The Norse Concept of Luck

Bettina Sejbjerg SommerCopenhagen University

THE FICKLENESS OF LUCK is a Standing motif in our culture. Formany, luck is defined by unpredictability more than anything else.In Norse culture, the case is quite the opposite in that luck had

nothing to do with what we would refer to as coincidence or chance.On the contrary, luck was a quality inherent in the man and his lineage,a part of his personality similar to his strength, intelligence, or skillwith weapons, at once both the cause and the expression ofthe success,wealth, and power of a family. Luck expressed itself partially in skills,beauty, and other desirable characteristics, but also in events shapingthemselves according to the wishes ofthe lucky man. One might haveluck in specified areas but not in others, such as fishingluck or weath-erluck for example. But the so-called "man of luck" was the man whopossessed luck generally, not just in one specific area. People possessedluck in diiferent measure and one was helpless against an opponent whohad greater luck. Kings especially were great men of luck to the degreethat they were able to send forth their luck to assist others. Luck wasnot a thing to be sought or found by coincidence; one had the luck thatone was accorded by fate. Yet, in certain cases luck could be diminishedor lost, a phenomenon on which I shall elaborate later.

As to the more specific details of how the notion of luck was per-ceived, not much is known, and scholarship on the topic has beenrelatively limited. I find that the view of luck as part of a man's inher-ent nature sets the Norse concept of luck uniquely apart from a moremodern conception, and it is this aspect of luck that I will investigatein this article.

276 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES

More specifically, I shall attempt to elucidate an aspect of luckthat has only been touched upon by a few scholars and not for manydecades: the view of Norse society on luck and the lack of it. I findthat the concept of luck has certain implications for society's view ofthe luck-man and his counterpart, the luckless man. If luck is one ofa man's personal qualities, it may possibly affect the judgment of hischaracter. Luck may be considered not as a morally neutral factor asin modern Western society, but a requisite part of an ideal personality.Certain Norse texts seem to imply a degree of moral condemnationofthe luckless man, and it is this aspect of luck—society's view ofthelucky and unlucky man—that I will investigate. Was luck an essentialand required part ofthe personality ofthe ideal or "heroic" male.'' Wasthe luckless man correspondingly considered morally impaired.!' Wasthere an element of condemnation attached to lucklessness?

The conception designated in modern English by the word "luck" ishighly complex. This fact is refiected in the Norse terminology used todescribe the various ideas of luck. The main terms are as io\iows: gipta,gmfa, heill, fylgja, and hamingja. The words audna, s£la, and hugr arealso used in connection with luck but are less important to the centralquestions of this article. The meaning of these terms ranges from the"abstract luck-quality, inherent in a man, which he may send forth for theassistance of someone else" to a "guardian goddess of a certain family;"a diversity that witnesses the complexity ofthe concept of luck.

RESEARCH HISTORY

The various terms for luck figure so frequently and widely in Norse lit-erature—predominantly in sagas—that there is no reason to doubt thatluck played an important role in the culture. The question is whether wemay consider our sources, which are texts written in a Christian age, tobe reliable sources of pre-Christian Norse thought and religion. In thiscase, one may conclude that the concept at least to some degree accuratelyreflects a pre-Christian mode of thought since large parts of its contentand use clearly do not correspond to Christian ideas and thus cannotderive from them. Though the idea of guardian spirits might be borrowedfrom Christianity, the idea of luck as a force emanating from a personcould hardly be. I refer to Peter Hallberg for further argument that luckis a pre-Christian concept in Scandinavia (Hallberg 144,168).

T H E N O R S E C O N C E P T OF LUCK 277

Another sign ofthe complexity ofthe luck-concept is that the scholar-ship touching on the subject does not focus around a central problem,but rather deals with a variety of differing questions. Wilhelm Gronbech,the Danish historian of religion, is the only scholar to investigate theconcept of luck in its own right in depth. In 1931 in The Culture oftheTeutons, he attributes major importance to luck; since his study, fewscholars have touched on the subject. Gronbech has had considerableinfluence on international scholarship—he is referred to in the majorreference works on Norse religion (e.g. Turville-Petre 328; de Vries,Religionsgesehichte 174), and Kultur und Religion der Germanen, theGerman translation of The Culture ofthe Teutons, was reissued in 1997.

Most recently, Peter Hallberg has touched on certain aspects ofthemeaning ofthe luck-terms (he names them "fortune words," an equallysuitable translation into English) in an article that is, however, chiefiyconcerned with establishing fortune/luck as a Norse, pre-Christianconcept. His focus is on fortune or luck as an expression of fate ratherthan the view of luck as part of a man's inherent nature (Hallberg144,152-60).

Scholars such as Hilda Ellis Davidson, Ake Strom, Jan de Vries,Ida Blum, Nils Lid, Maj Lagerheim, and others have dealt with lucksomewhat peripherally as part of a discussion ofthe Norse conceptionof the soul. These scholars are thus chiefiy interested in the differentguardian beings connected with the luck-terms and their relation toa man's personality as opposed to a discussion of luck as an abstractconcept and its social and ideological importance. Gronbech is in factthe only scholar who has seriously investigated this aspect of luck, anda large part of this article will accordingly be occupied with a discussionof his views.

Gronbech is clear on the topic: in dealing with society's judgmentof the luck-man and the luckless man, he defines the luck-man as theopposite of a nibingr. A nidingr is the worst possible condemnation inthe Norse language. It signifies that the person is a monster, devoid ofall honor, and unfit for human company. The emotional connotationsof nidingr could perhaps be somewhat similar to how most people todayfeel about pedophiles. For Gronbech, a luckless man and a nidingr arethe same thing: "Villainy, the act and state of the niding, is identicalwith lucklessness"; "the word [lucklessness] conveys a strong condem-nation ofthe man who is denounced as being unlucky"; "lucklessnesswas altogether evil" (Gronbech, Culture 152,153, 331). "Lucklessness" is

278 S C A N D I N A V I A N S T U D I E S

Gronbech's English translation ofthe Norse words for having no luck[ohapp, dhamingja, modern Danish ulykke), and I shall continue to usethe same term.

Very few scholars have written about the ideas connected with thenegative pole of luck. Jan de Vries briefly discusses it inAltgermanischeReligionsgesehichte, in which he simply refers to Gronbech and has noth-ing further to add. He must, thus, have been in complete agreementwith Gronbech (de Vries, Religionsgesehichte 174).

Werner Wirth and Walter Gehl have dealt with luck as part of adiscussion on a Nordic belief in fate. They debate whether luck is deter-mined by something inherent in the man or by some outer power andtherefore consider examples of lucklessness and luckless men as wellas comment on Gronbech as the leading scholar of this topic. Wirthagrees with Gronbech, whereas Gehl is highly critical, a fact to whichI shall return later. Finally, Hallberg also has some considerations onthe topic of lucklessness, to which I shall likewise return.

I find Gronbech's definition of luck-man and nidingr as oppositesproblematic and contradictory to certain sources. Other sources, how-ever, seem to confirm his view. This faa indicates that the concept of luckhas a greater complexity than Gronbech himself assumed, a factor thathas never been fully described. Gronbech's opposition has never beengenerally employed by scholars of Norse literature and the luckless menin the sagas are not generally considered niMngar by literary historians.However, his view has never been directly challenged by anyone butGehl, and de Vries's endorsement of his viewpoint stands as the lastword on the matter. Society's judgment of luck is thus a question thathas not been considered for many decades and which in my opinioncalls for a reassessment.

THE NORSE TERMINOLOGY OF LUCK

The various terms for luck are used in a complex fashion, but notindiscriminately. There is a clear scale of meaning that stretches from"a force inherent in the man" to "guardian spirit with independent life."Some ofthe luck terms clearly belong to one sphere of meaning, someto the other. This scale expresses the extent to which luck is perceivedas an aspect ofthe man himself, of his personality, or as an expressionof a protective, higher power outside himself. In order to facilitate the

THE NORSE CONCEPT OE LUCK 279

following discussion, I shall first examine those terms that clearly havea meaning of "abstract, inherent force."

G£fa,gipta. These words are used synonymously. They invariably referto a force internal to the man and are never used to express an externalmanifestation. They may be sent forth from the owner himself to helpothers. Both derive fromgipt [gift], which points toward a concept ofluck as something granted from some higher power. Which power isextremely unclear, but it could be an impersonal destiny or goddessesof fate such as noms.

Heill is used synonymously withgafa/gipta, but with a connotationof omen.

Happ is also used in the same manner 2iS gafa/gipta, but there issome disagreement concerning its connotations. Some believe that itstresses "lucky action" (Fritzner; Kuhn). In my opinion, the sourcesgive us no substantial reason to believe that it is used differently fromg£fa,gipta, and heill.

Hamingja is generally synonymous withgsfa/gipta, but differs fromthe terms above in being sometimes used synonymously withf)tlgja. Isee no evidence in the sources to account for Wirth's attempt to attachto it a meaning different from^<e^ undgipta (Wirth 113) since the threewords are randomly interchangeable.

Audna znd s£la are also used in connection with luck. The former hasa ring of destiny, the latter of wealth. They are not used to signify luckin the sense I am investigating, and I shall not refer to them furdier.

These are the terms used to signify luck as an inherent force in a man.The only remaining centtal word connected to luck isJylgja—sometimesused as synonymous with hamingja—which is not translated as luck butwhich represents a category of supernatural creatures that are closelytied to a man's luck or sometimes represent it. Fylgjur are at the otherend ofthe scale in that they have a Gestalt of their own, independent oftheir "owner." They may appear as two different types of manifestations,which, in spite ofthe shared name, are so different that they must beregarded as two distina phenomena.

I. The znim3i-f)ilgja. This is a type of animal Doppelganger, an expres-sion of a man's self, an aspect or a part of his soul, which can be seen towander independendy ofthe owner, even though it does not act inde-pendently. Its nature—bear, fox, and so on—may express his personalityand it refleas his physical condition: it is a bad omen to see ones jylgjalying dead or bloody—it never survives its owner but dies with him.

28o S C A N D I N A V I A N S T U D I E S

Dreamers and the second-sighted may sometimes see other people'sznima[-jylgja, which also forebodes death for thej5'^y«-owner.

Hilda Ellis finds, and I agree with her, that the concept of theanimai-jylgja has been conflated with shape-changing, but they aretwo distinct ideas (Ellis 129-30). In shape-changing, the body liesunconscious while the person—the sotil—wanders in animal shape.This change is the result of a conscious act of will ofthe shape-changer.The znimA-jylgja is decidedly different from shape-changing in twoways. Firstly, it usually moves around while the owner's own body isconscious. Thus it is not identical to his sotil, but merely an aspect orpart of it. Secondly, it is not sent forth as an act of will by the ownerand cannot be controlled by him.

In some sagas, there are cases of people being suddenly overcomeby sleepiness after which theirj5'^y« starts to wander about, or in othercases, they have a vision of someone else's jylgja. This experience isreminiscent ofthe tinconsciousness of shape-changing, but these casesare exceptions to the rule.

At times the jylgjur seem more like literary motifs or symbols ofnegative human traits, such as when dreamers see the. jylgjur of theirenemies in the shape of wolves. Cases in which a hero or a highbornperson is signified by a powerfialj5'^y^ such as a bear could possiblyexpress an ancient Nordic idea.

2. The j5'^yM-woman. Scholars seem to agree that the so-called Z-gjukona was originally conceptually distinct from the zmnvA-jylgja, andthat the two have since been mixed up.' Thej5'^yM-woman is substan-tially different from the zwmA-jylgja: she is an independent creature asopposed to zDoppelganger or an aspect of a man's soul. She acts and talksindependendy in the role of a guardian goddess and is tied to a family,not to an individual like the anunai-jylgja. She may follow a certainindividual, but after his death, she passes on to another member ofthefamily unlike the 2mimal-jylgja, who dies with the man it follows.

The jylgju-wom2in is thought to be influenced by the images ofValkyries and noms, but she overlaps mainly with the disir, a group ofgoddesses who are oftien perceived as the female guardians of a family.The word disir is sometimes used synonymously with jylgjur. The disirthus represent the other extreme of the terminological scale of luck:

I. For example, see Kultuvhistoriskt lexikon for novdisk medeltid (KLNM) under "fylgja";Lagerheim 182-4; Ellis 138.

T H E N O R S E C O N C E P T O F L U C K 281

they were objects of a cult and appear in every respect as external higherpowers and never as a quality inherent in a man.

Fylgju-womcn may have been worshiped as (zmily-disir, but they arenot identical with the disir Their differences are evident in the fact thatthe word disir may also be used with a meaning that clearly has nothingto do with jylgjur. Scholars generally agree that thcjylgju-wom2in is theresult of a mixing of two concepts: the ammai-jylgja and the fzmiiy-disir(see KLNM underfylgja).

Two extremes thus emerge on the terminological scale with a clearline of demarcation in the way that luck is perceived:g£fa,giptu, heill,and happ on one side and jylgja on the other. A very revealing fact hasbeen noted several times: a man of luck is called heillamadr,giptumadr,

gajumadr, hamingjumadr, butneverjylgjumadr (A. Strom 179). This factclearly demonstrates that the jylgja is a concrete guardian creature andnot an abstract ability. This difference is also decisively evident in that

g£fa, gipta, etc. may be sent forth for the aid of others, whereas thejylgja cannot be so controlled and only protects the family to whichshe is tied.

Thus we have two clearly distinct concepts of luck connected only bythe term hamingja, which may be used in either sense. Hamingja is theword that bridges the otherwise clearly separate abstract and concretewords for luck.

Hamingja is to an overwhelming extent used in the abstract sense.There are only two texts in which the word is used synonymously withfylgja, namely Viga-Gliim's Saga chapter 9 and Oddr Snorrason's OlavTryggvasonssaga chapter 5. Even though it wotild be tempting to saythat these two cases are due to a misunderstanding and conclude thathamingja was originally a purely abstract concept unconnected withthe physidiljylgjur, it would not be permissible arbitrarily to disregardtwo sources. The possibility of misunderstanding must also be rejectedon purely linguistic grounds in that hamingja is clearly connected tothe word hamr, which is the bodily expression of a man's thought ormind, the hugr (de Vries, Religionsgesehiehte 222). Hamingja is thoughtto be derived from ham-gengja (Blum 32; de Vries, Religionsgesehichte222); a word that is difficult to interpret exactly, but there can be nodoubt that it reflects the idea of a being that walks around in a physicalGestalt, a hamr.

This understanding is also the general opinion of scholars: hamingjais originally a physical expression of an aspect ofthe human personal-

282 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES

ity—luck—and only later became abstract and synonymous withgafaandgiptu (Lid 138; Blum 34; Wirth iii; Lagerheim 176). Many agreethat it may originate in the idea of a child's foetal membrane servingas a luck-bringing guardian spirit (de Vries, Religionsgesehiehte 224).As a term, it is well suited for bridging the abstract and the concreteideas of luck and luck-bringing creatures since it is connected to acreature with a physical manifestation yet simultaneously expressesan aspect ofthe human personality.

I find that the fragmented nature ofthe different terms for luck indi-cate that the various concepts of luck are not derived from one singleidea but rather that the luck terminology consists of several separatecomplexes of ideas that have merged and influenced one another: theguardian goddesses of the family, who are worshiped {disir, jylgju-women); luck as an aspect of one's personality, which may take physicalshape and be sent forth {hamingja); luck as a faculty, granted to a manby some higher power (gipta,gxfa). We may asstime that there existedsimultaneously one idea of luck as the result of an impersonal destiny,a second of luck determined by guardian creatures and gods of fate,and yet a third of luck as a part of one's own nature. Like so many areasof Norse culture, the whole subject is fraught with uncertainty. Bothtypes oi hamingja are clearly strongly influenced by various traditionsand often function as literary devices with a highly questionable sourcevalue. The above is merely an attempt to show that the various terms arenot used indiscriminately, but that it is possible to distingtiish amongthe meanings ascribed to them.

THE CONCEPTION OF LUCKLESSNESS AND THE

LUCKLESS MAN

In the following, I shall concentrate on the antithesis of luck: luckless-ness. What was society's view ofthe luckless man, how was he judgedideologically and morally? If luck is a quality in a man, what doesa man's being luckless signify about him? Is the lucklessness due toactions committed by him; to aspects of his character; or is it simply acharacteristic that is given no fiirther explanation? Do we find a moraljudgment ofthe luckless man? Is he by definition a nidingr, or can hebe an admirable man and a great hero?

TkE NORSE CONCEPT OF LUCK 283

In The Culture ofthe Teutons, Gronbech defines the nidingr and therebythe luckless man as an utterly contemptible person, unfit for humansociety. The nuHngr was, in Gronbech's words, "abhorrent, the mostcontemptible of all beings" {Culture 331-3). This definition ofthe nibingris essentially in agreement with general opinion. His identification ofnidingr and luckless man is, however, a rather drastic interpretation oflucklessness, due to Gronbech's view of luck as identical to honor, sothat a man who lost his luck would also lose his honor and thereby hisentire human worth (Gronbech, Culture 153, 251).

Gronbech's interpretation of the positive side of luck is convinc-ing, and his accotint ofthe importance of luck is generally excellent.Although some sources do confirm his view of lucklessness, I objectto Gronbech on two accotmts. First: conceptions of luck were morecomplex and mtiltifaceted than Gronbech assumes. Second: his iden-tification ofthe nidingr wi^ the luckless man is erroneous. Gronbechcorrectly assesses the condemnation ofthe nidingr: it was complete. Anidingr had no redeeming qualities. In my opinion, the sources showthat nidingr and luckless man were overlapping but not identical terms.A nibingr would undoubtedly lose his honor and his luck, but thereverse was not necessarily true. Several sources show us that it wasclearly possible to be a luckless man and simultaneously retain one'shonor and all the qualities that defined an excellent and admirable man(henceforth refered to as a hero).

We have a clear example of this situation in Laxdala saga chapter 58:"Grimr sag5i cerin sfn ohopp" (173) [Gn'mr said that he had workedsufficient lucklessness]. Later in the same chapter Snorri says aboutGrimr: "Lizk mer giptusatnliga a Grfm" (174) [Grfmr seems to me tobe a man whom luck will follow]. Ohapp here is clearly not equivalent toeither being a luckless man or to nidings-verk: an action that designatesthe performer a nibingr

Another example occurs in Oldjs saga Tryggvasonar, where the deathof Hakon jarl is due to "ina mestu ohamingju" (299) [the greatest luck-lessness]. Nonetheless, Hakon possessed every characteristic of a hero,including luck to win victory and kill his enemies. Hakon ends his life asa luckless man, but is still considered an admirable man by the author.His enemies, the peasant army, calls him a nibingr, but this is clearly not

2. All translations from Old Icelandic are my own.

284 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES

the opinion ofthe author, who recites a poem of homage to the earl andindicates that the cause of his lucklessness was that the time ofthe truefaith had arrived, a factor clearly overriding the luck of any pagan.

In chapter 120 of Njdls Saga, Skarphe6inn is referred to as a luck-less man by several characters, and this fact is used by Gronbech asevidence to support his theory {Culture 156-7). Paradoxically, this textactually shows Gronbech to be mistaken, since SkarpheSinn is clearlynot a nidingr In the same breath, he is called both a luckless man and aman so resolute and excellent in manly pursuits that the speaker wotildchoose him alone as a companion rather than ten other men together.One does not praise a nibingr this way: in essence, the chapter describesSkarphedinn both as a luckless man and as the greatest and bravest warriorof all. Gronbech sees this praise of course but argues that the meaningofthe words has changed and that they have lost their real significanceto the speaker. His rhetorical strategy is ultimately unacceptable as itcreates an untenable argument that merely restates the source in termsof its exact opposite. Here Gronbech argues against his source and notin accordance with it.

Finally we have the most obvious examples, Gfsli Sursson and GrettirAsmtxndarson. They are both clearly luckless men but simtiltaneouslypossess many ofthe qualities that define a hero. No one could be fur-ther from being a nibingr than Gfsli. In chapter 36 of the saga, he ischaracterized with these words: "hann hefir inn mesti hreystimadr verit|)6 at hann vsri eigi I ollum hlutum gxfumaflr" (115) [he has been thebravest man, though not in everything a luck-man]. Similarly in chapter27: "eigi hefir meiri atg6rvima3r verit en Gfsli ne fiillhugi, en ^6 var3hann eigi gsefuniaQr" (88) [Never was there a more able man than Gfslior a braver one and yet he was not a man of luck]. These quotationsalone ought to refiite Gronbech's interpretation.

In the case of Grettir, other explanations for the lucklessness aregiven, and I shall return to these later. Here also it is clear that one maysimtiltaneously be a luckless man and have honor and respect, as seenin this quotation from chapter 52: "hann er ma3r frxgr ok storaettaSr,{)6 at hann se eigi gjeflimaSr" (169) [he is a famous man and of greatlineage even though he is no man of luck]. He is also referred to as thebravest man who ever lived on Iceland and is consistendy described asa great hero who performs good deeds such as cleansing the land oftrolls and ghosts. Gronbech insists that Grettir is a nibingr. He seemsto be ofthe opinion that Grettir is admired initially but then gradually

T H E N O R S E C O N C E P T OF L U C K 285

slides into the status of anidingr (Gr0nbech, Culture 337-8). This strategywotild be the only way of reconciling the saga's positive view on Grettir,which Gr0nbech does not deny, with Gronbech's own description ofthe complete condemnation ofthe nibingr: "He has no honor.... Hebecomes a coward and he grows malicious" {Culture 328). And: "Theman of lucklessness is regarded with the same mixture of hate, contemptand horror as the real giants of Utgard, for no other reason than thathe belongs to the host ofthe monsters" {Culture 333).

At no point is this description true of Grettir. He is admired andadmirable unto death and beyond. His killers, on the contrary, are judgedwith the harshest condemnation: the saga's author eventually proclaimsthem—and not the luckless Gttxxk—nidingar. Other examples couldbe given, but I consider these sufficient to disprove Gronbech's posi-tion. His opinion ofthe quotations given above seems to be that thesesources represent a later development and a diluting ofthe original wayof thinking. This is an unacceptable argument that arbitrarily dismissessources that do not fit his theory (Gronbech Culture 150,153,157). Thesources contradicting Gronbech are too numerous to be dismissed asexemptions, and there is no reason to assume them to be less "original"than the sources upon which Gr0nbech bases his interpretation.

The attitude toward lucklessness as a despicable state, considered byGr0nbech as the original one, is also to be found in some sources. Gr0n-bech uses as evidence a quotation from Gisli 32, in which, as Gronbechsays: "lucklessness and villainy are used alternately with equal force"{Culture 152). Eyjolfr is going to kill Gisli's wife Au3r, but this act isprevented by Havardr. This killing is called first nibirigsverk [villainy]and then dhappi. In this case, Gr0nbech is right: the word for luckless-ness/t:nlucky deed is here synonymous with the action, which makesa man a nibingr. This example is used by Walter Gehl in his critique ofGr0nbech in which he claims that hcipp is unique among the terms forluck in having an ethical connotation (Gehl 71-5). According to Gehl,ohapp fits Gr0nbech's theory but has nothing to do with other wordsfor luck such 2& gsfa,, gipta, and hamingja, which renders it useless asevidence of a theory on the concept of luck. However, all dictionaries,with the possible exception of Cleasby Vigfusson, disagree with Gehl.'

3. SeeBaetke; CleasbyA^igfusson; Heggstad; Zoega; Fritzner; Kuhn; diVncsAltnordischesEtymologisches Worterbuch.

286 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES

Furthermore, Gehl is contradicted by the sources that use happ indis-criminately with the other words for luck, such as Vatnsdwla saga.

Even though chapter 32 of Gtsli shows that ohapp and nibingsverkmay be used synonymously, this example also disproves Gr0nbech'sclaim of an undeniable connection between lucklessness and nibings-verk, since it is Eyjolfr who wants to commit the crime and he is notluckless. In this quotation, there is actually no connection between theperforming ofnibingsverk and being struck by lucklessness. There areother examples of moral condemnation of the luckless man, such asVaPnsdala saga 24, wherein Geirmundr says to Hrolleifr: "I>at se ek,at J)u ert inn versti ohappamafir, ok far a brottu, in vanda mannfylaok kom her aldri" (64) [I see that you are the worst luckless man, begone you wretched scum and never come back]. Even though theseexamples use ohappamabr with all the disgust and condemnation ofwhich Gr0nbech speaks, they are not numerous enough to justifyviewing this attitude as original and exclusive.

So far we have seen that the attitude toward the luckless man wasmore complex than Gr0nbech assumed. Luckless man and nibingr areterms that in some cases overlap, but that are not identical or invariablyconnected. Hallberg reaches a similar conclusion in that he finds thatogi&fa and dhamingja seem sometimes not to refer to a man's generalquality, but to isolated incidents of misfortime that do not affect theoverall judgment of a man (Hallberg 155-9).

The sources do, however, give the consistent impression that theexcellent, admirable man would normally also be a luck-man, and whenhe is not, it appears to be an anomaly that requires an explanation.The wretched end of so eminent a man as Hakon Jarl is obviously asource of wonder to the author ofthe Heimskringla. He searches foran explanation and eventually settles on the coming of the true faithand the end of pagan men.

Similarly, the fact that their admired heroes are not luck-men seemsto cause the authors ofthe sagas of Gisli and Grettir to wonder. In theabove quotations, the words enpo zndpo at [yet, even though] seem toindicate that this is not a normal state of affairs. In both of the sagas,lucklessness is explicitly explained by seibr [witchcraft] and in Gretdr'scase with a curse cast by a ghost. These reasons are clearly an attemptby the authors to explain an otherwise incomprehensible factor, andI shall later investigate whether this approach accurately reflects aNorse view of luck. In the following I shall examine some cases of this

THE NORSE CONCEPT OF LUCK 287

anomaly—that a brilliant and admirable man is a luckless man—andI shall investigate how this circumstance might be explained and howthe luckless man was regarded.

V A R I O U S EXPLANATIONS O F LUCKLESSNESS

The following causes of lucklessness are not the only possible ones butare the most common and sufficiently representative of the variousviews on luck."*

An Extemal Factor, beyond the Power ofthe Hero

To this category belong the three cases above: seibr in the cases of Gfsliand Grettir and the will of God in the case of Hakon Jarl. The lattermust be considered pure Christian rationalization. As to Gisli, even ifthis explanation is a later addition, the idea that anyone might be struckby lucklessness through seibr is quite likely to be genuinely Norse. Sucha notion would be in keeping with the general conception oi seibr as anevil, dreaded form of witchcraft:. Whether this view oi seibr is original ordistorted by Christianity is in itself a disputed issue to which I cannotattend here. In Grettir's case, the theme of witchcrafi: and a curse as thecause of lucklessness is well integrated by the author, but this fact doesnot necessarily make it a credible source ofNorse thinking. I shall returnto this later and examine other possible causes of Gisli's and Grettir'slucklessness as well.

Kin Slayin£ and Other Forms ofNidingfSverk

The thought that kin slaying would in itself cause lucklessness is attestedby the overwhelming importance ofthe family in Norse culture. Breakingthe family bond offribr [peace] was a disastrous act that would automati-cally have a calamitous effect. This fact is implied in the "Voluspa," inwhich fratricide is one ofthe defining characteristics ofRagnarok andperhaps even the cause of it (i.e. the murder of Baldr by his brother).^ Ifind that the most obvious interpretation of Gisli's case is that his killing

4. Luck may reside in certain objects, for example, and be lost when they are lost, as inVi£[a- Gltims saga.5. Stanzas 43-4 in Codex Regius and 37-8 in Hauksbok. As with almost everything inVoluspa, the exaa interpretation is unclear.

288 S C A N D I N A V I A N S T U D I E S

of his brother-in-law is the real cause of his lucklessness. Folke Stromsuggests that the cause is Gisli's sacrilege in killing during a sacred time("Gudarnas vrede" 15), an explanation that I find possible but less likely.I also believe that the likeliest cause of Skarphedinn's lucklessness is hisand his brothers' killing of their foster brother Hoskuldr.

The aforementioned chapter 32 of Gtsli suggests that other forms ofnibingsverk were also thought to cause both moral condemnation andlucklessness for the culprit. This suggestion brings us back to Gr0nbech'sthesis and to the question of why Gi'sli is clearly not condemned for hisaction. In my opinion, Gi'sli is no nibingr for the reason that his actionsare forced by other, equally compelling demands of honor and familybonds. These considerations are the only imaginable excuses and freehim from the authorial condemnation ofthe charge of being a nibingr.It does not however free him from the lucklessness that must followfrom the action itself independent of intent and reasons. Gi'sli is anexception to the rule: normally nibingsverk was followed by the sharp-est condemnation, and Gi'sli's rescue from this judgment is due only tohis performance ofthe proper act according to the code of honor eventhough it necessarily leads to his destruction.

Nid as the Cause of Lucklessness

Nib is in itself an intricate problem in Norse culture, and I have thereforechosen to discuss it separately even though it has affinities with both thecategories above. Nib is relevant to this discussion due to a connectionbetween nib and lucklessness that is indicated by Egils saga in chapters56 and 57, in which Egill erects a wJ5-pole and composes two wi5-versesagainst his enemy Eirikr Bloodaxe. T his ritual later causes Eirikr to beexiled from Norway: the w/5-pole may therefore be said to rob Eirikrof his luck. Furthermore, nib may be assumed for linguistic reasonsto be in some way connected to nibingr, and if nib were connected tolucklessness, it could therefore also indicate a link between lucklessnessand status of nibingr. For a more thorough discussion of Egil's m^-poleand verses, I refer especially to Bo Almqvist's Norron niddiktning Z*

Another problem concerning nib is whether it was perceived as ritu-ally efficacious in damaging its victim or functioned exclusively as an

6. Almqvist 94-118; se also E Strom, "Nid, Ergi" 18; E Strom, "Gudarnas vrede" 23;Meulengracht Sorensen 39; furthermore Reallexicon dergermanischen Altertumskundeand KLNM under "ni6."

THE NORSE CONCEPT OF LUCK 289

insult. It is possible that the latter could sometimes be the case, but inthe case of "erected m' '—the insulting words being accompanied bya nib-pole or wooden sculpture—there can be no doubt that nib has aritual purpose. A detailed discussion is not possible here, but I againrefer to Aknqvist who also concludes that nib-poles are most intimatelyconnected to magic and pagan cults.''

On the basis of these arguments, I conclude that the wj -passage inEgils Saga shows that nib was in some cases a ritual with the purposeof robbing an enemy of his luck. This fact is especially interesting sincethe verses in chapters 56 and 57 are considered to have been composedby Egill himself and are thus a pre-Christian source to the perceptionof nib.

In relation to my investigation ofthe view on the luckless man, thequestion then is: what does nib imply about its victim. Though the exactrelationship between nib and nibingr is unknown, it is not vmreasonableto assume that the accusations directed at the victim of w^ were such asto brand him as a nibingr (Almqvist 74; Meulengracht S0rensen 38).

In the w ' -verses in chapters 56 and 57, Egill calls down the anger ofcertain higher powers on his enemies.^ In addition to various insults,Egill directs two accusations against Eirikr Bloodaxe that specificallyrefer to actions described in the immediately preceding narrative:firstly he is "ve grandar" [despoiler ofthe sacred]. This characterizationrefers to Eirik and Gunnhild's breaking of the/mj'-peace in cuttingthe sacred ropes encircling Pingvellir. Such a transgression is sacrilegesince the area and peace of the ping were sacred and protected by thegods: breaking the w-ropes was an insult to the gods themselves. Itis in all probability this action that enables Egill to awaken the wrathof divine powers toward Eirikr and Gunnhildr through his nib ritual.Norse gods are generally considered unconcerned with human justice,but their anger was aroused by an insult to them personally (F. Strom,Gudamas vrede 13,19-21).

Egil's other accusation is fratricide, an obvious nibingsverk thataccording to my previous examples ought to cause the loss of luck byEirfkr independent of Egil's nib. We may of course here have a diff-erent perception of lucklessness, in which lucklessness is not caused

7. See KLNM and Reallexicon dergermanischen Altertumskunde under "ni6," for a definitionof ererted ni3 and "tongue-ni6."8. Almqvist 107; see also E Strom, "Gudarnas vrede" 23.

29O S C A N D I N A V I A N S T U D I E S

directly by the committing of nibingsverk, but by the nib ritual. ButEgil's intention in including this scene may also simply be to brandhis enemy as a nibingr, one who deserves to be a social outcast sincethis is an absolutely essential element of nib. The most common reasonfor ostracism associated with nib is ergi [unmanliness], especially inthe form of cowardice and passive male homosexuality. This is oneoffence of which Eirikr is not guilty and Egill therefore turns to thefratricide to be able to include the social condemnation without whichhis nib would be incomplete.

In Gtsli saga chapter 2 and Vatnsdala saga chapter 33 the victim'scowardice {ergi) is the immediate cause of the nib. It is unlikely thatergi would lead to retaliation from the divine powers, but it would initself lead to a form of loss of luck in that a man who has lost his honorand the respect of his peers is naturally not a lucky man.

In Vatnsdala saga,, the anger of xhegobar is again invoked againstthe victim. We again find two components of the nib: social ostra-cism—"being every man's nidingf—znd the invocation ofthe gods'anger with an accusation of being 3. gribnibingr, diat is a breaker of apeace or agreement. The latter at once brands the victims as nibingarand motivates the wrath ofthe gods since peace breaking is also sacrilege(Markey 11). In Vatnsdwla saga, the two components ofthe nib againcombine to make the loss of luck ofthe victim complete.

To conclude, nib may destroy the luck ofthe victim on two levels: bothsocially and with regard to divine powers. In Egik saga and Vatnsdalasaga, the luck-destroying nib is connected to various forms of nibingsverk,for example cowardice and peace breaking. The nib makes its victim"every man's nibingr," the object of a strong social condemnation thatis an essential part—some say the essential and original part—of nib.The invocation of the wrath of higher powers is not always present,but strengthens the loss of luck. One may conclude that insofar as one'slucklessness is caused by nib, one is a nibingr and that in such casesGr0nbech's theory is correct.

So far I have shown examples of lucklessness caused by magic, sac-rilege, and nibingsverk, especially slaying kin and ergi. I find no reasonnot to consider these ideas as mainly pre-Christian. These causes, withthe exception of the first, all implicate a degree of condemnation ofthe luckless man. As I have shown, however, the condemnation wasnot as unequivocal as Gr0nbech claims. Some ofthe aforementionedcharacters such as Grettir and SkarpheQinn however, possess certain

TUB N O R S E CONCEPT OF LUCK 291

characteristics that seem connected to their lack of luck and that mayindicate a condemnation of this lucklessness. This is the question Ishall now examine.

Flaw of Charaaer as a Cause ofLueklessness

In Grettirs saga, there are several times that flaws in Grettir's chararterare used explicitly by the author to explain his lack of luck, such as whenhis over-confidence is pointed out in chapter 28. He believes himselfcapable of anything, which leads him to seek out the ghost Glamr, whocasts the curse on him that directly occasions his lucklessness. I feel,however, that the saga's view of over-confidence as a form of hubris,which strikes Grettir, can hardly express Norse thinking. Throughoutthe saga Grettir conquers his enemies and is therein not over-confidentaccording to Norse thinking, but deserving ofthe highest praise.

The lack of luck is also explained by other character flaws, mainly quar-relsomeness and lack of self-control.' It is not unreasonable to assume thatto Norse thought lucklessness might be the result of possessing a naturethat relentlessly drives one toward disaster. Nonetheless in Grettir's case,this idea seems colored by a Christian view of sin and individual choicebetween sin and virtue. Since Grettirs saga is the last ofthe great sagas,written circa 1300-1325, the Christian influence is obvious throughout,and one cannot on the grounds of this saga alone conclude that therewas a Norse idea of a man's fate driving him to lucklessness on the basisof his own nature.

Even if this situation were the case, we would have to conclude thata disposition that alienates others is unlucky, whereas it is a gift to pos-sess a pleasant, sociable nature. This experience is too general to claimas particularly Norse. In my view, Grettir's flaws are not due to anyNorse idea of luck, but rather are the author's attempt to explain thelucklessness of his hero. He utilizes certain undesirable characteristicsas well as stories about Grettir's childhood, which include folkloricmotives about the unpromising hero.

Skarphedinn has certain similarities with Grettir. InNjdlssaga chapter100, his lucklessness seems to consist of his difficult, quarrelsome nature.

9. E.g. chapters 31, 35, and 39 oi Grettirs saga.10. For reasons of brevity I have chosen not to include any such cases, since I find themof limited value to the present discussion.

292 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES

which repels people and makes enemies of everyone he meets. I seethe real cause of his lucklessness as the killing of Hoskuldr. Perhaps hislucklessness has no definite cause and is simply a result of his personalfate, something that is also found in some cases. ^ This view of char-aaer flaws in both these sagas expresses a general attitude toward themale ideal. It involves the admiration ofthe brave, strong, and heroicman who deserves honor and fame. It is nonetheless a flaw if he doesnot also possess the self-control and the will to strive for peace that ischaracteristic of flawless heroes such as Gunnarr of HlidarenSi.

Gisli is the luckless man who most closely resembles the blamelesshero who is struck by lucklessness. I believe that the cause of his luckless-ness is the slaying of kin, but this cause must have been insufficient tothe saga writer since he finds it necessary to evoke sei^ as the reason. Itis of course possible that this trait is original since seibr as a destructivemagic is found in several sources including in Egils saga.

I conclude, therefore, that flaws of character cannot be the cause oflucklessness in Norse thinking, but that in certain cases they are usedby the authors of sagas to create psychological portraits or throughtheir example to throw the ideal man into relief. Ultimately they failto reflect a negative view ofthe luckless man.

CONCLUSION

As regards the view ofNorse society on luck and the question of con-demnation ofthe luckless man, I conclude that most ofthe causes oflucklessness examined here are connected with some transgression onthe part of the luckless one. Recurring causes of lucklessness includekin-slaying, sacrilege, oath- and peace-breaking, and nibingsverk, allof which would likely give rise to a degree of condemnation. We do,however, find certain causes of lucklessness that are entirely indepen-dent of one's own actions: seibr, curses, or a lucklessness were simplyaccorded by fate.

The natural state of affairs was that a hero was a man of luck. Specificcases ofthe opposite were a source of wonder and required—and usu-ally found—an explanation among those mentioned above. In spite ofthis fact, condemnation is attached to lucklessness only in some cases,but not in others.

The concept of lucklessness in the sources is complex and reflects notone, but various attitudes. Even where some degree of condemnation

T H E N O R S E C O N C E P T O F L U C K 293

is implied, its strength varies. First, we find the state that Gronbechdiscusses in which the unlucky man is a nibingr. Second, we findinstances of lucklessness seen as a flaw, a lack, and something to avoid,but with none of the absolute condemnations characteristic of thenibingr-concept. Third, we find cases of no condemnation at ail, suchas Laxdala saga chapter 58. And finally there are certain luckless men,such as Gi'sli, who are struck by the relentless lack of luck but are freeof condemnation because their action is ruled by fate. Lucklessness,then, is often connected with contemptible actions and to some degreea reprehensible state, but this association is by no means necessary.The attitude toward lucklessness depicted by Gronbech existed, butit was not the only possible attitude, and there is no reason to assumethat one attitude was more original than the others. Gronbech errs indefining luck-man and nibingr as stark opposites: the status of nibingrwas no automatic consequence of loss of luck, but had a narrower andmore specific meaning.

The concepts of luck and the loss of luck were complex, and Norsethought had no single, unanimous view on what might be the cause oflucklessness. Furthermore, the attitude toward luck reflects aspects oftheNorse conceptualization of a range of topics such as ritual remedies againstenemies, the relationship with the powers, and the ideal man. It does notconsist of one clearly defined idea, but is rather a multifacetcd conceptreflecting several co-existing views on luck that have grown out of a rangeof different ideas and merged in a complex fashion. However, I hope tohave shown that it is not impossible to discern its various facets.

WORKS CITED

Almqvist, Bo. Norrm Niddiktning I. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965.Baetke, Walter. Worterbuch zur attnordischen Prosalitteratur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,

1976.Bjarni ASalbjarnarson, ed. ''6lafs saga Tryggvusomr."HeimskrinjftaI. Islenzk Fornrit 26.

Reykjavik: Hid fslenzka fornritafelag, 1979. 225-372.Blum, Ida. Die Schutzgeister in der attnordischen Literatur. Zabern: A. Fuchs, 1912.Cleasby, Richard and Gudbrand Vigfusson. An Icetandie-En£ftish Dictionary. 2nd ed.

Oxford: Clarendon p, 1969.de Vries, Jan. Att^ermanische Retijiionsgeschichte I. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,

1970.. Altnordisches Etymoloffisches Worterbuch. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 20,00.

Einar 6I Sveinsson, ed. Brennu-Njdts sa^a. Islenzk Fornrit 12. Reykjavik: Hid fslenzkafornritafelag, 1954.

294 SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES

. Vatmdwla sa£fa. Islenzk Fornrit 8. Reykjavik: Hid Islenzka fornritafelag, 1939.1-131.

Ellis, Hilda Roderick. The Road to Hel. New York: Greenwood P, 1968.Fritzner, Johan. Ordbo^ over det£amle norske spro^. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1972—73.Gehl, Walter. Der Germanische Schicksatsgtaube. Berlin: Junker & Diinnhaupt, 1939.Granlund, John, ed. Kutturhistoriskt lexikon for nordisk medeltid. Malmo: Allhem,

1956-78.Gr0nbech, Vilhelm. The Culture ofthe Teutons. London: Oxford UP, 1931.

. Kultur und Religion der Germanen. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 1997.GuSni J6nsson, ed. GrettissagaAsmundarsonar. Islenzk Fornrit 7. Reykjavik: Hid Islenzka

fornritafelag, 1936.1-290.I'orolfsson, Bjorn and Gudni J6nsson eds. Gisla sa£fa Siirssonar. Islenzk Fornrit 6. Reyk-

javik: Hi6 Islenzka fomritafelag, 1943.1-118.Hallberg, Peter. "The Concept of Gipta-gccfa-hamingja in Old Norse Literature." Proceed-

ings ofthe First Intemational Sa^a Conference. London: Viking Society for NorthernResearch, 1973.141-74.

Heggstad, Leiv, et al. Norr0n ordbok. 4. ed. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget, 1997.Hoops, Johannes, Heinrich Beck, et al. eds. Reallexicon dergermanischen Altertumskunde.

2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973.Kuhn, Hans ed. Kurzes Worterbuch. Vol. 2 oiEdda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst

verwandten Denkmdlem. Eds. Gustav Neckel and Hans Kuhn. Heidelberg: Uni-versitatsverlag, 1968.

Lagerheim, Maj. "Bidrag dl kannedommen om fy\Q!i-aon"Svenskafomminnesfdreningenstidsskrift \2. Stockholm: 1905. 169-184.

Lid, Nils. Nordisk kulturXXVI: Religionshistorie. Stockholm: Bonniers forlag, 1935.Markey, T.L. "Nordic niSvisur: An instance of Ritual Inversion^" Medieval Scandinavia

5. Odense: Odense UP, 1972. 7—18.Meulengracht Sorensen, Preben. Norront nid. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag,

1980.SigurSur Nordal, ed. Egik saga Skallagrimssonar. Islenzk Fornrit 2. Reykjavik: Hifl

Islenzka fornritafelag, 1933.Strom, Folke. "Gudarnas vrede." Saga och sed: Kungl. Gustav Adolfi akademiens Arsbok

1952. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs akademien, 1953.5-40.. Nid, ergi and Old Norse Moral Attitudes. London: Viking Society for Northern

Research, 1974.Strom, Ake. Germanische und Baltische Religion. Stuttgart: W. Kohihammer, 1975.Sveinsson, Einar 6I , ed. Laxdala saga. Islenzk Fornrit 5. Reykjavik: Hid Islenzka forn-

ritafelag, 1934. 1-248.Turville-Petre, Gabriel. iVf)*^ and Religion ofthe North. Westport: Weidenfeld and Nicol-

son, 1964.Wirth, Werner. Der Schicksalsglaube in den Islandersagas. Stuttgart: W. Kohihammer,

1940.Zoega, GeirT..^ Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1961.