Viking Honor and Duels

 This Norse concept of "honor" and of a "good name" and the extraordinary lengths that a Norseman went to in order to protect his good name require a far lengthier explanation than I can give here. In part, that's because similar concepts don't exist in modern western culture. Thus, English language translations of the Norse words are clumsy and imprecise. For the best explanation, I suggest reading the chapter in Sigurður Nordal's Icelandic Culture.

             The range of behaviors in Norse society ran the gamut from drangskapur to níðr. The first is usually translated as "honor" and the second as "shame".

             At one extreme, the state of drengskapur was admired, and the actions of a drengur would be emulated and praised.

             At the other extreme, the state of níðr was despised, and the actions of a níðingar would be avoided and reviled.

             Snorri Sturluson wrote, "Valiant men who exert a good influence are called drengur." A drengur possessed bravery, nobility, magnanimity, a sense of fair play, respect for others, the strength to do what is right, and a sense of personal honor. Physical bravery was taken for granted. More important was self-control. A drengur showed equanimity in the face of danger, not because of insensitivity or stupidity, but because the danger and the possible risk to life and limb was unimportant compared to the need to maintain self-respect and the respect of the community. There was a practical side to such imperturbability, because not only was it unmanly to show concern or fear in the face of danger, but also useless.

             A níðingr was the object of hate and scorn. He was an outcast. A typical cause for such disgrace was treachery toward a friend. When one man placed his trust in another man, only to be let down by that other man, then that other man would be called a níðingar.

             A man's fame and honor in life, and his good name after death, was so important that a man would be hypersensitive to the opinion of the community. He might not otherwise fear anything nor flinch at death, but the respect of the community was of paramount importance. Any offence in word or deed, or anything that might blot one's honor had to be dealt with firmly in order to maintain that respect. So a Norseman was constantly on the alert for wrongs against his person or his name. Those wrongs were proclaimed openly, and then avenged.

             Vengence was not a punishment for the person on whom it was inflicted. Rather, it was a reparation to the honor of the person who was being avenged. Vengeance repaired the honor of the injured person. Vengeance need not even be worked upon the individual who caused the offense. Killing a close family member was nearly as good as killing the responsible party. For instance, in Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða, Hrafnkel saw Sámur's brother walk by and killed the innocent fellow to avenge himself on Sámur.  

            Since the power of the state was weak, vengeance was sanctioned and even encouraged by the laws. And even when the law forbade vengeance, there were cases when public opinion demanded it.

             Duels were an accepted way of making good on verbal injuries. The less formal form of dueling was known as einvígi (single combat), while the more formal duel was called a hólmganga (going to the island) because duels were frequently fought on small, deserted islands. The islands prevented cowards from running away, and limited possible interference from third parties. The island on which duels were fought at Þingvellir (the site of Iceland's national parliament) no longer exists, due to the geological changes in the landscape, although its location is known. The area is now flooded by Þingvallavatn, the lake adjacent to the site (left).  

            Duels were conducted according to formal rules. The injured party said, "You are not a man's equal and not a man at heart." The second party responded, "I am as much a man as you."

The time and place for the duel was set. If either party failed to show for any reason, he was branded a níðingar.

             For the duel, a cloak was laid on the ground, about three meters square. If either man stepped off the cloak, he lost the duel, and was deemed to be níðingar.  

            Weapons used were swords, spears, and axes. Each man was allowed three shields, in the likely possibility of breakage. If either man's blood fell on the cloak, he was permitted to withdraw from the duel. The man with the worse wound could buy himself off. However, if a man died, all his property went to the winner, so most fights were to the death.

             The Icelandic family sagas are filled with accounts of duels, but few of the accounts describe the formalities. Chapter 10 of Kormáks saga has perhaps the most detailed, if slightly fantastic, description of the dueling laws and customs. For example, the saga text states that the man who prepared the duel site was to approach the cloak in such a way that he could see the sky between his legs, all the while grasping his earlobes and speaking the invocation of the tjösnublót. People trying to make sense of the duel descriptions have come up with alternative interpretations than what I've presented here. One has to assume that when the sagas were written, duels had long since ceased to be a common occurrence. Chapter 11 of Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu describes the last duel to take place in Iceland early in the 11th century, when they were abolished.