wood or Robin
of the Hood. The derivation of the name will always remain a
hypothetical question, but Robin Hood's character as it is
revealed to us in the ballads we may safely assume to have
been developed by popular imagination and by tradition.

CHAPTER IV

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH
OUTLAW-MATTER

Two outlaw-stories that have already been mentioned in
connection with the Gest and that also offer an interesting
comparison with the Robin Hood matter in other ways, are
the tales of Fulk Fitzwarin^ and Eustache the Monk^, both of the
beginning of the 13th century.

Fulk Fitzwarin was a nobleman of the reign of King John
(1199—1216), who was outlawed by this tyrannical king for
some futile reason. His adventures seem to have been record-
ed quite early in French and English verse, but only a para-
phrase of the former version has been handed down in a MS
of the end of the 13th century. The adventures of the baron
and his band of loyal followers are partly of a romantic nature
and partly of a popular character. Only the latter are of
interest to us, as an illustration of the outlaw-stories, that
circulated in the beginning of the 13th century. In Fulk's
adventures as a forest-outlaw the following points are note-
worthy:

1.nbsp;Fulk never injured anyone but the king and his agents.

2.nbsp;Fulk and his companions take refuge in an abbey. He goes
out to meet his pursuers in the dress of an old monk and
puts them on the wrong track.

3.nbsp;Shortly afterwards Fulk is insulted by Sir Gyrard de Malf^e

and ten knights; he strikes the knight with his monk's
staff and with the aid of his companions he captures their
horses and rides off on them.

4.nbsp;He reverses his horse-shoes to mislead his pursuers.

5.nbsp;One of Fulk's followers, John de Rampaigne, at various
times puts on disguises to spy upon the enemy or to rescue
companions. These adventures are mostly of a romantic
nature.

6.nbsp;Fulk in the disguise of a charcoal-burner, meets king John
and three knights hunting in Windsor Forest. He pretends
to lead them to a stag, but brings them to the spot, where
his companions are lying in ambush. The king is released
on the promise of pardoning Fulk and restoring his heritage,
but the king breaks his promise.

7.nbsp;The capture of Sir James of Normandy and the fooUng of
the king (cf. p. 63).

Sub 6 we have already met in a later form in the third fit
of the Gest. Sub 7 is closely connected with the tradition
underlying the ballad of Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne.
The other features are not found in the Robin Hood ballads, but
recur in the stories of Eustache the Monk and Hereward. This
relation will be treated below.

That the Anglo-Norman prose-version of Fulk Fitzwarin
was indebted to popular tradition of a similar character as
the Robin Hood matter is shown by the fact that the story
opens in very much the same manner as many of the older Robin
Hood ballads:

En le temps de Averyl e may, quant les prees e les herbes reverdissent,
et chescune chose vivaunte recovre vertue, beaute e force, les mountz
e les valeys retentissent des douce chauntz des oseylouns. e les cuers de
chescune gent, pur la beaute du temps e la sesone, mountent en haut o
8'enjolyvent......

This similarity was already remarked upon by Child ».

The first one to point out the existence of a body of Enghsh
outlaw-tradition in Eustache the Monk was Jordan in his
interesting article on the sources and composition of this story
The story of Eustache the Monk, as it has been handed down in
a French MS of the 13th century, contains a network of fiction
woven around a historical figure, just as in the case of Hereward
and Fulk Fitzwarin. This rather fantastical conglomeration of
tales may be divided into three parts:

1.nbsp;tales of magic, describing Eustache's study at Toledo.

2.nbsp;adventures on land, describing Eustache's struggle against
the Count of Boulogne and his life as a forest-outlaw.

3.nbsp;his adventures as a pirate.

Jordan has quite conclusively proved that sub 3 contains
the historical foundation of the story and that part 1 and 2 have
been added later. We shall confine ourselves to 2, as it is the
only part that is of importance in connection with the present
discussion. By comparing the second part of Eustache with a
typical French compilation-novel of the same period, the Trubert-
story, Jordan has arrived at the conclusion that this part of
Eustache is not of French origin, as the erotic element, which
plays such an important part in the Trubert-tale, is entirely
lacking in Eustache. As Eustache figured as a historical
personage at the court of King John and as the reliable historical
data about him are all found in English chronicles and statepapers,
it is only natural to look to England for the source of the second
part of the present story. It will be seen that Eustache's adven-
tures have a great similarity to the forest-outlaw tradition current
in England in the 13th century.

A further circumstance, which adds probability to this theory,
is a pohtical incongruity, which occurs in one of Eustache's
adventures in the forests of Boulogne and which seems to be a
relic from the Enghsh original. Eustache has at one time been

captured by his enemy, the count, but instead of passing judg-
ment himself, the latter sends Eustache to the king at Paris
to be tried and, of course, the outlaw escapes during the transport.
It is difficult to understand why Eustache should be sent to
the king, as the count in feudal France certainly had the power
to pass judgment on him. Jordan's theory that this is a remnant
of the English original, in which the sheriff was much more
subordinate to the royal power than the count would have been,
seems to us a plausible solution (cf. Robin Hood and the Monk
and the sixth fit of the Gest). Jordan concludes from these facts
that Eustache the Monk must have originated as an Anglo-Nor-
man work, just like Fulk Fitzwarin, and that the present MS
is only a later French version of the same. Jordan has made the
following list of features in the second section of Eustache and
compared them with corresponding ones in Fxilk Fitzwarin and
the Robin Hood ballads.

1. Generosity as a robber

Eustache meets a merchant, but does not rob him of his
possessions, because he has made a correct declaration
of his money. Afterwards an abbot is captured, but he
lies and is only allowed to keep as much as he has declared,
the rest is confiscated.

Robin Hood does exactly the same to the knight and the
monk in the first and fourth fit of the Gest respectively.

The fact that in Eustache the two stories have no connection
whatever with each other, proves that Fricke's hypothesis
about the derivation of the knight's story from that of the monk
is wrong. Clawson correctly asserts that, as the two stories are
entirely separated in the older work, they must also have been
derived from two separate ballads in the Gest and that it is the
compiler who is responsible for the connection between the two
(cf. p. 50).

2. Generosity towards the arch-enemy

Eustache beguiles the count of Boulogne into entering
the wood and at another time he captures Hainfroy, his
personal enemy. Both of them are released after the meal.

We have pointed above to similar stories in the third fit
of the Gest and in the ballads of Robin Hood and the Potter,
and Robin Hood and the Butcher as well as the adventure of
Fulk in the disguise of a charcoal-burner. Jordan asserts that
Eustache again represents the older form of the story, because
the enemies are released according to the tradition that people
who have been entertained at a meal are not to be injured, a
remnant of the old Germanic inviolabihty of guests. Fulk and
the Gest of Robin Hood both add the promise-feature to account
for the release. A similar tradition occurs in the Hereward-
story, in which Turold is captured and released after paying
an enormous ransom and after promising to do no harm to
Hereward and his band. The feature of the meal is absent. A
curious point about the tradition which contains the promise-
feature, is that the promise is always broken. This points to
the conclusion that a revenge-theme is probably closely connected
with this release-and-promise feature.

3.nbsp;The hero as revenger

Eustache kills two of the enemy for every person that is
killed on his side. This feature is found in none of the other
traditions.

4.nbsp;Reversed horse-shoes and horse-stealing

Both features occur in Eustache and Fulk and are also of
frequent occurrence in the story of Hereward. They do not
occur in the Robin Hood matter.

5.nbsp;Capture and rescue

Eustache: cf. the adventure mentioned on page 78, where

he escapes during the transport to Paris.

Compare the ballad of Robin and the Monk.

In the case of the ballad of Robin Hood and the Monk Jordan
has based his conclusions upon Fricke's hypothesis, which we
have already shown to be improbable (cf. p. 60). Just like
Fricke, he supposes a mixture of two ballads: 1. church-going,
capture and rescue; 2. capture and rescue. The contents of older
traditions prove, however, that the various features of the ballad
belong to one theme.

6.nbsp;Punishment of a treacherous priest

Eustache punishes a priest who has betrayed him.

Jordan, accepting Fricke's hypothesis, sub 5, supposes
that Robin Hood killed the priest in the original of Robin
Hood and the Monk. We object to this theory on the same
grounds as we object to Fricke's h5^othesis. Moreover, the
coincidence would be too shght to be of much importance.

7.nbsp;Disguise

This theme has been so generally used in all periods of hterature,
that one has to be very careful in using it to prove a connection
between different works. It occurs repeatedly in all three of the
traditions under discussion. The similarity of the person in disguise
to the real person is stressed in Eustache several times. It also
occurs in Hereward's spying in King WiUiam's camp. Another
similarity may be found in the cases where the hero assumes
the disguise of a merchant (Eustache: potter; Robin Hood:
potter and butcher) and proves to be a bad one (Eustache
breaks his pots, Robin sells his stock too cheap).

These two Anglo-Norman tales complete our survey of the
growth of English outlaw-tradition from the time of the Norman
Conquest to the middle of the 14th century. As early as the 12th
century the exploits of outlaws were celebrated in popular
songs, as may be inferred from the following quotation from the
Gesta Herwardi:

____ mulieres ac puellae de eo (i.e. Hereward) in choris canebant.

That the popularity of the subject was not confined to the
common people during the Middle Ages, is further attested
by the use of the traditional outlaw-matter in more literary
works like the tales of Fulk Fitzwarin and Eustache the Monk.

We are now in a position to trace the development of the
English outlaw-tradition. In the Hereward-story we have found
the following leading features:

1.nbsp;The outlaw lives in the forest with a band of followers
(cf. the second part of Hereward's English adventures,
after the siege of Ely).

2.nbsp;The outwitting of the opponents.

3.nbsp;The disguise as a potter and a fisherman.

4.nbsp;Horse-stealing and the reversal of horse-shoes.

5.nbsp;Capture and rescue during a transport (cf. Hereward's
escape, when he is transferred from Sir Robert de Horepol's
castle to that of Ivo Taillebois).

6.nbsp;The impulse to show off one's strength. This element returns
in the Robin Hood ballads in the shape of the various single
combats, which gradually led to the development of the
story of Robin Hood meeting his match. Even in Hereward
we have an early example of this development, in his fight
with Lethold the Saxon.

These elements, which were possibly based upon historical

facts originally, became standing features in the later traditions.
Beside this traditional colouring, the story of the last of the
Saxons has a distinctly historical and political background.
This is also the case with the stories of Fulk and Eustache, who
are closely connected with the history of the reign of King John.
In these tales the features mentioned in connection with Hereward
recur. Stress is laid on the disguise-element, a theme which is
employed with numerous variations in the story of Eustache
the Monk. The following features are added:

1.nbsp;Hatred of the clergy, a typical medieval trait, due to
pohtical and social conditions.

2.nbsp;Generosity towards the arch-enemy.

3.nbsp;Generosity towards other victims, who make a correct
declaration of their money.

Turning from these stories with a more or less historical
basis to the Tale of Gamelyn and the Robin Hood ballads,
we find that the background has essentially changed. This
change may be accounted for as follows. As the contrast be-
tween Saxon and Norman gradually disappeared during the 12th
century, the character of the traditional forest-outlaw also
changed and he became identified with various deer-stealers.
The severity of the forest-laws, as they were enacted from the
time of the Conquest to the middle of the 13th century, was
a source of continual complaint among the people. The Assize
of the Forest of 1184 provided that the old Norman forest-laws
were to be re-enacted and that punishment for forest-offences
should be inflicted strictly upon the body of the culprit
and no longer take the form of fines Large areas that had
formerly been a common hunting-ground for nobleman and
peasant ahke, became part of the king's forest in Norman
times, and anyone who dared to shoot deer, was regarded as
a criminal by the king's officers. It is plain that these deer-

stealers were regarded as men defending their natural rights
and were sympathized with by the common people. They
became popular figures and took the place of the old Saxon
outlaws.

Fortunately we have some examples among the baUads of
how these kind of deer-stealing stories gradually developed.
We meet with an early form in the ballads of Johnie Cock and
of Robyn and Gandeleyn. These last names have no connection
whatever with Robin Hood or Gamel}^!. The heroes are really
nothing more than individual poachers struggling against
the foresters. They have nothing in common with the outlaws,
they do not live in the forest, but leave their homes occasionally
to shoot deer in the forest. In the above cited ballad of Adam
Bell, Clim of the Clough and William of Cloudesley we find a
later stage; the three men hve in the forest, are regarded as out-
laws, but the fundamental idea of the chief-outlaw and his
seven score of followers is not yet in evidence. Though none of
these ballads occur in MSS earlier than the 15th century, the
traditions embodied in them must have been popular in an oral
form at least two centuries before their committal to writing.
The earliest mention of the outlaw-leader and his seven score of
companions is in the Tale of Gamelyn. The chief is not yet called
Robin Hood, but king of outlaws, and we look in vain for his
principal companions. Little John, Much and Scarlock. In the
latter part of the Tale of Gamelyn we see then the merging of
the popular deer-stealing stories into the outlaw-tradition of the
Conquest. For the notion of the outlaw-chief and his seven score
of followers is evidently a continuation of the tradition, which
is also found in the stories of Hereward and Fulk Fitzwarin,
and which we shall meet again in some of the Scandinavian
examples of outlaw-tradition. The three ballads mentioned, all
originated in northern England. The scene of Johnie Cock is
laid in Northumberland and in some versions in Dumfriesshire

in Scotland. Robyn and Gandeleyn is also of Scottish origin,
whereas the ballad of Adam Bell plays in Inglewood or English-
wood, which is also mentioned as one of Robin's haunts in
Wyntoun's Chronicle of Scotland. So there is a good reason for
supposing that the area of these ballads gradually extended
further south, from the Scottish border to Barnesdale and lastly
to the famous Sherwood. These regions probably had their
separate cycles of ballads, which merged into one great cycle of
Robin Hood, as we have already seen in the case of Barnesdale
and Sherwood.

In the Robin Hood ballads then the development of the
outlaw-matter in England has reached its final and most elabor-
ate stage. Most of the traditional features enumerated in con-
nection with earlier outlaw-matter appear again in the Robin
Hood poetry in a similar form. The only elements that have
disappeared are those connected with horses, viz. horse-stealing
and reversal of horse-shoes. Probably on account of the fact that
horses were of no practical use to the merry archers of the
forest. The three principal features of the Robin Hood ballads:
the disguise-theme, the outwitting of the opponent and the hero
meeting his match, all rest upon the older outlaw-tradition,
which we have found in our various examples of medieval
Enghsh outlaw-stories. The theme of the hero meeting his match
was gradually developed out of the love of combat and the
parading of bodily strength, which occurs repeatedly in the
Hereward-story, and which, as a matter of fact, is a typical
Germanic trait. These three themes comprise the essential
elements of the make-up of the outlaw-hero, — bodily strength,
cunning and courage. We shall meet this combination of strength
and cunning again in the following chapters, when speaking of
the Scandinavian outlaws.

CHAPTER V
THE ICELANDIC OUTLAW-SAGAS

It may be useful to say a few words about the origin and
general features of the Icelandic family-sagas, before giving an
exposition of the three outlaw-sagas to be discussed^.

One of the major causes of the settlement of Iceland was the
unification of Norway during the reign of Harald Fairhair in
the latter half of the 9th century. Many Norwegian land-owners
were dissatisfied with the stern rule of Harald and emigrated
with their families and followers, either to Iceland or to the
Western Isles, i.e. the Shetlands and the Orkneys, which were
already partly colonized by Scandinavians. The colonization of
Iceland took place between about 870 and 930. With great
difficulty the settlers managed to eke out a meagre existence from
the hitherto uncultivated soil. Some Irish monks seem to have
lived on the island before the settlement of the Norwegians, but
what happened to them on the arrival of their heathen succes-
sors, is uncertain. We adopt Liest0rs division of the period of
the independence of Iceland After the settlement-period
(870—930) foUows the saga-time (930—1030), i.e. the time in
which the events described in the family-sagas took place. The
third period comprises the time of peace (1030—1130) and is
succeeded by the writing-time (1130—1230), when the oral sagas
were committed to parchment. In 1262 the Free State of Iceland
became a part of the kingdom of Norway after a period of

internal dissensions, the stormy Sturlunga-time. It is clear
from the above dates — which are only approximate — that
several centuries passed between the actual occurrence of
the facts described in the Icelandic famUy-sagas and the date
of their committal to writing. During this interval the family-
traditions were transmitted orally. In spite of the long period
of oral transmission the sagas are remarkably accurate and
correct. This is due to the fact that the independent land-owners
were exceedingly proud of their traditions, so that the reciters
did not get much chance of changing the facts or the characters
of the chief personages, without being corrected by someone of
the audience. The style of the sagas is simple and direct, without
any outward ornamentation, in contrast with the strophes that
occur in some of the sagas and which are often extremely in-
volved. The use of dialogue as a means of portraying character
is already highly developed and the conversations between the
principal characters are often of great dramatic intensity and
of importance for the development of the plot. Other features
of this prose literature are epic objectivity, interest in the
events of everyday-life and great psychological insight. The
subject-matter that was accounted fit for a saga was hmited
and usually the plot evolves around feuds, arising from the
clash of divergent characters and interests, and ending in the
extinction of the principal characters. The tragic note is seldom
absent and we may safely say that these tragical biographies are
unsurpassed in medieval literature as works of art.

We must look for the causes of this admirable growth of
hterature in the quahty of the settlers, the environment from
which they were recruited and the environment surrounding
them in Iceland. As we have noticed, a large proportion of the
settlers were dissatisfied land-owners of the upper classes, too
proud to bow their heads under the yoke of the overbearing
Harald Fairhair. Their individualism was heightened by their

position of independent masters of Iceland, only loosely held
together by the authority of the Thing. A large body of them
came from regions, in which story-telling reached a considerable
height in later times, so that the germ for this kind of oral,
traditional hterature was already present, when they left
Norway. So, conditions being extremely favourable for the
fostering of traditional family-matter, the family-sagas could
attain a very high degree of perfection.

We shall now proceed to give an exposition of the three
great outlaw-sagas: the Gisli-saga 3, the HgrSr-saga ^ and the
Grettir-saga The events described in the first two sagas
took place in the first half of the saga-time, whereas the Grettir-
saga treats of the latter part of this period. Of the MSS of
these sagas that have come down to us, that of the Gisli-saga
is the oldest and is probably of about 1200. This saga is a master-
piece of its kind and much more concise than other sagas that
have been handed down in later versions and which often contain
later additions and interpolations from other oral or written
sources. After a few introductory chapters about Gisli's ancestors
and his youth in Norway, we enter upon his life in Iceland. The
chief personages in the tragedy that is unfolded before our
eyes, are introduced without the usual addition of numerous
persons that take no actual part in the plot. There are, of course,
various minor characters, but they are aU of some importance.
There are two distinct groups of personages, which centre around
the two brothers, Gisli and Egt;orkell. On Gish's side we have
his friend and brother-in-law, V^steinn, and his wife, Au6r,
Vestein's sister. The other group is represented by E»orkell
and his friend and brother-in-law, Porgrimr, and tgt;6rdis, the
sister of Gisli and torkell and the wife of Igt;orgrimr. The two
brothers possess very different characters: GisH is a man of
great strength of character, the honour of his family is of the
utmost importance to him; he is a skilled artisan and a skald of

great gifts. He is brave and dauntless, when the occasion demands
it, but he does not abuse his strength. He is loved and honoured
by all that come into close contact with him. His wife is a wise
and loyal woman, who stands by her husband in the hour of
greatest need. The relation between Gisli and AuSr is one of
the finest things in the story. iJorkel's loyalty is of another
kind and he does not aid Gish any more than is strictly necessary
during the latter's outlaw-period. He is loyal to his family for
the sake of decency and no more. He is, moreover, vindictive,
unreliable and suspicious. A certain animosity exists between
torkell and Vesteinn, because the latter is supposed to have
had a relation with torkell's wife, AsgerQr, before her marriage.
This animosity turns into hatred when Jgt;orkell overhears a
conversation between AuSr and Asgerbr on the subject, which
seems to justify his suspicion. Egt;orkell leaves the farm on which
he had been living with Gisli and takes up his abode with
torgrimr. Notwithstanding Glsh's warning, Vesteinn comes to
Gish's farm and is murdered at night by Igt;orgrimr. GisH draws
the spear out of the body, which means that he must avenge
Vesteinn. Gish murders lgt;orgrimr, and Igt;orkell, who knows that
Gfsh is the murderer, does not betray his brother. GisU does so
himself, however, in a strophe, which he recites at the funeral-
games. His sister Cordis overhears it and tells Bgrkr, fgt;orgrim's
brother, whom she marries later on. Bgrkr brings the matter up
before the Thing and Gish is declared an outlaw. GisH is warned
by tgt;orkell and takes up his abode in various places. Only
the last seven years of his outlaw-Ufe are described, be-
cause information is lacking to the saga-man about the first
six. The outlaw is pursued by Eyjolfr enn grai and his help-
ers, who are paid by Bgrkr. But GisH manages to get away
every time, although he often escapes only just in time. Once
he is almost caught, when staying with a friend, whom he
helps fishing and repairing boats; he passes himself off

as an idiot and escapes into the woods. He is closely be-
set, but has just time to take refuge in a house, where he is
hidden under the straw of a bed, in which the lady of the house
is Ijang. She uses such abusive language towards the pursuers,
that they dare not investigate the room too closely. From time
to time Gisli stays with his wife for a while and his pursuers
being apprised of the fact, try to bribe Au6r into betraying her
husband's hiding-place. The episode ends with Au6r throwing
the bag of money into Eyj61f's face. Gfsli is haunted by dreams,
in which a good and a bad dream-woman figure. The good one
shows him seven fires, which represent the years he has to live
yet, and the beautiful dweUing-place, where he is going to live
with her after his death. The bad dream-woman appears in
bloody dreams and her appearance becomes more and more
frequent as the end draws near. In the meanwhile Porkell has
been killed at the Thing by the sons of Vesteinn. They escape and
are hidden by Au5r, because she is afraid of her husband's
anger, when he hears of his brother's death. The bad dreams
become more numerous and Gfsli is afraid of being alone in the
dark. When winter approaches, Gisli prepares to go to his
winter-hiding-place with his wife and their fosterchild. Their
cloaks leave a broad track on the dewy ground thus betraying
their hiding-place to Eyj61fr and his men. Gish knows that his
time is up and that it is going to be his last fight. Together
with the two women Gisli keeps the men at bay for a long time,
fighting on the top of a rock, but at last he is so covered with
wounds that he has to give up the unequal struggle. He hurls
himself from the rock on one of his opponents and both die
at the same moment. When Eyjolfr enn grai comes to Bgrkr
with the story of Gisli's death, Egt;6rdis attempts to kill Eyjolfr
during the meal, but she only wounds him in the leg. Igt;6rdis
leaves Bgrkr, whereas Au5r goes to Norway and takes the veil.
One of the sons of Vesteinn is killed in Norway by Ari, a

brother of GisU and Igt;orkell, who did not emigrate to Iceland.

These are in short the contents of the Gisli-saga. It is generally
recognized as one of the finest of the family-sagas from the
modern point of view. It is concise in form and well-constructed
and it lacks the abundance of minor personages pleasing to the
realistic and historical sense of the Icelanders, but slightly
bewUdering to the modem mind. The interest is continually
focussed on the development of the plot, which arises out of
the divergence of the characters of the two groups. The centre
of the scene is held by the noble figure of Glsh, who courageously
meets the fate that is allotted to him. He knows that he cannot
escape his destiny and wisely tries to make the best of his
life. He is quite different in character from that other
famous Icelandic outlaw, the overbearing and unbalanced
Grettir. Circumstances are against the noble-minded poet, who
might have been one of the leading chieftains of his district, if
outward conditions had been more favourable. As the artistic
merits and structure of the saga really lie outside the scope of
the present discussion, we take the liberty of referring to M.
Olsen's article on this aspect of the subject «. The strophes which
occur in the saga are very old and were probably composed by
the hero himself

The Hgr6r-saga in its present form is slightly longer than the
Gish-saga, but a fragment of another version has been handed
down, which must have been appreciably shorter. HgrQ's grand-
father was the first of the family to settle in Iceland, on the
south coast. His son Grimkell marries for the second time with
Sign^, the daughter of Valbrandr and the sister of Torfi. The
latter has not been consulted by his father with regard to the
marriage and does not approve of it. The marriage is not a
happy one and it is only the presence of Grimr, Signy's foster-
child, that keeps husband and wife together. Grimr does not hke
the situation and wants to set up for himself. At length Grimkell

lets him go and aids him in his marriage. Grimr soon attains
prosperity. Signy has a dream about an enormous tree that
grows in her husband's bed, but which produces but few flowers.
The explanation given is that she will give birth to a boy, who
will become a great and famous personage, but who will get
little love or aid from his friends. The child is born and is beautiful
and strong, but his mother does not love him and curses him,
when he stumbles against her knees and breaks a necklace
lying on her lap. Grimkell hearing her curse the boy, takes him
away to be brought up at Grim's, who has a son called Geirr,
a year older than Hgr8r. The two boys grow up together and
are great friends; both are strong, but HQr9r always surpasses
his friend. Shortly afterwards Signy has a second dream of
similar import as the first, but this time the tree has many
flowers. Now it is a daughter she will give birth to and the flowers
are a sign of a new and better faith, which her daughter's
offspring will embrace. Sign;^ goes for a short time to her brother
Torfi and dies at his farm after bearing a daughter. Torfi is
terribly angry about the course of things and orders the child
to be kiUed. His plans miscarry, however, and after many
hardships the child is taken up by Grimr and called Egt;orbjorg.
She grows up with her brother and Geirr. Grimkell sues Torfi
for damages at the Thing on account of his plotting against his
daughter's life and to recover Sign;^'s dowry. It is decided
that Torfi shall pay a certain sum with interest to Hgr8r
after six years. Both men are dissatisfied with the decision,
but nothing happens for the time being. lUugi marries PuriSr,
Grimkel's daughter of his first marriage. Illugi wants to be
friends with Hgrar, but the latter does not trust him. HgrSr and
Geirr go to Norway with merchants and Geirr gets into trouble
with servants of the king's mother. They have to leave Norway
and go to Gautland, where they are hospitably received by the
jarl. A number of viking-adventures have been interpolated at

this point. HgrSr desecrates the gravemound of S6ti and rifles
the treasure. He keeps a ring, a sword and a helmet. On a viking-
trip they save SigurSr Torfafostri from the hands of other
vikings and he becomes their loyal companion. Geirr is the first
to return to Iceland. HgrSr comes back a few years later with
his wife, Helga, the daughter of the Gautland-jarl, and Sigur9r.
His sister, Igt;orbjorg, has married Indri5i in the mean time and
his father has died, after having cursed one of the old deities and
burned her temple. Torfi is not inclined to give HgrSr the money
that he owes him, according to the decision of the Thing, but
he gives him land and cattle. After a few years HgrSr gets into
trouble with his neighbour, a follower of Torfi's, about horses.
Hgr5's servant kills the neighbour's son and HgrSr, who wants
to offer satisfaction, gets into a fit of anger, when he hears that
his neighbour has put the matter into the hands of Torfi. He
kills the man and burns his house. HgrSr is declared an outlaw
and his friends and family make no attempt to prevent it. After
sta5ang with Geirr for a time, he goes to the island of Holmr and
establishes a kind of outlaw-community there. The outlaws
plunder the coast opposite and carry off the cattle and sheep
of the farmers. After a time HgrSr gets tired of this hfe of petty
stealing and wants to capture some merchant-ships, that lie
in a fjord close by. Before doing this they decide to burn some of
their chief enemies in their houses. This plan is carried out at
the instigation of Geirr, but against the advice of HgrSr, who
presages trouble, if they start committing such outrages. IndriSi
is to be the first victim. Egt;orbjgrg has had forebodings of what
is going to happen in the form of a dream and she takes care that
there shall be enough water in the house to extinguish the fire.
When the outlaws arrive at the farm, IndriSi is not at home and
Igt;orbjgrg receives her brother courteously. HgrSr proposes to
her to leave IndriSi and go with him to the island, but she
declines. The house is set on fire, but on account of the water-

supply no harm is done and E»orbjorg manages to protect
the farm till IndriSi and his men come to the rescue. The farmers,
thoroughly enraged, decide that the only way to get rid of the
outlaw-nest is by stratagem. One of them, named Karr, is
wiUing to risk his life. Soti's ring is promised to him, if he gets
through safely and the outlaws are all killed. He takes the boat
that is generally used as a kind of ferry by the outlaws and
arrives safely on the island. He pretends to be an outlaw and
swears the prescribed oaths. He says that he has heard that the
farmers offer the outlaws a free retreat, if they wiU only leave
the district. HgrSr does not trust the fellow, but Geirr and the
rest of the company do and decide to leave the island. Two
boat-loads are ferried across by Karr and slaughtered by the
farmers lying in ambush along the coast. Karr returns a third
time to persuade HgrSr to come with him, but HQr5r has no
intention of leaving and it is only when Karr calls him a coward,
that HgrQr is persuaded to leave the island. His wife and children
stay on the island. Close to the coast HgrSr perceives the treason,
when he sees Geir's body floating on the sea, but it is too late.
The odds are too great and after a heroic fight he is killed by
someone with an axe on a large pole, because nobody dares to
come close to him. Helga, HgrS's wife, swims across the bay at
night with her two young children and takes refuge with her
sister-in-law, Igt;orbjgrg. The latter is planning revenge on the men
who killed her brother. An attempt to kill her husband, In-
dri5i, is foiled, but she is satisfied, when IndriSi promises
to receive Hcr5's wife and children into his house and to murder
the man who killed HgrSr. Many people are to lose their lives
before the revenge for HorSr is completed. Helga eventually
goes back to her native country, Gautland, with her younger
son, the other one having been kUled. Bjgm, the younger son,
returns to Iceland and takes up the work of revenge. Twenty-
four persons, all told, lose their lives in the struggle to avenge

HgrQr and no damages are asked for any of them. According
to Stjamir, the priest, Hgr5's fame is due to his wisdom, his
skill in fighting, and to the fact that he married the daughter
of a foreign jarl and that so many people were killed in his
revenge, without damages being required.

The general opinion is that the HgrSr-sage in its present
form belongs to the romantic sagas, i.e. the sagas that were only
imitations of the classical sagas and that were no longer based
directly on oral tradition, but on written sources. The fragment
(the Brot) is considered to represent an older version of the saga.
Finnur Jonsson even asserts that the complete form — the
present HgrSr-sage — is based on the version of which only
the Brot has been handed down This view is contested by
Miss V. Lachmann in her admirable dissertation: Das Alter der
HarSar Saga®. According to our opinion Miss Lachmann has
conclusively proved that the Brot and the saga represent two
different versions, and that, in fact, the saga is the older of the
two. The Brot is only a more prosaic and less artistic form of the
story. The arguments for her second conclusion, that the Brot
is an excerpt-form of the story, are not convincing. The chief
argimient in favour of the assertion that the HgrSr-saga belongs
to the romantic sagas, is the presence of viking-themes, which
are evidently borrowed from the fornaldar-sggur. The question
to be decided in this respect may be formulated as follows: Are
these viking-features interpolations of a scribe or did they
belong to the oral tradition?

The chief theme on which the saga is built up is Torfi's ob-
jection against Sign;^'s marriage with Grimkell and the resulting
animosity between the two famihes. A repetition of this theme
is furnished in the relation between HgrSr and Illugi, the husband
of Hgra's half-sister Igt;uri8r. The plot gradually develops from a
quarrel between Grimkell and Torfi into the tragic conclusion
of Hgrd's outlawry and death, in both of which Torfi plays an

important part. Beside this fateful thread, which runs through
the whole saga, there is a second intrigue which originates in the
viking-portion of the story, i.e. the curse which S6ti utters at
the desecration of his grave-mound and which is especially
connected with the ring, which HgrSr steals from the mound.
This theme is not restricted to the viking-part of the saga, but
continues running parallel to the feud-theme in the rest of the
saga. The introduction of the curse-theme is, however, super-
fluous for the development of the main plot. The fact that the
curse-theme is not restricted to the viking-interpolation, but is
already firmly embedded in the latter part of the saga, points
to the conclusion that the viking-interpolation is probably
not the work of a writer, but existed already in a late oral
version. The sagaman of this interpolated form of the saga
had evidently lost touch with the old heathen times and does
not know the meaning of the old religion. This is proved by
the fact that Egt;orger8r HgrgabniSr, one of the old deities, is
called the sister of Soti! As the fornaldar-sQgur must also have
been recited orally, hke the family-sagas, it is very probable
that the interpolation was added to the saga as early as the
oral transmission-period. That the viking-episodes are indeed
interpolations and do not belong to the saga in its oldest form is
proved by the stock-themes from the fornaldar-SQgur that are
embodied in this part of the saga, viz. the desecration of the
grave-mound, the viking-battle, and the appearance of 6 Sinn,
who advises HgrQr as to the way to open the mound. So, out-
wardly the saga seems to form a connected whole, but on closer
inspection it is clear that some seemingly integral features, such
as the curse of Soti, do not belong to the original saga.

Miss Lachmann has proved by a conscientious comparison
of the HgrSr-saga with the other family-sagas that the facts
and incidents recorded in this saga have their counterparts
in the other sagas. The style and conception of the saga-teller.

moreover, tend to the conclusion that the body of the saga —
excluding the viking-part — belongs to the classical and not
to the later romantic sagas. The conclusions which may be
drawn from this investigation are: 1. the saga must have
existed without the interpolation during an early period of the
oral transmission-time; 2. the viking-episodes are not a late
interpolation of a scribe, but were inserted in the oral trans-
mission-time; 3. the Hçrôr-saga does not belong to the romantic
sagas; 4. the Brot is not necessarily older than the Hçrôr-saga,
but represents a different and in many points inferior version.

Grettir is the most famous of all Icelandic outlaws; he was an
outlaw for nineteen years, whereas Gish and Hgrôr were kiUed
after respectively seven and three years. Nobody ever got the
better of Grettir, while he was in sound health. Of course his
figure of legendary strength stimulated the imagination of his
countrjmien tremendously and the tales about his adventures
are numerous. It is a matter of small wonder then that the story
of his hfe is the longest of the three sagas under discussion. The
saga is much more episodic than the other two and it contains
at least one lengthy interpolation, the Spés-story at the end of
the saga, the contents of which are of a very romantic nature.
The introduction of the Grettir-saga is quite a lengthy affair
treating of the exploits of Grettir's viking-ancestors in Norway
and the settlement of his great-grandfather in Iceland. The fact
that Grettir lived at the end of the saga-time entails a large
number of genealogical and other details about Grettir's ancestors
in Iceland. Grettir's father, Asmundr, goes to sea in his youth,
marries in Norway and has a son, îgt;orsteinn drômundr, who is
destined to avenge Grettir later on. Asmundr goes back to
Iceland and settles down on a farm. He marries for a second
time and has three children, Ath, Grettir and ïgt;ôrdis. The
characters of the two brothers, Ath and Grettir, are very divergent,
the former is always at work on the farm and is loved by everyone.

the latter is a lazy good-for-nothing, who is always getting into
trouble. Grettir kills his first man at the age of fourteen and is
outlawed for three years. He goes to Norway and has all kinds
of adventures. He rifles the grave-mound of Kârr, he defends the
farm of his host against twelve berserkers, when the latter is
on a joumey, and by stratagem he kills ten of them. On another
occasion he is the guest of a certain ïgt;orkell, and he quarrels
with a great boaster, named Bjçm. Bjgm is chosen to kill
a bear that is doing damage to the property of îgt;orkell, but
he gets scared and Grettir is the one who kills the animal.
Grettir gains great fame by these different exploits. At last
Grettir gets fed up with Bjgm's boastful pestering and kills
him. Bjgm's two brothers try to murder Grettir, but are both
killed by the outlaw. Grettir is eventually forced to leave the
country. He retums to Iceland and takes up his former habits
again. He gets into all kinds of scrapes and makes himself a
great number of enemies. An interlude follows in the shape of the
Glamr-episode, which contains different allusions to fairy-tales
and other supematural stories. A farmer is troubled by a ghost,
who breaks the bones of his cattle and annoys him in other ways.
He is always short of servants on account of this. But one winter,
when the apparitions are very troublesome indeed, he comes
into contact with a certain Glamr, who promises to become his
servant. This Glamr tums out to be a very uncouth fellow, who
is disliked and feared by the rest of the household for his ungodly
ways. When Yule-time comes, he goes out to look after the
cattle and does not return. They find him afterwards as a black
and swollen body. He has to be buried on the spot as his body
is too heavy to be transported. The original ghost is now replaced
by Glâmr, whose apparitions are worse than the former ones.
At last nobody dares to pass the haunted valley. Another servant
is mauled by the spectre and the farmer's daughter falls ill and
dies. The farmer is at the end of his wits, but now Grettir comes

to the rescue. He engages in a terrible struggle with the spectre
and manages to overcome the gigantic being. The moonlight
falls on its eyes and Grettir gets such a scare from this sight,
that he is for ever afraid in the dark. The being prophesies that
misfortune will pursue him from this very moment. The exploit
adds to Grettir's growing fame. Like many of his compatriots,
Grettir leaves for Norway at the accession of King ôlâfr (1015).
One of his enemies wants to go in the same ship, but is killed by
Grettir, before the vessel leaves. The first misfortune that
befalls Grettir is the burning of the sons of îgt;ôrir i Garôi in a
guest-house on the coast. Grettir is sent from the ship to fetch
fire, but when he enters the house, the inmates take him for a
troU and attack him. Grettir gets safely out of the house, but
the rest are burned. The general opinion is that he burned the
house on purpose and on his arrival in Norway Grettir wants
to submit to the fire-ordeal to prove his innocence. King ôlâfr
grants the request, but on the way to church Grettir is insulted
by a youth and commits manslaughter. He is not allowed to
pass the ordeal and is ordered to leave Norway the next summer.
During Grettir's absence the old Asmundr has died and Atli
inherits the farm. f»orbjQm 0xnameginis jeeilousof Atli'sinfluence
in the district and insidiously kills him. Igt;6rir 1 Garôi uses all the
influence at his command in the Thing-meeting and Grettir is
declared an outlaw for the burning of îgt;ôrir's sons, without being
heard in the meeting. Unmoved Grettir hstens to these bad
tidings, when he returns to Iceland. This is the beginning of
his outlaw-career, which is to last for 16 years and which will
take him across the greater part of his native country. His first
deed is the revenge for the death of his brother Atli; he
kills Porbjom in the fields. He stays for short periods at
the farms of friends, but gets into trouble everywhere on
account of robbing the farmers in the district of their cattle.
Once he is even captured by the farmers, who surprise him

in his sleep. He is released, however, by the wife of the chief
of the district. For a long time he has his abode on the Amar-
vatnsheiör, a famous hiding-place of outlaws. Attempts are
twice made by outlaws, who have been bribed by Igt;örir i Garöi
to kiU Grettir, but he is not to be caught off his guard and both
times the conspirators are killed. Grettir cannot stand the lonely
life of the Amarvatnsheiör for long and he goes to his friend
Bjorn hitdoelakappi, who shows him an almost impregnable
hiding-place in a cave above the river Hvita. He stays there for
three winters in comparative quiet, but again he provokes the
farmers by steahng their cattle and after a tremendous fight, he
is forced to leave the district. The next year he passes in the
mythical törisdale, which belongs to the giant torir and his
daughter, but the quiet life soon bores Grettir and he goes to the
Reykjaheiör. At this point another ghost-story is put in, the
Baröardale-episode. Grettir arrives at the haunted farm and
assumes the name of Gestr. When the farmer's widow and her
daughter go to church at Yuletide, Grettir stays at the farm and
fights with the giantess at midnight. She wants to hurl him
down a precipice near a waterfall and Grettir has to exert all his
strength to prevent it. After a hard struggle the giantess herself
topples over the brink. According to another version the giantess
turns to stone at dawn and is still to be seen standing on the
bank of the river. After having restored his strength Grettir
dives beneath the waterfall and after killing the other giant
that lives there, he brings back a bag full of bones. These are
the bones of all the people that have been killed by the two
giants.

After this exploit Grettir is advised to go to the island of
Drangey on the north coast. He goes for a last visit to his mother
and tells her of his decision to go to Drangey. His younger
brother Illugi goes with him to keep him company in his solitude.
The parting of Asdls and her sons is a touching moment in the

saga, because they feel that they will never see each other again.
On the way to the island they are joined by a funny old
man, called Glaumr, who eventually stays with them on the
island. The cliffs of Drangey can only be ascended on one
side by means of rope-ladders. The island is used by the
farmers of the district as a pasture-ground for their sheep.
The three men subsist on the flesh of the sheep. The farmers
are very much perturbed, because they cannot protect their
interests. At length they sell their shares in the pasture to the
two principal farmers, Igt;orbjgrn and Hjalti, on condition that
they shall expel the outlaws from the island. Several attempts
are made, but in vain and Igt;orbj gm's position is far from pleasant,
as he is ridiculed by the whole district. He intends to make one
last attempt and accepts the services of a witch. When Grettir
sees the hag in PorbjQm's boat, he feels that the end is drawing
near. He throws a stone at the witch and breaks her hipbone.
After recovering from the wound, she throws a big root into
the sea with a curse carved on it in runes. The root is thrown
ashore by the waves, but Grettir recognizes the danger and
throws it back. This happens twice, but a third time it is brought
up from the shore by Glaumr at night to keep the fire going.
Grettir wants to cut it to pieces with an axe and wounds himself
in the leg. The outlaw understands that it must have been
the cursed root and that the seemingly insignificant wound
will cause a lot of trouble. The cut festers and Grettir's condition
becomes worse and worse. The witch goes to Igt;orbjgrn and
advises him to go to the island. Egt;orbjgm collects a few men and
on arriving at the island, he sees that the rope-ladders have
not been pulled up. They climb up the ladders and find Glaumr
asleep at the top. He is awakened by the men and tells them that
Grettir is very ill. Notwithstanding the odds Illugi is able to
defend his sick brother for a long time. Grettir is just able to
raise himself on his knees and he kills the first man, but he is

stabbed in the back by Igt;orbjQm, before he can do any more
mischief. lUugi covers Grettir with his shield and fights on with
only his sword to protect him. Igt;orbj(}rn admires the boy's
heroic resistance and gives him a shield. The odds are too great,
however, and Illugi is taken prisoner. As he refuses to abstain
from revenging his brother, if they grant him his life, he is killed
and buried together with Grettir. Igt;orbjQrn cuts off Grettir's
head and takes it with him as a proof of his supposed heroic
deed. But when people hear about the witch and the fact that
Grettir was dangerously ill, he is indignantly received every-
where. He is even forced to leave Iceland by decree of the Thing,
on account of having used witchcraft in kilhng Grettir. The
story ends with the above mentioned Sp6s-episode, an inter-
polation which contains Tristan-themes. Igt;orsteinn, Grettir's half-
brother, takes revenge for Grettir's death by killing Porbjgrn in
Byzantium,

Grettir's fame as the representative Icelandic outlaw is one
of the main causes of the episodic nature of the Grettir-saga. The
sagaman had such a mass of material at his disposal that it was
a matter of extreme difficulty to make the saga into a unity
like, for instance, the Gfsh-saga. The sagaman had to choose
between using most of the material and forming an episodic
story or barring a great deal of the traditional matter and
acquiring an artistic whole. He was evidently more of a collective
than of an artistic turn of mind. On the other hand, there is at
least one instance in the saga of a later interpolation, i.e. the
Spes-episode, that has been tacked on at the end of the
saga This episode is full of romantic matter and must be
the work of some later scribe. Except for this obviously late
interpolation, it is extremely difficult to decide whether the
saga contains any other interpolations on account of the episodic
character of the story. The tale of the famous outlaw was
most probably continually enlarged upon by different sagamen,

which accounts for fornaldar and supernatural elements getting
into the saga.

We spoke of the question of fate in connection with the
Gish- and the HQr5r-saga. It is again in evidence in the Grettir-
saga, in which it is embodied in the Glamr-episode. Glam's
curse produces the same effect as S6ti's curse in the HgrSr-saga
and the cursed sword grdsida in the Glsli-saga. In the preceding
sagas we saw that there were other, natural causes beside this
idea of fate, which further the tragic course of events. Similarly
it is brought out in the Grettir-saga that one of the causes of
Grettir's misfortunes hes in his own character, in contrast to
the other two sagas, which are really tragedies of circumstance.
This point is especially clear in the case of the fire-ordeal, to
which Grettir wants to submit in order to prove his innocence.
On the way to the ordeal he is insulted by a youth, he kills the
boy and loses his chance. It is not only his fate, which prevents
him from passing the ordeal, but also his own impetuosity.

When we compare the contents of the three family-sagas,
we find a similarity in some of the details of the Grettir-saga and
the Hgr8r-saga The sagaman of the HgrSr-saga must have
been familiar with a form of the other story. A few examples
may suffice to show this: 1. both sagas contain the desecration of
a grave-mound; 2. both heroes are cursed by a ghost; 3. both
sagas end with the judgment of a wellknown Icelandic author,
Sturia in the case of the Grettir-saga, Styrmir in the case of the
Hgr8r-saga. So the sagaman of the Hgrbr-saga in its present
form evidently made use of a version of the greatest Icelandic
outlaw-saga for some parts of his story, without strictly copying
the latter. The similarity in the details of the gravemound-
episode is due to the fact that this was a stock feature of the
fornaldar-sggur, which had akeady reached a certain fixed form.

The three outlaws all go to Norway; in the Glsli-saga this
travel-episode is short and gives the impression of being based

on actual fact, whereas in the other two sagas this part of the
story has been enlarged by the addition of fictitious themes,
which are of little or no importance for the development of the
plot. Gish and Grettir differ from Hçrôr in representing the
typical Icelandic skôgarmaff-r, the soUtary outlaw, who is driven
from place to place, till he is finally cornered and killed by his
pursuers. Hçrôr, on the other hand, is the head of an outlaw-
community that subsists on the cattle and sheep of the farmers
of the district. He resembles more the English outlaw-chieftains
with their bands of followers.

The most marked analogies to the Icelandic outlaw-sagas
may be found in the Hereward-story. The description of Here-
ward's youth reads like the beginning of an Icelandic saga;
he is brave and strong and excels in games, but is continually
getting into trouble at home, till he is at length outlawed at the
instigation of his father. There is a distinct resemblance to the
Grettir-saga. Grettir has similar troubles at home and is outlawed
at an early age. Hereward goes on his travels and has all kinds
of adventures, just hke the Icelandic saga-heroes, who go to
Norway and lead an adventurous viking-hfe in their youth. The
bear-theme features in the Grettir-saga as well as the Hereward-
story. As we saw above, these viking-adventures were often taken
from the fornaldar-SQgur. The feature of the loyal wife occurs in
the Hereward-story (Turfrida) and in the Gisli-saga, in which
Auôr is one of the principal personages and in which the relation
between Gisli and Auôr is an important theme. The witch-theme
is found in the Grettir-saga and in the Gesta Herwardi. In both
cases the witch is fetched to make one last attempt to dis-
lodge the outlaw and his companions from their stronghold.
In the Hereward-story the witch is burned, while reciting
her incantations and the attack is foiled. In the case of
Grettir the witch is only wounded and afterwards throws the
cursed root into the sea, which ultimately causes Grettir's

death. The strategical value of an island is prominent in several
of the outlaw-stories: Ely in the Hereward-traditions,
Drangey in the Grettir-saga and Holmr in the HgrSr-saga. This
feature clearly rests upon historical foundations. In the English
outlaw-traditions the idea of a band of outlaws is an important
feature, e.g. Hereward and his genge and Robin Hood and his
companions. In the Icelandic sagas this feature occurs in the
HgrSr-saga only. The disguise-theme which plays such an
outstanding part in the English traditions, is very sparingly
used in the sagas. It occurs in the Gisli-saga, when Gish changes
clothes with his servant and escapes. The servant is indeed
mistaken for his master and killed. Gish's passing for an idiot
boy is another example. Grettir also dresses in the clothes of
a servant, when he is closely pressed by his pursuers, and puts
them on the wrong track. This may be compared to the incident
in the story of Fulk Fitzwarin, in which Fulk goes out to meet
his pursuers, disguised as a monk, and puts them on the wrong
track. Other instances of this same feature are found in the
story of Eustache the Monk. Grettir's appearance at the He-
graness-J)ing in disguise is also one of the few instances of the
disguise-theme in the sagas.

HgrSr in his last heroic fight kills his servant rather than let
him be captured by the enemy. Parallels to this feature may
be found in the fifth fit of the Gest, in the story of Fulk Fitzwarin
and in the traditions about the Scottish outlaw, Wilham Wallace.
In the episode in the Gest Little John is wounded in the fight and
begs his companions to cut off his head, so as not to fall into the
hands of the sheriff. They refuse to kill him and Much carries him
on his back. Wallace actually kills an exhausted follower to
prevent him from being captured by the enemy. On another
occasion he carries a wounded companion on his back. William
Fitzwarin, the brother of Fulk, makes the same request as Little
John, but his companions refuse to kill him and he is captured i®.

An instance of close similarity between the English and
the Icelandic matter may be pointed out in the description
of Hereward's death in Gaimar's Lestorie des Engles. Gaimar's
story contains details that are typically of Scandinavian origin
and which are also found in the description of the deaths of
Grettir and Gish. The negligence of the guard, who falls asleep,
is found in the Grettir-saga. The throwing of one's shield in
order to kiU the last man and the fact that both die at the same
moment is a feature of the Gisli-saga. The detail that the hero
dies at the same time as his last victim, occurs quite often in the
Icelandic sagas. The HgrSr-saga contains an example in the
fight between fgt;orvaldr blaskeggr and SigurSr Torfaf6stri. The
fact that the details of the episode in Gaimar occur in different
sagas, proves that the account is not based on a particular saga,
but on a general Scandinavian tradition that must have been
current in the eastern counties of England.

This tragic ending is the more remarkable as the Enghsh
outlaw-stories are on the whole not of a tragical nature,
which is characteristic of the Icelandic sagas. Their con-
ception is entirely different from that of the sagas. The
Icelandic sagaman built up his story around a conflict of
characters, whereas adventures and outward circumstances
were of secondary importance to him and were only used
to stress the conflict. The behef in fate also heightens the tragic
effect of the family-sagas. In the English outlaw-matter, on the
contrary, the adventures are the primary factors, the persons
involved are no more than types, even in the Robin Hood
ballads, in which the delineation of character has been most
developed. More like the Enghsh outlaw-stories in this reprect,
are the fornaldar-sQgur, of which we shall meet a fairly represent-
ative example in the following chapter. These are typical
adventure-stories with httle or no psychological character-
delineation.

We return now to the question put in the Introduction
whether we can prove the existence of a close relation between
the Enghsh and Icelandic traditions. In the present chapter
we have found a few striking resemblances, but these may
after aU be the result of similar outward circumstances. In the
next chapter we hope to adduce evidence which will prove
the existence of this relation conclusively.

CHAPTER VI
THE SAGA OF AN BOGSVEIGIR

The saga of An bogsveigir ^ is the only outlaw-saga among the
so-called fornaldar-sQgur (abbreviated Fas). We have included
it in our investigation, because it constitutes the link between
the English outlaw-matter and that of the Icelandic family-sagas,
as will be shown below. The difficulty in making use of the
Fas. as a proof of the connection between the two categories
treated, hes in the largely fictitious character of this species of
saga. The Fas. are a later form of the Icelandic saga, which
attempts to portray hfe in Norway before the settlement of
Iceland, in the time called the forngld (the olden time). These
sagas are for the greater part a mixture of legendary and fictitious
stories, with borrowings from the older heroic and family-
matter. Though the scene is always laid outside Iceland, the
written and probably also the oral form of these sagas are due
to Icelandic sagamen. The moot point with regard to the Fas.
is whether they are whoUy fictitious or whether they contain a
nucleus of tradition brought over to Iceland by the settlers. We
shall only investigate this question as far as it is concerned with
the present saga and with the outlaw-matter in general.

The contents of the saga of An bogsveigir (the archer) are in
short as follows:

E»6rir and An are the sons of BjQm, a bdndi, who hves
at Hrafnista in Norway. Igt;6rir, the elder son, is highly
esteemed at the court of Olafr, the king of the Naum-

dsela-district. An is entirely different from his brother,
the courtier. He is a strong, clumsy fellow with bad
manners and he is always ridiculed on account of his ill-
fitting clothes. When he is twelve years of age he stays
away from home for three nights and returns with
a bow and five arrows and a beautiful chair for his mother,
who loves him better than does his father. These things
have been made for him by a dwarf. When An is eighteen,
his brother Igt;6rir goes to court again and An wants to
go with him. Igt;6rir refuses and binds him to an oak-tree.
An runs after him with the tree on his back and, in the end,
lgt;6rir is forced to take his brother with him. When they
arrive at court, they hear that king Olafr is dead and
that his son, Ingjaldr has succeeded hun. tgt;6rir does not
like this piece of news; he is graciously received by the
new king, however, and so is An, though he behaves
rudely. An keeps aloof from the other warriors and hard-
ly speaks to them. He does not appreciate the presents
of the king and when the latter presents him with a ring,
he plays with it and pretends to have lost it in the mud
of the entrance-hall. All the other warriors crowd
into the haU to look for it. After a time it turns out
that An stiU has the ring on his finger. The warriors
are angry at being fooled in this way by the person,
whom they have ridiculed. An has to wrestle with
Bjom, the champion of the warriors. At An's request a
fire is Ughted and in the first bout An is thrown into it by
Bjgm. He is not much the worse for it, because he has
an old cape around his shoulders, which saves him from
being burned. An now steps up to Bjom, clenches him in his
strong grasp, holds him above the fire for a moment and
drops him. Bjgm is puUed out of the fire half-roasted.

One day Igt;6rir offers An his sword tegn, a present from

the late king Oldfr, if he kills two of the king's men. An
says that he would hke to have the sword, but not at that
price. King Ingjaldr now organizes an expedition against
his two half-brothers, who are both called Ulfr. He pretends
to visit them with peaceful intentions. During the voyage
An speaks visur, in which he yearns for Igt;egn. Jokes are made
about it, but An explains that he does not mean the sword,
but his brother, — who is called Igt;6rir Igt;egn —, because he
is afraid that the latter puts too much trust in the king,
who is intending to kill him. Ingjaldr decides to attack his
half-brothers under the pretext that they will not come to
an agreement. An refuses to fight, but secretly kills the
half-brothers with his arrows. Ingjaldr heis httle difficulty
in overcoming his opponents and aimexes the district.
Ingjaldr suspects An of having killed the half-brothers and
sends messengers to him. An refuses to come, because he
sees through the tricks of the king, who wants to kill him.
Ketill, one of Ingj aid's warriors has found one of An's
arrows and passes for the famous archer at a neighbour-
ing farm. The real An surprises him, however, and Ketill
is sent back to the king badly mutilated and tarred and
feathered into the bargain. The king banishes Ketill from
the court and declares An an outlaw; a price is set on his
head. An stays with the farmer for a while and helps
him to rebuild the farm, which has been burned by the
king's men. He leaves the farmer with the injunction
that if the farmer's daughter, Drifa, gives birth to a son,
the boy is to be sent to him. He leaves a ring as a sign of
recognition. In the forest An meets a robber, called Garan;
they fight with each other, the robber is wounded and invites
An to his house, when he hears the name of his adversary.
In the house are two stones of unequal height, which Garan
uses to test the strength of his visitors' backs. They divide

the duties, An is to light the fire and Garan is to fetch
water. Garan treacherously attacks the other, when he is
bent over the fire. They fight and either tries to push the
other on the stone. An finally succeeds in breaking Garan's
backbone on the stone; he cuts off his head and lays it be-
tween his legs to prevent the robber from becoming trouble-
some as a ghost. He stays and hides in the house during
the summer. The following winter An takes up his abode
at the house of a widow, called J6runn, whom he marries.
He tums farmer and is greatly honoured in the district and
becomes the leader of the farmers. Egt;6rir often visits him
and wants him to make up his quarrel with the king; An, on
the other hand, warns him against the king and advises
him to go back to Hrafnista and take over the farm, as
their father has died in the meanwhile. Grimr, An's nephew,
comes to stay at his uncle's farm. Ivarr, a man from Upp-
Ignd, comes to the court of king Ingjaldr and falls in love
with the king's sister Asa. The king agrees to the marriage,
if Ivarr kills An. Ivarr goes to An's farm and stays there
for some time as a guest. One day, coming from the smithy
he remembers his quest and tries to cut An down with his
sword. He has mistimed his stroke, however, and the
sword gets stuck in a root. An puts him in irons to be
judged by the Thing. At the Thing An's proposal to
maim Ivar's legs and to tum his feet the wrong way about,
is accepted. When the wound is healed, the unfortunate
Ivarr is sent back to king Ingjaldr, who is greatly an-
noyed and cancels the marriage.

The next attempt is made by twelve men, who are to
try and bribe An's servants. Again the plan miscarries,
this time on account of J6mn's watchfulness. The king's
men are hanged and the unfaithful servants are dismissed.
The king treacherously kUls Igt;6rir with the sword tegn.

Porir's body is put aboard a ship and sent to An, accompanied
by sixty men, with the message that I^orir has come to
visit him. An is warned, however, by a bloody dream and
takes his measures. He stations ships in a hidden creek
and all the king's men are killed and put in the same ship,
in which Porir is buried.

The king now comes himself to make one last attempt.
Grimr and An fight gallantly, armed with cudgels only and
many are killed. They are surrounded, while sitting in
a rowing-vessel; Grimr rows himself to death, but An es-
capes by jumping over board. The king, thinking that An
is dead, goes home. An manages to reach an island and
after recovering his strength he goes back to the farm.
He is joj^fully received, but perceives that this continual
trouble with the king has drained his funds or rather his
wife's funds. He goes back to Garan's dwelling in the forest
and returns home with a great deal of treasure.

One evening, when returning from the smithy An sees
a fire burning on an island off the coast that belongs to
him. He rows across and sees a young man sitting by
the fire and eating meat from a silver plate. He only
eats the choice morsels and throws the meat away,
when it gets cold. An's first arrow hits the piece of meat
the boy is taking from the kettle. The youth goes on
eating as if nothing has happened. An's second arrow
splits the silver dish and his third the handle of the boy's
knife. The stranger rises and takes up his bow and curses
the man who has broken his knife. An retreats behind an
oak-tree and the boy's arrows hit the oak on the exact
spot where An had been standing the moment before.
An leaves his hiding-place and they wrestle for a while.
They inquire after each other's names and the boy proves
to be An's son, Jgt;6rir. They go home together and E»6rir

tells Jorunn who he is. Jorunn dubs him hdleggr on account
of his long legs. Igt;6rir tells how he was brought up as a ,
girl, because the king was after him. An says to the boy
that he must gain renown and that his first task will be to
kill king Ingjaldr. His reward wiU be the sword Igt;egn and
the king's sister. Igt;6rir goes with five ships and sets the hall
on fire. When the king hears that it is Drifa's son, waiting
for him, he knows that his end has come, torir kills him,
when he leaves the burning building. Igt;6rir sends Asa
and aU the treasure to his father and goes on a viking-
voyage. When he comes home at last, he is well received
by his father. An entrusts his wife, Jorunn, Porir's mother,
Drifa and Erpr, the man who saved him on the island, to
the care of his son and goes back to Hrafnista. He gets a
daughter, MjQll, who becomes the grandmother of Ingimundr
enn gamh of Vatnsdal. An gains great fame by fighting
giantesses. tgt;6rir's son is called Qgmundr akraspillir, and
the latter's son was SigurSr bjoSaskalli, a man of great
fame in Norway.

The saga of Ar. bogsveigir is loosely connected with a group
of Fas. describing the adventures of the so-called Hrafnista-men,
i.e. the sagas of KetiU haeingr, of Grimr loSinkinni and of Qrvar-
Oddr. These three sagas really form a continuous story of Ketill
hffiingr and his race. An's father, BjQrn, is married to PorgerSr,
a daughter of BgSm6Sr and Hrafnhildr, KetiU haeing's daughter.
This does not taUy with the information given in the saga of
Grimr loSinkinni« that B^SmoSr and Hrafnhildr had only one
daughter, Porny or Jorunn, whose son was iJorbjern talkni,
one of the ancestors of Ingjaldr of Hergilsey. Bjgrn's chUdren
are, according to the An-saga: Porir, An and Pordis. The
descent of Ingjaldr of Hergilsey agrees in detail with Land-
namab6k3, where PorbjQrn talkni's father, BgSvar blgSruskalh

is mentioned, but not his mother. There is no mention of Hrafn-
hild's marriage with Bgömöör in Landnamabok; her second
marriage with ïgt;orkell, the jarl of the Naumdaela-district,
however, is stated in Landnamabok * as well as in the saga of
Grimr loöinkinni As there is no sign of Bgömöör or his marriage
with Hrafnhildr in Landnamabok, this marriage either be-
longed to tradition not known to Landnâmabôk or was invented.
Bjgrn's marriage with an unknown granddaughter of KetiD
haeingr was evidently invented to connect the Än-saga with the
sagas about the Hrafnista-men. Another secondary connection
between the Än-saga and the saga of Ketül haeingr has been
pointed out by Miss H. Reuschel in her book, Untersuchungen
über Stoff und Stil der Fomaldarsaga viz. the fact that
the episode about the chair, which An gives his mother, has
been interpolated in the Ketill-saga. For the rest the An-saga
stands quite apart from the other three sagas mentioned.

The outward influences that are usually traceable in the Fas.
may be grouped under the following heads:

a.nbsp;The influence of legendary and fairy-tale themes.

b.nbsp;The influence of the Icelandic family-sagas.

c.nbsp;The influence of Landnâmabôk.

Under a. may be mentioned the following incidents of the
An-saga:

1.nbsp;An stays in the woods for three nights and forces a dwarf
to make him a bow and arrows.

2.nbsp;Impossible feats of strength: An uproots an oaktree to
wich he is bound.

3.nbsp;An fools the courtiers by letting them look in vain for a
ring in the mud.

4.nbsp;An meets his unknown son and fights with him.

Under b. may be mentioned some similarities between the

An-saga and the Grettir-sagaIn the An-saga the following
is said about An's relation to his parents:

____Utit istriki hafSi harm af fe9r sinum, en m65ir hans unnihonum

mikit».

In the Grettir-saga the following words are used:

Ekki hafai hann istrlki mikit af Asmundi fQ8iir s£num, en m6air
hans unni honum mikit».

Both Grettir and An belong to the type of hero, of which nothing
is expected in their youth, but in contrast to other descriptions
of this kind, it is expressly said of both that they do not he
i eldaskdla

There is also a slight similarity between the An-saga and the
Egill-saga in the relation between the two brothers, but not
enough to warrant Miss Reuschel's conjecture that the irrelevant
statement in the An-saga about Ingjaldr declaring An an outlaw
urn allan Norig is due to the influence of the Egill-saga We
prefer the simpler explanation that this historically impossible
statement is due to the Icelandic sagaman, who was thinking of
the united Norwegian kingdom of his own time and not of
Norway before the days of Haraldr harfagri, a country of
countless petty kings.

The Landnamab6k has not been used by the sagaman, a
conclusion which is based on the following fact: the genealogy
of Mjgll, the daughter of An bogsveigir is the same in the An-saga
and the Landnamab6k quot;: Mjgll — Porsteinn — Ingimundr
enn gamh. But the genealogy of Igt;6rir haleggr which follows
immediately upon that of MjgU in the saga, does not agree
with Landn4mab6k. In the saga we have: Igt;6rir haleggr — Qg-
mundr akraspillir — SigurSr bj65askalh; of these names only the
last one is mentioned in Landnamab6k i», but he is caUed the son
of Eirikr, son of jari Hunda-Steinarr and AlQf, the daughter of
the famous Ragnarr lo5br6k. These two notices about SigurSr

bjóöaskalli and Mjgll are quite close together in Landnamabók
— 19 lines apart in Finnur Jónsson's edition. So it is precluded
that the sagaman took the notice about Mjgll from Land-
namabók and put in a genealogy of Sigur5r bjóöaskalli, which
differs completely from Landnamabók.

The An-saga holds a peculiar position among the Fas., it
portrays the relation between king and follower, the usual
comitatus-theme of the viking-sagas, but from the point of
view of the independent Icelandic land-owner The king is
not depicted as the superior person of the viking-sagas, but
really as an unfavourable counterpart to the hero. An. More-
over, the family-ties, — in this case between the two brothers
ïgt;órir and An —, are much stronger than the bond between
king and subject. This predominance of the family-relation
over the comitatus-Teld,tion in the An-saga reminds one of
the preponderating part the family-spirit plays in the Icelandic
family-sagas. Towards the end the comitatus-spivit crops up
again, when An himself does not take vengeance on the king,
but sends his son Egt;órir haleggr. An evidently does not avenge
his brother's death, because it would be improper for a former
follower of the king to kill his lord, even though the latter is his
greatest enemy.

The usual viking-features play only a small part in the story
and are kept well in the background. They are mostly connected
with An's son, ïgt;órir, who gains fame by burning Ingj aid's hall
and who goes on viking-voyages, but these facts are stated very
briefly and without any details. An himself, moreover, could
hardly be characterized as a viking. After his sojourn at court he
lives for a while the wandering life of the outlaw, but he soon
settles down as an honoured bóndi after his marriage with
Jórunn. He is now no longer the hunted outlaw, who
hides in the woods and perpetrates all kinds of crimes,
but a well-to-do farmer, who is harassed by a perfidious king.

The only other source that gives us some information about
An bogsveigir is Saxo Grammaticus Saxo has interpolated
a short notice about An in the story of king Fridlevus. It con-
tains the following incidents: Ano sagittarius is a warrior of
king Amundus, who is engaged in battle with another king,
called Fridlevus. One of the latter's warriors, BjQrn, takes aim
at Ano with his bow. Ano with his first shot splits Bjgm's
bow-string; the second arrow hits the grip of Bjgm's bow. The
third arrow, finally, knocks Bjgm's arrow from the bow-string.
The latter is not put out at all and goes on fighting as if nothing
has happened. The two are reconciled later on and Ano marries
luritha, a paramour of king Fridlevus.

Attention must be drawn to the following facts:

1.nbsp;The story is entirely in keeping with the comitatus-s^mi-,
there is no sign of the family-spirit.

2.nbsp;Ano has an opponent, called Bjgm.

3.nbsp;Ano exhibits his mastery by three superiative shots with
the intention of scaring his opponent. His adversary is
not in the least daunted.

4.nbsp;Ano's wife is called luritha.

5.nbsp;Ano becomes a warrior of king Fridlevus, the enemy of
king Amundus.

The three superlative shots recur in the An-saga, in An's
meeting with his son, with the same restriction that they are
only meant to scare the opponent; An's son, hke Bjgm, is not
afraid of the uncanny mastery of his assailant. The name Bjgrn
is also the name of An's opponent at court in the An-saga.
Moreover, the name of Ano's wife in Saxo has a distinct resem-
blance to Jorunn, An's wife in the saga. From the fact that
Ano becomes the follower of king Fridlevus we may infer that
he deserted the family of his own king Amundus, who is killed
in the battle. There is no sign of the family-spirit in Saxo's

notice, everjrthing turns on the relation of king and follower.

The two stories differ so widely from each other in other
respects, that we must assume that the sagaman had a much
fuller and a greatly divergent tradition, either historical or
legendary, at his disposal, which presumably contained at least
the following factors, beside those in evidence in Saxo:

1.nbsp;The contrasting characters of the two brothers.

2.nbsp;The quarrel between the king and An.

3.nbsp;An is declared an outlaw by the king.

4.nbsp;The king attemps to kill An in various ways.

The principal change then is that the central interest has been
transferred from the episode of the three shots to the struggle
between An and the king. Saxo seems to have taken his notice
from a Fas., of which a younger and greatly modified version
has been handed down in the An-saga. Both versions mention
Bjgm, as an adversary of An, but the shooting-episode, which
had been connected with Bjgm in Saxo's version, was combined
in the An-saga with the fairy-tale theme of the meeting of the
father and the unknown son. Moreover, the germ of the enmity
between An and the king is already present in the fact that An
deserts his own royal house. These two themes, the shooting-
theme and the enmity between king and subject, are outlaw-
features that must then have been inherent in the older version
which Saxo used. This does not prove, however, that these outlaw-
features were of Norwegian origin, as Saxo also took his story
from an Icelandic Fas., only an older one than the present
An-saga. The question of the presence of Norwegian tradition
in the An-story we propose to settle by a comparison with the
English outlaw-matter.

If we compare the An-saga with the earhest example of
outlaw-hterature in England, the Hereward-story, we find
the same contrast between the oppressive king and the strong

and cunning outlaw. But there are other similarities between
the present saga and the Enghsh outlaw-matter.

1.nbsp;An's inferiority to his brother P6rir may be compared
to the relation between Gamelyn and his brother, though
the outward circumstances are different.

2.nbsp;The performance of feats of strength at an early age
recurs in the stories of Hereward and Gamelyn.

3.nbsp;The fight between An and Bjgm, the champion of the
envious warriors at court, may be compared to the fight
between Hereward and Oger at the court of William the
Conqueror.

4.nbsp;The punishment of Ketill, when he passes himself off
as An, is related to a similar episode in the story of Fulk
Fitzwarin, when the outlaw surprises and kills a knight
who abuses his name.

5.nbsp;The attemps of Ingjaldr are aU foiled by An's cunning
and a kind of rough humour is shown in the treatment of
the king's agents. Both these details are leading features
in the English outlaw-stories from Hereward to Robin
Hood.

6.nbsp;An is faithfully assisted in his difficulties by his wife,
Jorunn. Hereward's wife, Turfrida, follows her husband
to England and we may assume that she shares his
wanderings across his native country, because Turfrida's
fidelity is one of the reasons, why the writer of the
Gesta has moral objections to his hero's second
marriage.

7.nbsp;An as well as the English outlaws have their trusted
followers in the hour of greatest need. They even form
a sort of outlaw-community. Coinpare, for instance,
An's position at the Thing, where Ivarr is condemned,
and Robin Hood's position in Sherwood Forest.

8. An never uses any other weapons but his bow and arrows,
except in the last attack of the king, when An expressly
orders his followers to use only cudgels. Gamelyn, hkewise,
uses only clubs to defend himself, but when he becomes a
member of the band of outlaws he takes to the bow and
arrows.

It is clear from the above comparison that there exists a
distinct connection between this Fas. and the Enghsh outlaw-
stories. The similarity lies chiefly in the way of treatment of
the outlaw-subject, in its general features; there are no grounds
for assuming any direct connection with the English matter.
The An-saga contains an undercurrent of old Norse tradition
about outlaw-hfe, but for the rest it is impossible to ascertain
with any degree of certainty which other features originally
belonged to this Norse story.

We do not agree with P. Herrmann's verdict: Zwei Stränge
laufen in ihr, mehr oder minder geschickt miteinander verbunden,
beiden gemeinsam ist ein Meisterschuss i®. It is true that we
may distinguish two periods in the story, e.g. An's hfe at court
and his outlaw-life, but they cannot be separated, as the Icelandic
sagaman has welded his subject-matter into one continuous
story about the struggle between An and the king. Moreover,
the Norwegian tradition which, as we have seen from the above
comparison with the Enghsh matter, must have been at the
sagaman's disposal does not essentially belong to one part,
but occurs in both. The characterization has been worked out
weU and has been consistently carried through. On the whole
the story is well told, but there are already signs that the saga-
style is deteriorating. One of the chief assets of the Icelandic
family-sagas is the artistic use and variation of indirect and
direct speech to lay stress on the more important points in the
story This variation has in many cases in the An-saga become

a mere mannerism, many indirect speeches ending in direct
speech, where there is no caU for stress. Another instance of
this deterioration may be found m the fact that An in the
fourth chapter makes a monologue — the longest piece of
direct speech in the saga! — in which he awkwardly repeats
the story of the origin of his bow and arrows, which has already
been told in the first chapter. Such an unnatural tum of speech
would be impossible in the objective and realistic family-sagas.

We agree with P. Herrmann's conclusion that the httle
intermezzo in Saxo's notice about Ano sagittarius has incorrectly
been taken from the story of Ano and been mixed up with the
story of king Fridlevus i®. The sequence in Saxo's story about
Fridlevus is broken first of all by the Ano-episode, which we
treated above, then follows a short notice, in which Ano does not
appear, with the following contents: the king on his way to
fetch his bride, Frogertha, the daughter of the killed king
Amundus, goes ashore to get victuals and is hospitably received
by a farmer, called Grabbus. The king marries (!) the farmer's
daughter, luritha, and begets a son by her, called Olavus. This
luritha marries Ano later on, as we have akeady mentioned.
Immediately after the hne about luritha and her marriage with
king Fridlevus, Saxo writes: Interiecto quoque tempore Frogertham

adeptus......This sequence of love-stories is evidently due

to Saxo having taken An's affair with the farmer's daughter
Drffa from the An-saga and awkwardly transferring it to king
Fridlevus. luritha has taken the place of Drifa and of Jorann
in the story. For P. Herrmann's further argumentation we
beg to refer to his book: Dänische Geschichte des Saxo Gram-
maticus.

Recapitulating, we arrive at the following important con-
clusions:

1. The comparison between the An-saga and Saxo proves

that there must have existed a Fas. of a more primitive
character about An, which already contained some of
the principal features of the younger An-saga, which
has come down to us.

2.nbsp;The Enghsh sources contain a number of featvures similar
to those of the existing An-saga. So these features must
have been part of the older An-saga and they must have
formed a connected tradition in pre-Icelandic times.
Whether this body of outlaw-tradition was already
connected with the person of An bogsveigir in Norway is
a question that cannot be solved.

3.nbsp;The obviously Scandinavian setting of the An-saga pre-
cludes the idea that the saga originated with the vikings
in England and was transferred to Iceland afterwards.
On the contrary, it is clear that the Enghsh outlaw-
literature contains a body of old Norse outlaw-themes,
brought over to England by the vikings — notwithstanding
the characteristically English development it went through
in the course of time.

4.nbsp;The An-saga is an example of a Fas. which contains a
connected body of Norse traditions, not wholly fictitious,
brought over to Iceland by the settlers. This conclusion
is in sharp contrast with Finnur Jónsson's assertion
that the An-saga is wholly fictitious and unhistorical
That An was a personage rooted in historical tradition,
is proved, moreover, by the mention of his descendants in
Landnamabók.

5.nbsp;The fact that we have discovered the existence of a
complex of features in Norway before the settlement
of Iceland, evidently points to the existence of connected
oral traditions (stories or sagas) in Norway in pre-Icelandic
days. This may at least be proved for the outlaw-complex,
to which the following features belonged: a. enmity be-

tween king and subject; b. the outlaw is strong as well
as cunning and always outwits his opponents; c. the outlaw
is the leader of a community or band of outlaws; d. the
outlaw is ridiculous and clumsy in his youth; e. the
test-fight; /. feats of strength at an early age; g. the
trusted wife.

CONCLUSION

To fuUy reaKze the extent of the Scandinavian influence
in England, we have to go back to the time of the invasions
of the Norsemen at the end of the 8th century. These inroads
bore at first only a depredatory character, the fierce heathens
came to capture rich booty, not to conquer the land. Gradually,
however, a part of the Norsemen, at least, came to conquer
and settle. By the Peace of Wedmore (878) the Danish claims
to the whole of the Enghsh territory north of Watling-street, —
the old Roman road from London to Chester —, were recognized
by king Alfred. For more than a century the Enghsh kings tried
to expel the foreigners with varying success till in the beginning
of the 11th century, the whole of England fell under the
Danish rule of Cnut the Great. The two closely related nations
were easily merged and the Anglo-Saxon language received a
large influx of Scandinavian words, which immediately became
part and parcel of the language. Beside a number of words
belonging to the everyday language, the judicial terminology
seems to have undergone a distinct Scandinavian influence
These terms have for the greater part been superseded by
French words during the Norman Conquest, but some have
survived to the present day. The principal one is the word law
itself (ON. l^g) and its derivations hy-law (ON. b^jar-lQg) and
outlaw (ON. Magi). The Anglo-Saxon language did not possess
a specific word for the idea of outlaw, AS. fliema — fugitive, had
the secondary meaning of outlaw, but it was not tiU the acceptance

of the ON. word Magi that the idea was clearly expressed. In
a similar way AS. frideleas — without grace did not acquire its
secondary meaning, corresponding to German friedlos, till the
days of Cnut. There is, moreover, hardly any mention of banish-
ment or exile in the AS. law-codes before the Scandinavian
settlement. All these facts tend to the conclusion that the outlaw-
institution as a social and judicial measure, was either a Scan-
dinavian innovation or, at least, only practised on a large
scale after England had come into contact with similar Scan-
dinavian institutions

The leading families that settled in Iceland were mostly
of Norwegian descent. Beside the language, they also brought
over the laws and customs of their native country. That the
settlers felt the need of judicial measures is clear from the
fact that before the settlement-period had ended, two things
were already established: the Kjalames-thing by Igt;orsteinn,
the son of Ingolfr, one of the first settlers and the Porsnes-thing
by tgt;6r61fr mostrarskegg Ingolfr as well as Igt;6r61fr came from
the Gula-thing-district in Norway, so this Norwegian thing to
aU intents and purposes served as their example. The earliest
mention of the outlaw-institution in Iceland, is met with in
connection with the Kjalames-thing. Ari writes in his Islendinga-
b6k®, after mentioning the existence of the Kjalarnes-thing
prior to the Althing:

____en majjr haf^e seer ort)et of prsels morj) et)a laysings,

s4 es land atte in Blascogum.

The second notice is in the Grettir-saga ^ after the killing of
Ofeigr grettir (about the year 910):

.....Var i talat um mahn, ok vam IggS til Kjalamess-

t)ings, t)viat {gt;4 var enn eigi sett alt)ingi. SiSan vam malin
iQgS i ggra, ok komu miklar boetr fyrir vigin: enamp;orbjgm
jarlakappi var sekr ggrr.

Shortly after the year 920 the Icelanders sent a man of
Norwegian origin, Ulfjótr, to Norway to study the Norwegian
laws and arrange a common law-system for the whole of
Iceland After three years he returned to Iceland and the
outcome of his voyage was that the common law of Iceland
was based upon the laws and proceedings of the Norwegian
Gula-thing, with some alterations to meet Icelandic conditions.

Beside their language and their laws the settlers must have
taken their customs and traditions to their new home-
steads. In Iceland, where the leading group of the po-
pulation was of Norwegian descent, these traditions stood
a much better chance of being preserved than in England,
where the settlers were rapidly absorbed by the native population.
But the preservation of Norwegian tradition in Iceland
experienced one great drawback: on account of the settlers
having to build up their lives anew in this strange and in-
hospitable country, they had a much Uveher interest in the
present than in the past. The struggles of every-day life and
the events in the Hves of the great bóndi's were of much more
importance and attraction to them than the traditions of
their ancestors. So the older Norwegian traditions were pushed
into the background and had to give way to the mass of current
family-tradition. This state of things is reflected in the family-
sagas, the greater part of which is taken up by the description of
Icelandic conditions and people, and only a small section is
usually devoted to the exploits of the Norwegian ancestors.
These episodes are, moreover, of a vague and stereotype nature.
If we turn to the outlaw-sagas, we find that the solitary figure
of the outlaw had a peculiar attraction for the Icelandic mind.
It represented the acme of individualism to a people, which had
always lived along individualistic hnes, partly on account of
their independent position as free farmers and partly on account
of their viking-inheritance. The outlaw is depicted as a hunted

down hero, gloomy and tragic, not only pursued and menaced
by his enemies, but also by his fate and the reactions of his
own nature. It is the individual character that stands out
clear-cut from the saga, not the type.

We have now arrived at the basic difference between the
development of the outlaw-tradition in Iceland and in Eng-
land. In Iceland the main interest centred around the individual
and his fate, and in England the outlaw represented to the
people the champion of freedom or of their jealously guarded
liberties. In other words, he became a social tj^e. Hereward,
for instance, is turned from the historical opponent of William
the Conqueror into the last defender of the native Saxon race.
The historical facts about him are enlarged and expanded with
the aid of Scandinavian outlaw-tradition still strong in the districts
where his principal exploits took place. At the end of the
12th century the contrast between Norman and Saxon had
gradually been obliterated and the outlaw-tradition took on a
different shape, the Saxon defender of hberty was replaced by
the typical forest-outlaw, Robin Hood, the idealized poacher.
The severe forestlaws had raised discontent among the masses
and the nobility ahke, and the English people felt their hberties
encroached upon. From an ordinary poacher, a tresspasser
on the king's domains, Robin Hood gradually became the popular
hero, the defender of the weak and the poor, but the terror of the
king's game-keepers and of rich travellers. The popular character
of the hero also involved a change in the nature of the tales and
the whole was transported into a hghter and more humorous
sphere. In the later ballads this led to a deterioration of the
species to a more vulgar and farcical plane. In spite of this
change some of the older features may still be detected. As the
Enghsh outlaw is more or less a type against a distinctly social
background, it becomes clear, why the Enghsh tradition has
generally preserved the old Scandinavian features better than

the Icelandic sagas, in which the individual and his character
were of primary importance.

We have so far assumed that the Enghsh outlaw-matter
has been chiefly, if not entirely, founded on Norwegian tradition,
without considering the possibility of the Enghsh and Icelandic
stories having mutually influenced each other. In several sagas
mention is made of Icelanders visiting England Vesteinn, for
instance, GisH's brother-in-law, goes on a voyage to England i®,
and Gunnlaugr ormstunga, the principal character of the Gunn-
laugr-saga, visits the court of king Aethelraed II in the beginning
of the 11th century Egill, the famous skald, was a friend of
king Aethelstan, who ruled in the second quarter of the 10th
century We seldom hear, however, of English persons visiting
Iceland. The usual route taken by the Icelanders, was by
way of the Norwegian ports, which kept up a lively trade with
England. After the Conquest the extensive trade-connections
between England and Norway remained unimpaired and
it is known that Icelanders took part in this trade. In the
Sturlunga-saga an Icelander is said to have imported the wood
for the building of a church from Norway, but the bells were
fetched from England i®. English merchants were welcome
guests in the Norwegian trading-centers of Bergen and Nidaros,
which were also frequented by travelling Icelanders. So the
two nations came into contact with each other quite often,
but the influence of England and, as a matter of fact, of the
other countries of western Europe seems to have left few traces
in the contents and artistic form of the Icelandic famUy-sagas.
Ireland is the only country for which perhaps an exception
should be made. The resemblance of the Irish story-teUing to the
Icelandic family-matter is, however, of an external and general
nature. There is hardly any trace of Irish themes or influence,
barring the description of the battle of Clontarf in the NjaU-saga,
which is really an Icelandic story about a historical Irish event

The external resemblance, the mixture of prose and verse, may
be due to the intercourse between the Icelanders and the vikings
in Ireland and the Western Isles or it may have had its origin
in the existence in Iceland of a large body of slaves of Irish
descent. But Irish hterary influence of so general a character has
never yet been proved conclusively. The family-sagas seem to
have been so closely and indissolubly bound to the soil and the
people of Iceland that foreign influences had no chance of
creeping in. It is only after the period of the family-sagas had
passed away that the Icelanders began to adopt the romantic
themes of feudal Europe, in the so-called riddara-sggur. The
English matter yields only one episode, on closer inspection,
which by its detailed similarity resembles the Icelandic outlaw-
sagas, viz. Gaimar's description of Hereward's death. This
description has a distinct resemblance to similar episodes in
the outlaw-sagas. The fact, however, that it agrees in details
with different sagas and not with one saga especially, would
point to the conclusion that Gaimar's episode contains old Norse
tradition rather than Icelandic features.

We have found that one source indeed contains remnants of the
old Norse outlaw-tradition, which must have flourished on the
ancestral soil of the Norsemen that settled in England as well as
of those that colonized Iceland. This source is the saga of An
bogsveigir; it offers the solution to the problem of the relation
between the Enghsh and Icelandic outlaw-traditions. A com-
parison of the An-saga with the English matter has shown that
there are distinct analogies, which prove that the An-saga contains
a body of old Norse outlaw-traditions which may have been of
much older date than the original story about An and which be-
longed to a period previous to the settlement of Iceland. Several
features of this Norse tradition return not only in the Enghsh
outlaw-matter, but also in the Icelandic outlaw-sagas.

1.nbsp;The outlaw is clumsy and sometimes ridiculous in his child-
hood. Grettir cannot properly carry out the tasks which
his father imposes upon him. HgrQr learns to walk very late
and breaks his mother's necklace by stumbhng against her
lap, in his first attempt to walk.

2.nbsp;Feats of strength at an early age. Gisli fights for the honour
of his sister, Igt;6rdis, against Holmggngu-Skeggi, when he is
a lad in Norway. Compare also Grettir's fight against the
twelve berserkers and his fight with the bear during his
first sojourn in Norway.

3.nbsp;The trusted wife. Compare the figure of Au8r in the Gish-
saga.

4.nbsp;The outlaw is the leader of a community or band of outlaws.
Compare HgrSr and the outlaw-community on the island of
Holmr.

5.nbsp;The outlaw is cunning as well as strong. This is a very common
feature in the outlaw-sagas. A few instances may suffice:
Gish's escape as an idiot boy and his hiding in the bed of his
hostess. Grettir fools his treacherous companion on the
ArnarvatnsheiSr, when the latter tries to kill him, by feigning
death.

6.nbsp;The disguise-feature. This feature, of which only one instance
is found in the An-saga, occurs somewhat more frequently
in the Grettir- and in the Gisli-saga, but it does not attain
in any way the proportions, it has reached in the Enghsh
matter. Grettir as well as Gish disguise themselves in the
clothes of their servants to escape impending danger. Grettir,
moreover, goes to the HegranessJ)ing in disguise.

Our ultimate conclusion is then that we must assume the old

Norse outlaw-tradition, as embodied in the An-saga, to represent

the trunk of which the Icelandic and the English outlaw-matter

are the branches. Each branch has developed in its own way

and has been strongly influenced by social and national conditions,
without ever losing altogether the inherent Scandinavian
impress of the original tradition. Our investigation of the An-saga
permits us. furthermore, to draw the following important,
general conclusions:

1.nbsp;There existed a complex of oral outlaw-traditions in Norway
even in pre-Icelandic time.

2.nbsp;The fornaldar-SQgur may in some cases contain genuine
traditional matter and are not to be a priori considered as
pure fiction.

As an investigation of the whole group of fornaldar-SQgur, in
order to test these general conclusions more conclusively, would
take us beyond the scope of the present treatise, we shall leave
this side of the question to other, more competent hands.

NOTES

INTRODUCTION

' H. G. Leach: Angevin Britain and Scandinavia (Harvard Studies

in Comparative Literature, vol. VI). Cambridge (U.S.A.) 1921.
^ Leach, op. cit. p. 355.

CHAPTER I

1nbsp;Domesdaybook. London 1783—1806.

2nbsp;MS (E) in J. Earle's Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. Oxford
1865.

» MS (D) in Earle, op. cit.
« Domesdaybook, 364è, 3766 and 377.
» Earle, op. cit. p. 207.
« Ibid. p. 210.

' Liber Monasterii de Hyda (Rolls Series). London 1866. p. 295.
' F. Liebermann: Ueber ostenglische Geschichtsquellen (in Neues

Arthiv, XVIII). Hannover and Leipzig 1893. p. 239.
» Gesta Herwardi (in vol. II of Gaimar's Lestorie des Engles. Rolls

Series). London 1888—89. p. 339.
w Geoffrey Gaimar: Lestorie des Engles (Rolls Series). London
1888—89.

Liber Eliensis, ed. Stewart. London 1848.
quot; Ingulf: Historia Croylandensis, ed. Riley. London 1854 (an extract
containing the Hereward-matter in Ingulf is printed in vol. II of F.
Michel's Chroniques Anglo-Normandes. Rouen 1836).
quot; A Genealogical Roll of the Lords of Brunne and Deeping (in Michel's

Chroniques, vol. II, p. xii).
quot; in Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Varii, ed. Sparke. London 1727
(the entries pertaining to Hereward are reproduced in Michel's
Chroniques vol. II, p. x).

quot; Liebennann, op. cit.' p. 241.

Martin: Preface to the Rolls edition of Gaimar, vol. II, p. xxxv.
Liebermann, op cit. p. 249 ff.
1' E. A. Freeman: History of the Norman Conquest. Oxford 1871.

Vol. IV, Appendix OO, p. 809.
w Michel's Chroniques, vol. II, p. vi.
quot; Liebermann, op. cit. p. 235 ff.
»» Ibid. p. 262.
quot; Michel, op. cit. p. x.
Ibid. p. ix.

2» Gesta Antecessorum Comitis Waldevi (in Michel's Chroniques, vol.
II, p. 104).

quot; M. Deutschbein: Studien zur Sagengeschichte Englands. Göthen
1906. vol. I, p. 249 ff.

Saxo Grammaticus: Gesta Danorum, ed. A. Holder. Strassburg
1886. p. 56.

quot; Bjarkarimur (in Finnur Jónsson's edition of the Hrólfs Saga Kraka.

Copenhagen 1904), p. 140.
quot; Hrólfs Saga Kraka, ed. Finnur Jónsson. Copenhagen 1904. p. 69 ff.
D. A. Stracke: lets over de Bronnen van Reinaert (Tijdschrift voor
Ned. Taal en Letterkunde XLIV, 1925). p. 216.
2» Ibid. p. 216.

Deutschbein, op. cit. p. 251 ff.
quot; Bjarkarimur, p. 160 ff.
quot; Saxo, op. cit. p. 55 ff.

äs A. Olrik: Danmarks Heltedigtning. Copenhagen 1908—10. vol. I,
p. 124.

«« Hrólfssaga Gautrekssonar, ed. Detter. Halle 1891. Chapter 38.
quot; Deutschbein, op. cit. p. 26 ff.

J. H. Todd: The War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill (Rolls Series).
London 1867. p. 197 ff.

Brennu-Njäls Saga, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Altn. Saga-Bibliothek, 13).
Halle 1908. p. 411.

t»orsteins Saga Sföuhalssonar (in Austfirdinga Sogur, ed. Jacobsen).
Copenhagen 1902—3. p. 217.
»8 The Annals of Loch Cé (cf. Todd, op. cit. Introduction, p. clxx
note).

»» Lamberti Ardensis Historia Comitum Ghisnensum, ed. Heller

(Mon. Germ. Hist. abt. Scriptores XXIV). p. 584.
quot; Ibid. p. 578.

« Liebermann, op. cit. p. 241.
« Lambertus, op. cit. p. 566 ff.
M Freeman, op. cit. p. 810.

CHAPTER II

1 The Tale of Gamelyn, ed. Skeat. Oxford 1893.
' Ibid. p. xüi ff.

quot; F. Lindner: The Tale of Gamelyn (in Englische Studien, vol. II).
HeUbron 1879. p. 94 ff.

*nbsp;Tale, p. xv.

° Lindner, op. cit. p. 109.
« Tale, p. xvi ff.

' J. Zupitza: Die Mittelenglische Vorstufe zu Shakespeare's As You
Like It (in Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, vol.
XXI). Weimar 1886. p. 109 ff.
8 Lindner, op. cit. p. 109, p. 326.
» Tale, p. xii.

1° Thos. Wright: Political Poems and Songs (Rolls Series). London
1859—61.

F. W. Maitland: Constitutional History of England. Cambridge
1919. p. 140.
quot; Ibid. p. 131.

quot; W. Forsyth: History of Trial by Jury. London 1852. p. 200.

E. Björkman: Die Namen Orrmin, Gameljm (in Archiv für das
Studium der Neueren Sprachen, vol. 119). Braunschweig 1907. p. 33.
Tale, p. vüi.
quot; Zupitza, op. cit. p. 140 ff.

quot; The Lay of Havelok the Dane, ed. Skeat (Early English Text
Society, extra-series IV). London 1903.

CHAPTER III

1nbsp;F. J. Child: The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. Boston 1888.
vol. V, p. 44.

2nbsp;W. H. Clawson: The Gest of Robin Hood (University of Toronto
Studies, PhUological Series 1909). p. 6.

ä All quotations from the Robin Hood Ballads are taken from Child,
op. cit. vol. V.

*nbsp;Clawson, op. cit.

« Chüd, op. cit. vol. V, p. 49.

® R. Fricke: Die Robin Hood-Balladen (Diss. Strassburg). Braun-
schweig 1883. p. 9.
' Ibid. p. 13 ff.
® Clawson, op. cit. p. 24.
» Ibid. p. 42.
w Ibid. p. 89 ff.

Fricke, op. cit. p. 20 ff.
12 Clawson, op. cit. p. 94 ff.

1» A. Wyntoun: The Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, ed. Laing. Edin-
burgh 1872—79.

quot; Fordun-Bower: Scotichronicon, ed. Goodall. Edinburgh 1759.
« Fricke, op. cit. p. 24 ff.
« ChUd, op. cit. vol. V, p. 96.
quot; Fricke, op. cit. p. 22.
quot; Chüd, op. cit. vol. V, p. 121.

w A. Kuhn: Wodan (Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altertum, V). Leipzig
1845.

3» ChUd, op. cit. vol. V, p. 47 ff.

21 Thos. Wright: Essays on Subjects Concerned with the Literature,
Popular Superstitions and History of England, in the Middle Ages.
London 1846. vol. II, p. 204 ff.
J. Ritson: Robin Hood. London 1832.
23 Child, op. cit. vol. V, p. 43.
2« J. Mair: Historia Maioris Britanniae. Paris 1521.
26 R. Grafton: History of England. London 1809.
26 Fricke, op. cit. p. 43 ff.

2' A. Ruckdeschel: Die Quellen des Dramas 'The Downfall and the
Death of Robert, Earle of Huntington, otherwise called Robin Hood'
(Diss. Erlangen). Erlangen 1897.
28 R. Kiesmann: Untersuchungen über die Motive der Robin Hood-

balladen (Diss. Halle-Wittenberg). Halle 1895.
2« The earliest mention of Robin Hood is in Langland's Piers Plough-
man, as was already pointed out by Percy in the 18th century. The
earliest possible date to be assigned to Langland's work, according
to Skeat, is 1377. The following is the quotation:
I can nougte perfitly my paternoster as the prest it singeth.
But I can rymes of Robyn and Randolf, erle of Chester.

Randolf, earl of Chester, must have been either Randolf II (1128—
1153) or more likely Randolf III (1181—1231), who is also mentioned
in the story of Fulk Fitzwarin.

CHAPTER IV

1 The Legend of Fulk Fitzwarin (De Coggeshall volume of the Rolls
Series). Ed. Stevenson. London 1875.

On the connection of Fulk Fitzwarin and Robin Hood see: W. F.
Prideaux: Who was Robin Hood? (in Notes and Queries, vol. II,
7th series) London 1886. The author contends that Fulk was the
original Robin Hood. His reasons are the following:

1.nbsp;Fulk uses the pseudon}^!! 'Amys del Boys' at the court of the king
of France.

2.nbsp;Robin is connected with Randolf, earl of Chester in the famous
quotation from Langland. This Randolf occurs in the story of Fulk
Fitzwarin, as a personal friend of Fulk, though he is a partisan of
King John.

3.nbsp;In the ballad of Robyn and Gandeleyn, the former is killed by
Wrennok of Doune and his death is avenged by Gandeleyn, goode
Robyn's knave. The author assumes that this ballad expressed in a
figurative way the struggle between Fulk and his enemy Morice of
Powys, as the latter's son is called Wrennok. One of the families
that were already attached to the Fitzwarins at an early date, were
the Fitzcandelou's. In Leland's English prose-paraphrase of an
English poem on Fulk Fitzwarin, Candelou is spelled Gaudeline.

4.nbsp;The names of the two women that are mentioned in the Robin
Hood ballads, are Maid Marian and Clorinda, the wife of Robin.
A lady, named Marian de la Bruyifere, occurs in the early history of
the Fitzwarins.

5.nbsp;Among the names of Fulk's companions, found in the Patent
Rolls, are: Ricardus de Wakefelda and Johannes filius Toke. Perhaps
these are the Pinder of Wakefield and the curtail fryer.

6.nbsp;The master outlaw of the Tale of Gamelyn must have been Fulk.

7.nbsp;The name of Gamelyn is to be derived from Norman Candelou or
Gandeljme instead of Scandinavian Gamel-ing. Especially as the
two other sons of Sir Johan de Boundys (Boundys — Welsh marshes ?)
have French names, Johan and Ote.

We think the author's conclusions too hastily drawn and based on
too vague grounds and similarities. Our principal objections are
(Srected against sub 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

1 is too little concerned with facts to be of any value, because it
is to be proved yet that the name Robin Hood is to be derived from
Robin of the Wood.

3.nbsp;Robyn and Gandeleyn does not belong to the Robin Hood cycle
and the Rob}^ of this ballad cannot be indentified with Robin
Hood. Moreover, the ballad does not sound like an allegorical poem.

4.nbsp;The two feminine characters mentioned do not belong to the
original Robin Hood poetry.

5.nbsp;We have not been able to find any reason for identifying Johannes
filius Toke with the curtail fryer.

6.nbsp;No reasons are offered by the author, why the master outlaw of
the Tale of Gamel}^ should be the same as Fulk.

' W. Förster-J. Trost: Wistasse le Moine (Rom. Bibliothek IV)
HaUe 1891.

8 Chüd, op. cit. p. 95.

*nbsp;L. Jordan: Quellen und Komposition von Eustache le Moine (in
Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen, 113). Braunschweig
1904.

» G. B. Adams: From Norman Conquest to the Death of John (Poli-
tical History of England, vol. II). London 1906—11. p. 340.

CHAPTER V

1nbsp;A. Heusler: Die Anfänge der Isländischen Saga (Abhandlungen der
Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften 1913, No. 9). Berlin 1914.

2nbsp;K. Liest0l: The Origin of the Icelandic Family-Sagas. Oslo 1930. p.
25 ff.

® Gisla Saga Sürssonar, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Altn. Saga-Bibliothek, X).
Halle 1903.

*nbsp;Haröar Saga ok Hólmverja, ed. Jón Sigurösson (Islendinga Slt;?gur
II), Copenhagen 1847.

» Grettis Saga Xsmundarsonar, ed. Boer (Altn. Saga-Bibliothek, VIII).
Halle 1900.

« M. Olsen: Om Gisla Saga's Opbygning (in Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi,

46). Lund 1930.
' Finnur Jónsson, preface to Gisla-Saga, p. xxi.

8 Fmnur Jónsson: Den Oldnorske og Oldislandske Litteraturs historie
Copenhagen 1923. vol. II, p. 421 ff.

*nbsp;V. Lachmann: Das Alter der Haröarsaga (Palaestra 183). Leipzig
1932.

I® R. C. Boer, preface to Grettis Saga, p. xii. Ibid. p. xix ff.

R. C. Boer: Zur Grettis Saga (Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie,
30). Halle 1898.

Finnur Jónsson, Litt. Hist. p. 744 ff.
Lachmann, op. cit. p. 233 ff.
»» W. H. Clawson, op. cit. p. 81 ff.

CHAPTER VI

1nbsp;Ans Saga Bogsveigis (in Fomaldar S(Jgur Norörlanda, ed. Rafn.
vol. II). Copenhagen 1829.

2nbsp;Grims Saga Loöinkinna (in Fas. Norörlanda, ed. Rafn. vol. II).
s Landnamabók Islands. Copenhagen 1925. p. 32.

*nbsp;Ibid. p. 10.

' Grims Saga Loöinkinna, p. 156.

*nbsp;H. Reuschei: Untersuchungen über Stoff und Still der Fomaldarsaga.
Bühl-Baden 1933. p. 108.

' Ibid. p. 57.
8 Ans Saga, p. 326.
3 Grettis Saga, ed. Boer. p. 38.
1« Ans Saga, p. 327.

Grettis Saga, p. 46.
quot; Reuschel, op. cit. p. 58.

Landn4mabók, p. 96.
quot; Ibid. p. 95.
quot; Reuschel, op. cit. p. 56.
quot; Saxo Grammaticus, ed. Holder, p. 180 ff.

1« P. Herrmann: Erläuterungen zu den Ersten Neun Büchern der
Dänischen Geschichte des Saxo Grammaticus. Leipzig 1922. vol. II,
p. 408.

quot; W. Ludwig: Untersuchungen über den Ent wickelungsgang und
die Funktion des Dialogs in der Isländischen Saga (Rheinisch
Beiträge, vol. 23). Halle 1934.
Herrmann, op. cit. p. 406.
1» Finnur Jónsson, Litt. Hist. vol. II, p. 809.

CONCLUSION

1nbsp;O. Jespersen: Growth and Structure of the English Language.
Leipzig 1912. Chapter IV.

E. Björkman: Scandinavian Loanwords in Middle English. Halle
1900—1902.

2nbsp;F. Liebermann: Friedlosigkeit bei den Angelsaksen (in Festschrift
H. Brunner). Weimar 1910.

3nbsp;Finnur Jónsson, Litt. Hist. vol. II, Chapter III.
* Landnämabök, p. 28.

6 Ibid. p. 58.

« Ares Isländerbuch, ed. Golther (Altn. Saga-BibUothek, I). HaUe

1892. p. 6.
' Grettis Saga, ed. Boer. p. 25.
8 Ares Isländerbuch, p. 5 ff.
» Leach, op. cit. p. 36 ff.
w Gisla Saga, ed. Finnur Jónsson. p. 17.

quot; Gunnlaugs Saga, ed. Mogk (Altn. Text-Bibliothek, I). HaUe 1926.
p. 11.

quot; EgUs Saga Skallagrimssonar, ed. Finnur Jónsson (Altn. Saga-

Bibhothek, III). Halle 1894. p. 144 ff.
»3 Sturlunga Saga, ed. Vigfusson. II, p. 280.
quot; Liest0l, op. cit. p. 154 ff.
Heusler, Anfänge, p. 42 ff.

STELLINGEN

De samensteUer van den stamboom van de beeren van Brunne
en Deeping is nog verder gegaan in het combineeren van de
gegevens omtrent Hereward's afstamming in de Gesta Herwardi
en Ingulfs Historia Croylandensis, dan Freeman aanneemt.
(E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, deel IV,

bl. 809.)

II

Ten onrechte citeeren Freeman en Liebermann de Gesta Her-
wardi als bron voor de meening dat Brant, de abt van Peter-
borough, Hereward's oom is.

(E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, deel IV.
bl. 459. F. Liebermann, Neues Archiv XVIII, bl. 240, 1893.)

III

Zupitza maakt terecht bezwaren tegen Lindner's bewering dat
er regels weggevaUen zijn tusschen regel 617 en 618 in de Tale
of Gamelyn.

(J. Zupitza, Shakespeare-Jahrbuch XXI, bl. 144, 1886.)

IV

De vergelijkingen, die W. de Hoog gemaakt heeft tusschen
Engelsche en Nederlandsche woorden, berusten in sommige ge-
vallen op onjuiste gronden en zijn veelal niet voldoende uit-
gewerkt.

(W. de Hoog, Studiën over de Nederlandsche en Engelsche
Taal en Letterkunde en haar wederzijdschen invloed, deel II.
1909.)

Ten onrechte neemt Kemp Malone aan dat the other in Beowulf,
regel 2061, een Bard en niet een Deen is.

(Kemp Malone, Angha LVII, bl. 218, 1933.)

VI

Tolstoi's veroordeeling van Shakespeare, in het bijzonder van
diens drama King Lear, is voornamelijk te wijten aan onvol-
doende kennis van Shakespeare's tijd.

(L. N. Tolstoi, Shakespeare, 1906.)

VII

De pogingen van de uitgevers der Egilssaga (F. Jónsson,
bl. 222, S. Nordal, bl. 212) om in cap. 67,2 den meervoudsvorm
konunga te verklaren, zijn gewrongen en waardeloos.

VIII

De stof der Skaldhelgarimur moet reeds aan den samensteller
van Landnamabok in den vorm eener proza-saga bekend geweest
zijn.

IX

Het geleerde beroep, waartoe de gymnasiast wordt opgeleid,
eischt het vermogen om levende moderne talen mondehng ge-
makkelijk te gebruiken. Niet minder dan op de H.B.S. is dan
ook op het Gymnasium de directe methode van onderwijs,
althans van Engelsch, de meest verkieslijke.

in

•nbsp;- /nbsp;-va«

quot;m

JiVv. •

ȆiftM

ispli

ffiiiaä

k:

V-

Vi' ■

■ ■vL-v'.V'V--;,