The severest ordeal resorted to seems to have been that of walking on red-hot irons.

“Hallkel Huk, a lend-man in Norway, went westward to the Hebrides; there Gilli-Krist came to him from Ireland, and said that he was the son of King Magnus Berfœtti (bare-foot). His mother was with him, and said that he was also called Harald. Hallkel received them, took them with him to Norway, and at once went to King Sigurd with Harald and his mother. They told the king their errand. Sigurd talked of this matter with the chiefs, and said that every one might advise what he liked, but all asked him to have his own way. Then Sigurd let Harald be called, and told him that he would allow him to undergo the ordeal to prove who was his father. Sigurd said that Harald should walk on iron bars to prove his fathership; but that ordeal was thought to be rather hard, for he had to suffer it for the sake of his fathership and not for his kingship, which he had before renounced by oath. Harald assented to this. He fasted before he walked on the irons and suffered the ordeal, the severest in Norway, that nine ‘red-hot’ ploughshares were to be laid down, and Harald to walk over them with bare feet, and two bishops to lead him. Three days afterwards the ordeal was tried, and the result was that his feet were not burnt. Thereafter Sigurd acknowledged the kinsmanship of Harald; but his son Magnus disliked him much, as did many chiefs. Sigurd trusted so much to his popularity with the people that he asked all to swear that Magnus, the son of Sigurd, should be king after him, and he got that oath from all the people of the land” (Sigurd Jórsalafari’s Saga, c. 34).

CHAPTER XLII.
DUELLING.

Two forms of duelling—The challenge—The places of combat—Rules of duelling—Plan of duelling-ground—Length of sword used—Offer of sacrifice before a duel—A peculiar duel—Women a constant cause of duels—Famous duels—The abolition of duelling.

The custom of duelling, which was frequently resorted to as a form of ordeal, prevailed very extensively.

There were two kinds of duels, the einvigi and the holmganga. When used as a form of ordeal, or means of proof, if the challenger was victorious, then the object demanded was his, for his victory was thought to be the judgment of the gods.

“It was the law of holmganga in those times, that if he who challenged another man in order to get something gained the victory, he should have the prize for which he had challenged; but if he was defeated, he should release himself with as much property as had been agreed upon; but if he fell in the holmganga he should forfeit all his property, and he who killed him was to take all the inheritance” (Egil’s Saga, c. 67).

In the einvigi[[568]] there were no settled rules, and each party could use such weapons as he wished, and proceed in such manner as he thought most advantageous to himself. It was the simpler mode of duelling. One of its peculiarities was that the place for the fight was marked out. The combatants were allowed to use other weapons besides swords, and themselves carried the shield, while in the holmganga it was carried for them.

The holmganga, which took place after a formal challenge at which the time and place were fixed, was the form of duelling that chiefly prevailed. Its rules were most strict and binding, and were regulated by a code of law called the “holmganga laws.”

It derived its name from the fact that the combatants originally fought upon a small islet (holm), partly in order that they might not be disturbed and parted against their will, and partly that the fighting place might have a natural border, over which they could not retire.