At 7:02:02 PM on Monday, July 20, 2009, Fred and Grace
Hatton wrote:

[...]

> Nú sendu þeir Ásgrímur mann til Þórhalls og létu segja
> honum í hvert óefni komið var.

> Now they, Asgrim (and his men), sent a man to Thorhall and
> had him told in what (way?) a perplexity was come (into
> the picture).

Here <óefni> seems rather to be 'a precarious state of
affairs': 'into what a precarious state of affairs (matters)
had come'.

> "Of fjarri var eg þó nú," kvað Þórhallur, "því að enn
> mundi þetta mál eigi þann veg farið hafa ef eg hefði við
> verið.

> "Further off? was I yet now, " said Thorhall, "because
> still would this case not have gone that way if I had been
> with (them).

<Of> with adjectives and adverbs is 'too': <of fjarri> is
'too far'. <Vera við> is 'to be present', so you could say
simply 'if I had been present'.

[...]

> Skalt þú nú ganga til þeirra sem skjótast og segja þeim að
> Mörður stefni þeim báðum, Flosa og Eyjólfi,

> You shall now go to them

I.e., to Áskel & Co.

> as quickly as possible and tell them that Mord summons
> them both, Flosi and Eyjolf,

<Stefni> is a subjunctive, so I think that it's more like
'tell them that Mörð should summon them both'.

> um það er þeir hafa fé borið í dóminn og láta varða
> fjörbaugsgarð. Þá skal hann stefna þeim

> concerning that when they have brought money into the
> court and allow punishing by lesser outlawry. Then he
> shall summon them

The relative particle <er> doesn't mean 'when' in <um þat
er>; taking a small liberty with <þat>, you could render
it 'concerning this, that they have ...'. More
idiomatically, it could be translated 'on the grounds that
they have ...'. <Láta varða fjörbaugsgarð> is 'ask that
(they) be punished by lesser outlawry (Zoëga s.v. <varða>
(5)).

> annarri stefnu um það er þeir báru vætti þau er eigi áttu
> máli að skipta með þeim

> in another summons regarding that when they gave those
> testimonies which they had no right to in (the) case to
> divide them

CV s.v. <mál> (B.7): <e-t skiptir miklu, litlu ... máli> 'to
bear much or little upon a case, to be of great (small ...)
importance'. CV s.v. <skipta> (II.2): <skipta e-u> 'to be
of importance to a matter, to change or alter it', <eiga
máli at skipta um e-t> 'to be concerned about a thing'. All
in all, <vætti þau er eigi áttu máli at skipta> appears to
be 'those testimonies that did not bear on (the) case'. I'm
not entirely certain of the function of <með þeim> in this
sentence. My best guess is that it refer to the case: 'the
case with/among them', i.e., 'their case'.

> og gerðu í því þingsafglöpun. Seg þeim að eg segi svo ef
> tvær fjörbaugssakar eru á hendi einum

> and created with that a contempt of the Thing. Tell them
> that I say so if two cases involving lesser outlawry are
> against one

> manni að þann skal dæma skógarmann.

> man that then shall (he be?) judged an outlaw.

Yes.

> Skuluð þér af því búa fyrri til yðvart mál að þá skuluð
> þér og fyrri sækja og dæma."

> You shall from that prepare first for your case against
> them you shall also prosecute and judge first."

<Af því ... at> is a single discontinuous phrase, 'because';
think of the sentence as <Skuluð þér búa fyrri til yðvart
mál af því at þá skuluð þér ok fyrri sœkja ok dœma> 'You
must prepare your case first because then you shall also
proceed and give judgement first'. However, that ignores
the dative <þér> in both clauses. (The subject of each
clause is expressed only in the verbal ending <-uð>.) I
think that the first one doesn't actually contribute much,
but the second one seems almost to give <dœma> a passive
sense, the idea being that 'then your case will also proceed
and be judged first' -- the judgement is 'to-you'. But I
confess that while I'm reasonably sure of the sense, I don't
entirely understand the construction.

[...]

> Mörður Valgarðsson nefndi sér votta "nefni eg í það
> vætti," sagði hann, "að eg stefni

> Mord Valgard's son named witnesses for himself, "I name in
> witness thereof,"said he, "that I summon

> Flosa Þórðarsyni um það er hann gaf fé til liðs sér hér á
> þinginu Eyjólfi Bölverkssyni. Tel

> Flosi Thordarson concerning it when he gave money to his
> company, to Eyjolf Bolverk's son, here at the Thing.

See earlier comment on <um þat er>.

> Tel eg hann eiga að verða um sök þá mann sekan,
> fjörbaugsmann,

> I reckon he is obliged to become an outlawed man
> concerning (the) lawsuit, one sentenced to lesser
> outlawry,

<Þá> modifies <sök>, and <um sök þá> is a prepositional
phrase, 'concerning this charge': 'I say that he must become
on this charge an outlawed man, one sentenced to lesser
outlawry'.

> því aðeins ferjanda né festum helganda nema fjörbaugur eða
> aðalfestur komi fram að féránsdómi, en alsekan skógarmann
> ellegar.

> (for) that ?? ferrying nor secure protection? unless life
> money or the last ounce of the sum are produced to (the)
> quarter? court, but an outlaw in greater degree or
> outlawed man.

<féránsdómr> is <fé-ráns-dómr>, from <fé> 'money', <rán>
'any unlawful seizure or holding of property', and <dómr>
'court'; Zoëga has <férán> 'plunder' and makes the
<féránsdómr> the 'court of execution', but it appears that
it was the court that received fines and confiscated goods;
I like the MM&HP translation, 'court of confiscation.

<elligar> = <ella> 'else, otherwise'.

<því aðeins> = <því at eins> 'only in that case' (Zoëga s.v.
<einn> (7)); <því aðeins X nema Y> seems to be 'not X unless
Y, X only in case Y'. In fact, I see that this construction
is explained in CV s.v. <né> (B.2): <því at eins X né Y,
nema Z> 'only in that case X nor Y if Z' = 'neither X nor Y
unless Z'. (It's described as an irregular use.)

<Ferjanda> and <helganda> are examples of an ON function of
the present participle that has no counterpart in English,
namely, to express potentiality or obligation: given a verb
X, X-andi can mean 'able/fit/necessary to be X-ed' (Barnes,
3.9.7.4).

An outlaw who is <ferjandi> is one who is allowed passage
abroad. This was automatic in the case of a fjörbaugsmaðr:
the lesser outlawry (fjörbaugsgarðr) deprived a man of his
inviolability of person (mannhelgr) for three years, but
this deprivation applied only in Iceland, so it was
essentially a sentence of three years' exile abroad. The
outlaw was allowed a certain period of time to find
transportation abroad, and during that period there were
certain places where he could take sanctuary. But even full
outlaws (skógarmenn) could with the permission of the
lögrétta be allowed passage abroad; such an outlaw was a
skógarmaðr ferjandi.

At this point, then, we have 'become an outlawed man, one
sentenced to lesser outlawry, neither permitted passage
abroad nor <festum helganda> unless ...'. That leaves
<festum helganda>, which appears to have been a problem even
for experts, judging by what I've found digging around
online. <Ferja e-n af landi> is 'to carry someone abroad,
and an outlaw who is <ferjandi> is one who is able/fit to be
carried abroad; <helga e-n> is 'to proclaim someone
inviolable', so an outlaw who is <helgandi> ought to be one
who is allowed some measure of inviolability. The real
problem is <festum>, which appears to be the dative plural
either of <festr> 'rope, cord, cable (for mooring a ship to
the shore)' or of <festa> 'bail, pledge'. I've seen an
attempt to explain it in terms of the ropes mooring the ship
on which the outlaw leaves Iceland, but I found it very
unconvincing. Karl Lehmann & Hans Schnorr von Carolsfeld,
_Die Njálssage, insbesondere in ihren juristischen
Bestandtheilen_, Berlin, 1883, p. 14, offer what seems to me
a much better discussion.
(<http://books.google.com/books?id=tEYLAAAAYAAJ>)

They begin by noting that the literal sense of <festr>
doesn't fit, and that the law books nowhere mention
protection by means of a surety or bail. The association
with <helganda>, they say, points to the three places of
asylum granted the fjörbaugsmaðr on his way to exile. In
the legal code Grágás they are called <heimilar> (singular
<heimili>) 'domiciles', and Ch. 52 of Grágás says:

Þa er ferans domr er áttr at fiorbavgs maN, þa scal segia
til heimila hans. Hann scal eiga þriú heimili. þeirra
scal eigi lengra imiðlom vera eN fara megi vm dag a aNan
veg. Hann scal heilagr vera at þeim heimilom oc i örscotz
hælgi við a alla vega. oc a götuNi a millom heimilaNa ef
hann feR eigi optaR eN vm siN a manaðe. oc i örscotz
helgi við götona. Nv fara menn a moti honom þa scal hann
fara af götoNi sva at þeir vm take eigi spióta oddom til
hans. O heilagr verðr fiorbavgs maðr ef eigi er sagt til
heimila hans at ferans domi. þar scal nefna vatta at
fiorbavgr galldz eða aNat þat fe er hann yrði secr scogar
maðr ef eigi quæmi fram. [...]

When the court of confiscation has been held for a
<fjörbaugsmaðr>, his <heimilar> shall be announced. He
shall have three <heimilar>. They shall not be further
apart than can be travelled in a day in a different
manner. [I'm not sure of the exact sense of <á annan veg>
here.] He shall be inviolable at these <heimilar> and
within an arrow-shot in all directions. And on the path
between the <heimilar> if he does not go oftener than once
a month. And inviolable within an arrow-shot of the path.
Now men attack him, then he shall leave the path so that
they do not take spear-points to him. A <fjörbaugsmaðr>
is not inviolable if his <heimilar> are not announced at
the court of confiscation. Witnesses shall be named there
that life-money would be paid or that other money when he
became an outlaw if it were not produced. [...]

Judging from this, it would not be unreasonable to describe
a fjörbaugsmaðr as <heimilum helgandi>, 'inviolable in (his)
<heimilar>' or the like. Lehmann and Schnorr von Carolsfeld
conclude that the author of Njála was dealing with legal
formulas that were no longer clear to him and bollixed them
up a bit, and that <festum helganda> should probably be
interpreted as if it were <heimilum helganda>. That would
make it 'become an outlawed man, one sentenced to lesser
outlawry, neither permitted passage abroad nor granted
inviolability in in his heimilar, unless ...'. (By the way,
this also seems to be more or less the understanding behind
MM&HP's 'granted asylum'.)

Recall that the 'unless' clause is <nema fjörbaugr eða
aðalfestr komi fram at féránsdómi> 'unless life-money or the
last ounce thereof [which was apparently considered a
separate obligation] be produced at the court of
confiscation'. The whole thing would therefore seem to be
something like this:

I say that he must become on this charge an outlawed man,
one sentenced to lesser outlawry, neither permitted
passage abroad nor granted inviolability in in his
heimilar, unless unless life-money or the last ounce
thereof be produced at the court of confiscation, but
otherwise [become] a full outlaw.

(Whew!)

This reliance on Grágás to make sense of <festum helganda>
receives some support from the fact that Ch. 67 of Grágás
justifies the last part of the sentence.

Ef þat fe komr eigi fram at ferans domi er þar scal
gialdaz þa verðr hann secr o öll oc oferiande. Nu gelldz
þar fior Bavgr oc alaðs festr. [...] oc eigi verðr hann
heilagr ef eigi gelldz fe þat er þar [= at ferans domi]
scylldi gialldaz.

If that money is not produced at the court of confiscation
that is to paid there, then he becomes an outlaw not to be
fed and not to be permitted passage abroad. Life-money
and the last ounce are to be paid there now. [...] And
he does not become inviolable if the money is not paid
that should be paid there.

Brian