VIII - The Social Classes of Germanic Society Contemplations on Germanic Law Series There are a handful of distinct social hierarchies within Germanic tribes that we could examine—and we will look at a couple—but the biggest social distinction was between the free and unfree. This binary is further subdivided in the Eddic poem Rígsþula, where we are told how the god Heimdall fostered three classes: thralls, karls, and jarls. Soon he got a chance to test his strength. He made rope, he made baskets, all day he carried firewood home.Rígsþula 9 The class of thralls was the lowest of the three, and it consisted of stooping laborers who were servants to the higher classes of freemen. A man was a thrall if he was born to thrall parents, if he was taken prisoner in battle, or sentenced to thralldom as a form of atonement for criminal behavior or inability to repay his debts. Though thralls were unfree persons, they were still guaranteed legal protections. Unjustified cruelty towards thralls was a mark of níð. If a thrall was injured or killed, the financial compensation (“weregild”) was owed to his master as a matter of damaged or lost property. This seems demeaning to modern sensibilities, but it was a pragmatic approach towards caring for a class of people who lacked the responsibility to care for themselves or their own families—guiding them towards productive tasks that benefit the whole tribe. Unlike the Indian caste system, the Germanics allowed for upward mobility, meaning that one could be freed by his master, purchase his own freedom, or otherwise demonstrate his ability to rise above thralldom by his good deeds. He would then be known as a leysingi, or “freedman,” which was an intermediate class between thrall and freeman. After two generations, his descendants would achieve full freemen status. The other two classes, karls and jarls, both possessed the status of freemen, who enjoyed greater legal protections and privileges than thralls. For instance, weregild was owed directly to their families. Freemen could also own property, wield weapons, and participate in the administration of the Þing, or legal assembly. He grew up, and did well for himself. He tamed oxen, he made a plow, he built houses and he built barns, he made wagons and drove a plow.Rígsþula 20 The karls, the lower of the two freeman classes, were the common folk. They were landowners, farmers, builders, smiths, and craftsmen, possessing a homestead or maybe a few. They might also be þingmenn who belongs to a goði’s constituency, and jarls could call upon them to take up arms in times of need. They raised Jarl there in their home; he learned how to hold a shield, to string a bow, to bend a bow, to carve an arrow, to throw a spear, to cast a javelin, to ride a horse to hunt with dogs, to draw a sword, to swim competitively.Rígsþula 33 Generally speaking, jarls were influential lords and nobles who possessed large amounts of land—allodial and hereditary holdings known as óðal. Jarls were known for their martial prowess, often having warband retainers and housekarls who lived on a shared estate with them. They were wealthy and could charge greater compensation for weregild. Because of the influence they carried, they were more likely to be elected to public offices such as goði. It is also from the jarl families that kings would typically emerge. Of course we should not forget to mention the role of the women in all of this, as no society could persist without them. While men guarded the perimeter of their territory, women performed many necessary tasks to keep the hearth fires lit at home. Although women were generally not allowed to participate in the legislative processes of the þing, this did not mean they were bereft of any political influence. As stated before, the formative unit of Germanic society is the family household. A common title for a woman was húsfreyja, meaning “house lady,” which contains the very name of one of our goddesses. Many archaeological excavations of Viking Age burial sites have revealed a practice of burying women with keys tied to their belts. Scholars have inferred that this may have been symbolic of a woman’s domestic office. The húsfreyja was responsible for administrating many aspects of the farmstead, such as managing the household’s provisions, directing the work of thralls and servants, producing textiles through spinning and weaving, and most importantly, the rearing of children. Widowed women could also assume some of the additional responsibilities of her deceased husband, since he was no longer able to advocate for the interests of his surviving family. As head of household, she would become the property-holder, the arranger of her children’s marriages, and she could attend the þing. Furthermore, at least two terms for widow existed among the Norse: ekkja and hæll. In the case of the latter, it seems that additional recognition was conferred to the woman whose husband was killed in combat. Moreover they believe that women possess certain sacred and prophetic powers, so they are neither scornful of consulting them, nor neglectful of their answers.Tacitus, Germania, Ch. 8 The roles of the völva, spákona, and gyðja were also significant ones in Norse society and legend. These women were seeresses, priestesses, and keepers of religious knowledge who were often consulted for their insights in the most important matters. Their tradition tells that the uncertain and wavering ranks have sometimes been given new strength by the women’s constant prayers, resolute front, and demonstration nearby that captivity, which they dread more on their women’s account than their own, is at hand.Tacitus, Germania, Ch. 8 Finally, there were the women who accompanied their tribesmen in military expeditions. Some may have been the famous shieldmaidens of pop culture, but most of them played support roles to the fighting men; preparing and distributing food, as well as caring for the sick and wounded. As described in the quote from Germania above, their duties may have included increasing the morale of the men, or making the consequences of their cowardice or defeat immediate and personal. In summary, the organization of Germanic society maximized the distribution of knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to produce an impressive division of labor. The essential distinction between each of the three classes is the amount of responsibility they each could demonstrably manage. Each level handles coordination problems that exceed the capacity of the level below it, while supplying the foundations for the level above it. All three classes were fostered by Heimdall, meaning that each had a respected role to play in the ordered hierarchy of Germanic society, which was meritocratic, dutiful, and bound in blood ties. Shade McCurdy Lawspeaker, RFU ⚡️ ravenfolkunited.org

⚡️ ravenfolkunited.org

VII - The Tribe Contemplations on Germanic Law Series We have used the word “tribe” frequently in this series thus far, but what does it mean? The words tribe and nation, though Latin in origin, are both terms for identifying ethnic groups. The latter has the same etymological root as natal, meaning that there is an umbilical connection—shared ancestry—between the people of a nation. Synonymous Germanic terms would be þjóð, kin, and folk. One is called a man; two, a pair; three, a group; four, a company; five men, a band; six, a troop; seven make a company; [...] twenty are a retinue; thirty are a þjóð; forty are a fólk; fifty are a fylki; sixty are a þing; [...] one hundred are an army.Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 67 Snorri’s quote above is not to be taken literally in how many people it lists within each category, but we may take it as an example of the increasing level of organization needed for home security, commerce, law, and war. It also illustrates how the tribe was built from the bottom-up. It began with the individual who belonged to a family, who belonged to a kindred, who belonged to a þjóð; folk who cooperated for the shared benefits of defense, trade, family formation, and commons. Loyalty radiated outwards in concentric circles the same way. The fundamental political, religious, and economic unit was the family and its household. It was the family who sought justice at the þing when a member was wronged, injured, or killed. It was the family who cared for their kin when times were tough. The family performed sacred rites together on behalf of the gods, household spirits, and shared ancestors. These were the duties of people who loved and trusted one another—not just strangers. For this reason, marriages were rarely an agreement between two individuals. A wedding was a highly-significant rite that united two houses into a shared bloodline, resulting in new terms of mutual obligations and inheritance. Through the repetition of such family unions, a distinct pedigree begins to emerge from their descendants. The historical norm was that of people living in the same villages for generations—and everyone within the village being related to a certain extent. The Old Norse word ætt could refer to a single family, but also to multiple families who had been bound together. For our purposes of describing an extended family, we may also use the terms clan or kindred. So the kindred was another layer nested in this chain of loyalties—multiple families with a shared history who relied on each other for the well-being of the village. Upwards from this, multiple villages might comprise a regional community that conducts internal trade and rallies together for defense from external threats. And thus we arrive at the level of the þjóð, the folk, nation, or tribe; a people with shared identity, customs, culture, and collective interests. Many tribes were led by a king, who was the foremost among warriors, priests, and judges. The word king is derived from older words synonymous with kin, illustrating his role as a representative of his folk. Each king was charged with the defense and wellbeing of his tribe—literally his extended family. The nature of this role changed during the rise of feudalism in the Middle Ages, but we will cover this in a later installment of this series. So, as with all pre-modern societies, the communal structure was strongly rooted in kinship ties and mutual obligation. How these relationships were organized into a political hierarchy of responsibilities, we shall examine in the next article. Shade McCurdy Lawspeaker, RFU ⚡️ ravenfolkunited.org