an went to the battlefield in the firm conviction that right
would prevail. In modern times, while we appeal in declarations of war
to the God of Battles, we do it with the feeling that war is often an
unholy thing, and that Providence is not always on the side of strong
battalions. The Northman saw Providence on both sides. It was good to
live, if one fought bravely, but it was also good to die, if one fell
bravely. To live bravely and to die bravely, trusting in the God of
Battles, was the warrior's comfortable creed.

But this feeling was also shown in private life. When two tribes or
peoples rushed to war, there Odin, the warrior's god, was sure to be
busy in the fight, turning the day this way or that at his will; but he
was no less present in private war, where in any quarrel man met man to
claim or to defend a right. There, too, he turned the scale and swayed
the day, and there too an appeal to arms was regarded as an appeal to
heaven. Hence arose another right older than all law, the right of
duel--of wager of battle, as the old English law called it. Among the
Northmen it underlaid all their early legislation, which, as we shall
see, aimed rather at regulating and guiding it, by making it a part and
parcel of the law, than at attempting to check at once a custom which
had grown up with the whole faith of the people, and which was regarded
as a right at once so time-honoured and so holy.

Thirdly, we must never forget that, as it is the Christian's duty to
forgive his foes, and to be patient and long-suffering under the most
grievous wrongs so it was the heathen's bounden duty to avenge all
wrongs, and most of all those offered to blood relations, to his kith
and kin, to the utmost limit of his power. Hence arose the constant
blood-feuds between families, of which we shall hear so much in our
story, but which we shall fail fully to understand, unless we keep in
view, along with this duty of revenge, the right or property which all
heads of houses had in their relations. Out of these twofold rights, of
the right of revenge and the right of property, arose that strange
medley of forbearance and blood-thirstiness which stamps the age.
Revenue was a duty and a right, but property was no less a right; and so
it rested with the father of a family either to take revenge, life for
life, or to forego his vengeance, and take a compensation in goods or
money for the loss he had sustained in his property. Out of this latter