Thau

Part 2: Thau and Civic Society

By: Steve Anthonijsz

 

 

          The popular conception of civic society might be broken down into two polar opposites:

1.       The law~ limiting or inhibiting what one may choose to do in order to maintain and control society

2.      Individual rights~ preventing the law from becoming overbearing, irrelevant, abusive, unfair, or otherwise oppressive.

 

These definitions are an obvious oversimplification. The dual concepts of Law and Rights both allow a very significant bearing on not only the continuation of Society, but help the individual to find one’s “place” within that society. Like many other terms borrowed from our ancient triuwa, derivative forms of these words are used today with meanings somewhat modified from their original usage. To understand how these terms are of value from an Irminic perspective we must grasp their original and intended uses. Only then can we consider how these ideas apply to our lives today.

 

Let us consider the terms law and rights individually.

 

          As an example of a modern conception of “law” we might consider the definition offered by Webster’s New World Dictionary[1]:

 

Law (lô) n. [OE lagu] 1 all the rules of conduct established by the authority or custom of a nation, etc. b) any one of such rules 2 obedience to such rules 3 the study of such rules; jurisprudence 4 the seeking of justice in courts under such rules 5 the profession of lawyers, judges, etc. 6 a) a sequence of natural events occurring with unwavering uniformity under the same conditions b) the stating of such a sequence 7 any rule expected to be observed /the laws of health/

 

Many Heathens refer to the above notion of “law,” at least those describe in §1-5, as codified law. Codified law, as it manifests itself in the English-speaking world, may be further broken down into two subdivisions: statute law and common law.

Statute law is that type of law that is put into place through the efforts of a parliament or other governmental procedure of deeming. Statute law it not new, nor is it completely foreign to Heathendom. Ancient institutions such as the OHG ding, the MHG Vehmgerichte, the ON Alþing and the OE Witenagemót were all institutions that put these sorts of laws into place.

Common Law is also an ancient institution with its roots in Heathen society. It is generally recognized in its antique English form, as this is the form that laid down the precedent followed not only by modern England, but also America, Canada, and other countries. However this should not give the impression that the concept was unknown in other Heathen lands, including the Germanys. Common law is based both on legal precedent and on custom. For example, in many places if a parcel of land is claimed and used for a specified amount of time, and the use is uncontested, its ownership will be granted to the occupant even though it had not been taxed or purchased in the usual manner.

In ancient times, because most people were illiterate, laws were not written on paper. Thus, the delineation between statute law and common law was very thin. And as “law” and “custom” were so inextricably bound, most people would not have cared about the difference anyway.  As laws came to be written in books and studied by lawyers this difference came to be much more significant. Which brings us to a question: what is the function of law in society?

 

In today’s individualized social order we tend to think of Law as representing something like the lines of a ball field, with persons as players doing what they will within the confines of the rules represented by these lines. This is very different from the conception of our altmâgâ who saw Law, Society and Religion as synonymous.

Just prior to the first millennium The Icelandic Commonwealth came to be split between those who followed “the Heathen law” and those who subscribed to “the Christian law.” A Heathen goði[2], Þórgeir, devised a solution and thus challenged the assembly:

 

“We cannot live in a divided land. There will never be peace unless we have a single law. I ask you all -- heathens and Christians alike -- to accept the one law that I am about to proclaim. Our first principle of law is that all Icelanders shall henceforth be Christian. We shall believe in one God -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We shall renounce the worship of idols. We shall no longer expose unwanted children. We shall no longer eat horsemeat. Anyone who does these things openly shall be punished with outlawry, but no punishment will follow if they are done in private”[3]

 

In this way Iceland became officially Christian. Interesting to this treatise, though, is the description Þórgeir uses to describe the two opposing litigants. The two sides were not thought of as competing religious factions, but were simply considered Icelanders who were ýr lögum, that is, “out of law” with one another.

          Another example of the coterminous relationship between Law, Society and Religion in the Heathen mind is the institution of outlawry. If one is outlawed this indicates that one is no longer responsible to society and, conversely, society is no longer responsible for that individual. Such an entity, not bound by law, custom or faith, is viewed no differently from any other wild animal from the woods that ought not dare to set foot in the comfortable settlement of the peace-loving citizenry!

 

          A Volk is a product of its history, just as an individual is. When we consider the metaphor of the waters absorbed into the roots of Irminsûl and the dewdrops falling back into the wells, this image describes both the life of an individual and of a people. The way a people-group’s interactions are most commonly depicted is in the warp and woof woven by the Wurtâ.

          Evocative of these thoughts is the conception of Law we find among the Northern peoples. Quoting Eric Wódening:[4]

 

To elder heathen, laws were layers which had been set within the Well of Wyrd[5]. This can be seen in the various words for law in the Germanic languages, including the word law itself. New English law came into Old English as lagu, itself derived from Old Norse lag. Cognates to the word lag can be found in the other Germanic languages in the forms of various suffixes, such as the Old English –læg (as in orlæg) and Old Saxon –log, the plural of Old Norse lag, “law,” also meant “layers.” It can then be said that the [Wurtâ] not only lay down layers within the Well of Wyrd, but laws as well, the two being more or less one and the same. The law was then that which had happened before and which continues to exert an influence on what is happening now.

 

Law is what defines the Innergard of society.

 

          But if all this is true, where do ‘rights’ fit into all this?

 

          Right is not a balancing factor used against the might of law--quite the opposite! “Right is the ‘observance of those customs or laws which benefit or maintain society.[6]’” The Modern English word right has its cognates in all Germanic languages, both ancient and modern (OHG reht; MoHG Recht; Ofris riuht; ON réttR; OE riht), and in all cases it means “impartiality; regulation; decree”. The implication of rights, then, is the freedom and/or respect offered to an individual or group with the understanding that the intention of this freedom is to benefit Society. The entire reason that this privilege is handed out has nothing to do with defending oneself against the dictates of law, but rather it is done in order for the individual to contribute to the well being of the Innergard in a way that would not have been possible without this state of affairs being enacted. In other words, all rights are privileges but not all privileges are rights.

 

An individual’s right/rights within an Irminic/Heathen society directly stem from the collective good of the folk, and are that which allows him or her a due, natural course or movement, and a true sense of real freedom within the innergard that provides for the holistic contribution of each of its members in keeping that group on a mobile footing within the bounds of holy rita. One’s rights are one’s freedoms to pursue the utmost that the sippâ or liut has to offer, and in so doing, work towards its greater evolution in the process –not a freedom in the sense of having liberty to do it harm, or to advance some cause that would threaten to disable or stagnate it in some fashion, or prove to render its ultimate demise…these after all, work against the good of the folk, undermine the rights of its ‘members’, and counter an ageless and holy rita![7]

 

Return to Part 1

Proceed to Part 3

Return to Irminenschaft hompage

Return to Mittigart file