20 – Laws and Assemblies

stefan Brink

We have to assume that some kind of legal societies existed already during the first millennium in scandinavia. The legal custom at that early stage seems to have been closely tied to prevalent religious customs (cf., e.g., Brink 2003b).

a striking piece of evidence to this is the case of Enhelga, discussed below — a small island with the name Guþø, ‘the island dedicated to the gods’, which was also a thing assembly for a hundari district (‘hundred’).

a central word in this relation is of course old Norse lǫg (neuter plural), old swedish, old Danish lagh ‘law’, which is one of the words borrowed into the English language during the Viking age (English law, old English lagu, Proto-Nordic * lagu-) (de Vries 1962a: 373; von see 1964 passim). This of course indicates that law must have been a central concept to the early scandinavians. This word could also be used in the singular with a secondary meaning, namely, a district where a specific law was in function; the most famous example is the Danelaw in England, which can be understood as ‘the area where Danish law was applicable’. in a latin document from 1324 it is stated that England was divided into three laws ( leges): Essexenelaga, Mircenelage, and Denelaga (Calissendorff 1980: 13), also Westseaxenalag is recorded for Wessex (Kisbye 1988: 52). in scandinavia, the word lǫg, lagh can be found in a number of district names: Trøndelag, Frostathingslag, Gulathingslag, Bergslag( en), Roslagen (old swedish Roþslagh[ er]), which were probably all legal districts where a certain law was in function (the Frostaþing Law for Trøndelag, which hence is the law district of the Trønder; the Gulaþing Law for western Norway; a special Stefan Brink, Professor of scandinavian studies, University of Cambridge The Pre-Christian Religions of the North: History and Structures, Volume ii, ed. by Jens Peter schjødt, John lindow, and anders andrén, PCRN-HS 2 (Turn hout: Brepols, 2020) pp. 445–477

BREPols

PUBlisHERs

10.1484/M.PCRN-EB.5.116947

446

• Stefan Brink*

law for the mining district of central sweden (esp. Dalarna) (andersson 2014).

The link between law and society is captured in the proverbial expression ‘með lǫgum skal land byggja’ (with law shall the land be inhabited or built), attested (with minor variation) in the preface to the Danish law for Jylland, in the Norwegian Frostaþing Law, and in the swedish provincial laws for Uppland and Hälsingland. Today, it may be best known from Chapter 70 of Njáls saga, where Njáll dresses down the litigious Mǫrðr: ‘með lǫgum skal land várt byggja en með ólǫgum eyða’ (with law our land shall rise, but it will perish with law-lessness [‘unlaw’]) (p. 82).

in many cases we can see, as mentioned, links between legal and religious aspects and customs in pre-Christian scandinavia. one rather intriguing case is the enigmatic god Týr, enigmatic because we know so little about him and his role in the pantheon, and yet etymologically (Proto-germanic * Tīwaz) linked to latin deus, greek Zeus, sanskrit Dyaus. Early on, due to this etymological relationship within the indo-European language family, Týr and his equivalents were considered to be the major god, a ‘progenitorial’ sky god (grimm; Bickel), from which the other gods (of wind, thunder, etc.) were fragmented (Mogk), or perhaps he was a sun god (Max Müller; Müllenhoff ) who eventually transformed into a war god (Mogk; Much; schröder; storm).1 Týr is sparsely mentioned in the Edda poems and generally plays a very insignificant role in the old Norse literature dealing with the mythology; when he is mentioned, it is in the context of war and battle (simek 2007: 337).2 His link to law is in a way very obscure. it is particularly georges Dumézil (1973c: 38–48), who has argued that Týr was a god of law ( dieu juriste), mostly on the basis of comparative ideas that were — in the opinion of several scholars, including the present author — rather dubious.3 The fact that, according to the mythology, Týr lost his right hand while fettering the wolf fenrir has been compared to much later icelandic and Norwegian folklore and also to some one-armed gods in irish and old indian mythologies, and it has been interpreted in the light of these comparisons to be a kind of pledge ( at veði) (cf. simek 2007: 337) and thus an action that was to be understood in a legal context. This is an interpretation, which is not obvious and actually seems rather farfetched. The most 1 for an overview of this research and for references, see Nordberg (2013 passim) and af Edholm (2014: 7–33); see also, e.g., Polomé (1999 passim).

2 for a thorough review of the occurrence of and the role that Týr plays in the old Norse literature and in the runological material, see af Edholm (2014).

3 see, e.g., von see (1964: 117–20), Page (1979), Clunies Ross (1994: 219), lincoln (1999: 128–31).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

447

suggestive link between Týr and law is the

combination of forms of the name of the

weekday Tuesday together with a Roman

inscription from the second century ce

from northern England.

To start with the latter: at Housesteads

(latin Vercovicium) on Hadrian’s Wall

in northern England was in 1883 found

inscribed on a Roman pillar-shaped altar

the famous votive inscription deo marti

thincso et dvabvs alaisagis bede

et fimmilene et n[umini] avg[usti]

germ[ani] cives tvihanti vslm,

‘To the god Mars Thincsus and the two

alaisagae, Beda and fimmilena, and to

the Divinity of the emperor the germans,

being tribesmen from Tuihantis (Twente),

willingly and deservedly fulfill their vow’

( Roman Inscriptions of Britain 1594;

giliberto 1998: 158; galestin 2008: 701;

green 1998: 34, with further refs). The

Roman army squad linked to this inscrip-

tion is a germanic, more specifically a

frisian, unit known as the Tuihanti (today

Twente in the Netherlands). The legal asso-

ciation here is the term Thingsus, which

has been considered to be a latinized

form of a germanic masc. * þingsa-, derived

from a neuter s-stem * þingsa-, found in, for

example, langobardic thingx, and related

to the more common word * þinga- ‘legal

assembly’. The interpretation is reinforced

by the occurrence of the names — obvi-

ously of two female deities — Bede and figure 20.1. Roman altar from Hadrian’s Fimmilene in the inscription, which have

wall, with a votive inscription to Mars

been associated with two frisian terms

Thingsus, interpreted as a reference to

for different types of legal assemblies, the germanic god Tīwaz/Týr (Chesters Museum, CH 489). Photo: Trustees

bodthing (a thing to which you were sum-

of the Clayton Collection/English

moned) and fimelthing (called for special

Heritage Trust.

448

• Stefan Brink*

purpose) (gutenbrunner 1936: 30; green 1998: 34). The religious implication, is according to D. H. green (1998), clear: ‘ Thingsus is an epithet applied to the god Mars, standing for the germanic god Tiu by interpretatio Romana, who is accompanied by two feminine deities of a type found in many inscriptions (often by germani) to twin goddesses in the Roman-occupied Rhineland’.

in the light of the above discussion, it is of course notable that the name of the weekday Tuesday (old English Tīwesdæg), the germanic equivalent to the Roman Dies Martis, is compounded with the god’s name old English Tīw, cf. old Norse Týr (< Tīwaz). a variant name for Tuesday, found in the Rhineland, is what we today probably find in german Dienstag (< dingstag < things-) (see Kluge 2002: 199; however cf. Hultgård 2014: 23–29 who qualifies this). Consequently, the material at hand has been interpreted to mean that we had two pagan West germanic gods Tiu and * Thingsa-, both represented in the name of the same day (Karg-gasterstädt 1958; green 1998: 35, 249–51).

D. H. green (1998: 35) sums up:

There is little objection to postulating a double naming of this day of the week in the lower Rhine area (as Tiu and * Thingsa-), nor to the designation of Tiu, the early germanic god of war before the rise of Wodan, as a god of law as well in view of the fact that the germanic legal assembly was also a military assembly. Even though the passing of laws and judgements remained in human hands, the meeting at which deliberations took place was under the protection of a god.

This combination of historic and germanic philological evidence is quite compelling, linking the god Týr to a legal sphere. it is, however, striking that the perception of Týr as a god of law is in principle lacking in the old Norse mythology as described in the relevant literature; moreover, there are scholars who plainly reject the perception of Týr being a god of law (e.g., Baetke 1973: 35–36; Page 1979: 53–56; lincoln 1999: 128–31). also when consulting the theophoric placename material, there is nothing obvious linking Týr to this field (Brink 2007b: 119–20).4 finally, there are even scholars who — nota bene — totally dismiss the existence of an old Norse god Týr (e.g., Motz 1998: 30; Marteinn Helgi sigurðsson 2002); hence, the god Týr is indeed in many respects ‘enigmatic’ — in the old Norse mythology as well as in the old Norse mythological research history. His link to law is no doubt dubious (but see è48).

4 Tislund (Thislund 1148; Danmarks stednavne xxiii, 142) in Ringsted, Denmark, which seems to contain the name of the god Týr in the first element, has been mentioned in the context of an assembly at Ringsted; see Holmberg (1986: 111) and also olsen (1938: 81, with reference to axel olrik).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

449

Law and Religion in Mythology

according to Vǫluspá, the institution of law occurs towards the end of the creation process that gives rise to the cosmos and to human society. in st. 20 (both versions), we learn that the laws are inextricably linked to the fates of humans: Þaðan koma meyjar,

margs vitandi,

þrjár, ór þeim sæ,

er und þolli stendr;

Urð heitir eina,

aðra Verðandi

— scáro á scíði —,

sculd ina þriðio;

þær lǫg lǫgðo,

þær líf kuro

alda bornom,

ørlǫg seggia.

(from there come girls, knowing a great deal,

three from the lake standing under the tree;

Urd one is called, Verdandi another —

they carved on a wooden slip — skuld the third;

they laid down laws, they chose lives

for the sons of men, the fates of men).5

The three maidens are usually taken to be the norns (see è35 and è59).

although it might be possible to understand ‘law’ here as an alternate expression for human fate, it is equally likely that the poet envisaged human fate as bound up in the operation of the laws that govern society. or to put it another way: one acts out one’s fate in the context of laws.

a second explanation of the institution of law is found in Ynglinga saga ch.

8. Here, snorri writes that Óðinn setti lǫg í landi sínu (established laws in his land): these laws concerned cremation of the dead, sacrifice, and taxes. snorri clearly has in mind here the euhemerized Óðinn — the human king from Tyrkland who immigrates to sweden — but he follows this reference to the laying down of law with a stanza from Eyvindr skáldaspillir’s Háleygjatal, which employs this kenning for Óðinn: sjaldblœtr ása niðr (shield-worshipped kins-man of the æsir), and refers to his offspring with skaði. in this context, the rela-5 larrington breaks these into two stanzas, 20 and 21, the latter beginning with ‘they laid down laws’.

450

• Stefan Brink*

tionship between Óðinn and skaði should be understood as euhemerized, but the stanza itself probably reflects a hieros gamos (è53); thus law is, according to snorri in Ynglinga saga, established by the forefather of the ruling dynasty.

Early Polities and Provinces

We must assume that there were several kingdoms or polities before the establishment of Denmark, Norway, and sweden as major kingdoms at the beginning of the Viking age (or slightly before) (see also è19). We know from Classical authors from the start of the first millennium and from Jordanes’s history of the goths, Getica (ch. 3), from around 500 ce, of several peoples ( gentes) in scandinavia. Many of these can be identified and geographically located, for example: theustes, the people living in the small province of Tjust; finnaithae, the people living in finnveden; and ostrogothae, the Östgötar —

all in southern sweden; raumarici, the people living in Romerike; grannii, the people living in grenland; and ranii, the people living in Ranríki — all to be found in (medieval) Norway (see, e.g., Brink 2008).

The provinces of scandinavia, today called landskap or fylke, earlier called land, fylki, or ríki, are certainly prehistoric and probably older than the Viking age (è19). We have, for example, the name Jämtland mentioned on the rune stone on frösön as eotalont (J Rs1928: 66, Samnordisk runtextdatabas) and Hadeland in Norway mentioned in the inscription on the Dynna rune stone (N 68, Samnordisk runtextdatabas) as haþalanti, both rune stones dated to the eleventh century. The interesting question, which is extremely difficult to answer due to the lack of written sources, is what was the societal base for these smaller polities or land? it seems probable that scandinavia was characterized by a situation similar to the one found in, for example, early anglo-saxon England and early ireland, with small kingdoms, lordships, and short-lived larger kingdoms.

However, since we lack written sources in scandinavia, we have no names for the possible lords, petty kings, kings, and ‘high kings’. Therefore, the mention by Jordanes ( Getica ch. 3) of a king Roþulf who ruled the people called ranii (hence in Ranríki) becomes very important: ‘Ranii, quibus non ante multos annos Roduulf rex fuit’ (ranii, over whom Roduulf was king not many years ago). it seems a viable hypothesis that pre-Viking age scandinavia had a structure similar to anglo-saxon England, and to the old irish tuath system, with small kingdoms or at least polities under the control of a king, a dróttinn, jarl, or some other leader.

since the written sources are lacking, other sources become important, such as placenames, runes, and archaeological and philological sources. Within the

20 – Laws and Assemblies

451

latter category we find the name Erik, old Norse Eiríkr, which is to be derived form a Proto-germanic * Aina-rîkijaz, lit. ‘the one in sole control of power’

or something like that (cf. Elmevik 1982), and which seems to be an attribute of a ‘(high-)king’ (cf. latin rex, old irish rig), which may belong to the same semantic sphere as the old-irish ‘high-kings’ (Byrne 1973) and the disputed anglo-saxon Bretwalda (cf. Wormald 1983; Dumville 1997; Keynes 1999).

The implication is that the name Eiríkr, Erik may reveal that a regal institution existed in early scandinavia similar to the old irish and anglo-saxon ones.

a toponymic analysis of the small polities or land, together with what we may reconstruct from later written sources, indicates that what seems to have kept these communities together was a common judicial custom. attempts have been made to reconstruct focal sites for legal activities within these land and their smaller subregions (these assembly sites often called þing, þingbrekka, þingløt, þingberg, þingmót, þingvall/ vǫllr, þjóðstefna, þjóðarmál, þjódarlyng, vall/ vǫllr/ vellir, liung/ lyng, løt, haugr, fylkishaugr, lǫgberg), hence mounds, hillocks, or level fields suitable for assembling, places where people met for legal discussions and settlements (Brink 2003b, 2004a; cf. Vikstrand 2016a).

Who then controlled these þing assemblies? Was it a king or a chieftain, or was the ‘public’ important? it seems certain that the goði/ guþi had an important role to play at these gatherings, but did he also have a cultic-religious function on such occasions, which is what the etymology of the term suggests? What was the role of the lawspeaker and how was he selected in the community —

was he a chieftain who ‘took’ the position, or was he elected to the office (if so, however, he was certainly from the upper stratum in society)? Most probably, someone ‘controlled’, maybe even ‘owned’, the þing assembly. But with practically no written sources, we have to construct feasible models from the few written sources we do have, from toponymy and landscape analyses, from retrospective analyses of the old icelandic literature, and from early medieval documents, and also from comparisons to the frankish, anglo-saxon, and irish cultures. The important knowledge we gain is that the early scandinavian society or, rather, societies, were legal societies.

How far back in time we can trace this is unclear. Whether Tacitus’s descriptions of law and legal customs among the germanic people in his Germania (98 ce) is accurate, valid, and informative with regard to the societal situation on the scandinavian peninsula in the first century ce is uncertain. in Chapter 11 of Germania, Tacitus tells us of a kind of assembly:

De minoribus rebus principes consultant, de maioribus omnes, ita tamen ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes praetractentur. coeunt,

452

• Stefan Brink*

nisi quid fortuitum et subitum incidit, certis diebus, cum aut incohatur luna aut impletur; […] dies cunctatione coeuntium absumitur. ut turbae placuit, considunt armati. silentium per sacerdotes, quibus tum et coercendi ius est, imperatur. mox rex vel princeps, prout aetas cuique, prout nobilitas, prout decus bellorum, prout facundia est, audiuntur auctoritate suadendi magis quam iubendi potestate. si displicuit sententia, fremitu aspernantur; sin placuit, frameas concutiunt: honora-tissimum adsensus genus est armis laudare.

(on small matters the chiefs consult; on larger questions the community; but with this limitation, that even the subjects, the decision of which rests with the people, are first handled by the chiefs. They meet, unless there be some unforeseen sudden emergency, on days set apart — when the moon, that is, is new or at the full:

[…] when the mob is pleased to begin, they take their seats carrying arms. silence is called for by the priests, who thenceforward have power also to coerce: then a king or a chief is listened to, in order of age, birth and glory in war, or eloquence, with the prestige which belongs to their counsel rather that with any prescriptive right to command. if the advice tendered be displeasing, they reject it with groans; if it please them, they clash their spears: the most complimentary expression of assent is this martial approbation.) (pp. 279–81)

These words by Tacitus have of course had a nearly sacrosanct function in early historiography; today scholars differ in opinions regarding the historical accuracy of the account and, if accurate, to what region(s) it should be applied.

a sound scholar like for example D. H. green (1998: 30) does not hesitate in accepting Tacitus’s description as valid without qualifying or dismissing the statements in any serious way. Thus, if we may follow Tacitus and if we can assume his account was also valid for the people living on the scandinavian peninsula, minor matters were dealt with by the chieftains, whereas major ones had to be decided by the people ( plebs), hence obviously at some sort of general assembly. The men at the assembly were armed and when they assented to some decision, Tacitus tells us, they expressed approbation with their weapons ( armis laudare), which of course recalls the old scandinavian custom of vápnaták, to rattle with weapons or beat swords or spears against shields. if we are to follow Tacitus, it is also of importance to note that ‘priests’ had a function at the assembly, namely, to silence the congregation ( silentium per sacerdotes). We must assume that these men were some kind of cult-leaders (cf. sundqvist 1998, 2003a, 2007, 2016: 164–67), who, it follows, also fulfilled a number of functions at law assemblies (è29).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

453

The Construction of the þing** Assembly Site**

in a famous episode in the saga of Egill skallagrímsson, the assembly at Gulaþing in western Norway is described:

En þar er dómrinn var settr, var vǫllr sléttr ok settar niðr heslistengr í vǫllinn í hring, en lǫgð um útan snœri umhverfis; váru þat kǫlluð vébǫnd; en fyrir innan í hringinum sátu dómendr, tólf ór firðafylki ok tólf ór sygnafylki, tólf ór Hǫrðafylki.

(ch. 56, p. 154)

(The court was held on a level stretch of ground on which hazel poles had been arranged in a circle, with ropes called ‘holy ropes’ ( vébǫnd) going all around. inside the circle sat the judges, twelve from fjord Province, twelve from sogn and twelve from Hordaland.) (ch. 56, p. 136)

in the Gulaþing Law itself (ch. 91), it says that the þing site should have a round shape ( þinghringr; cf. Robberstad 1937: 198; schledermann 1974: 374), and in the early Frostaþing Law (p. 127) we find the word vébond; in the latter, it says that the ármenn (bailiffs) from every fylki shall enclose with vébǫnd the place of (the men in) the lögrétta: ‘Þat er fornr réttr at ármaðr or fylkium öllum scolo gera vebönd her á þingvelli’. in the so-called Hundabrævið from the faroe islands, vébǫnd are mentioned in the context of logþing: ‘Var þetta gort a logþingi innan vebanda’ (Barnes 1974: 386) (This was done at the law þing within the hallowed bands). finally, the regulation concerning the use of vébǫnd is also found in Magnus lagabøter’s * Landslov* (law of the Realm) (p. 14) and Bylov (The Town law) (p. 188). The use of hazel poles to fasten the vébǫnd on, mentioned in Egill’s saga, may also be based on fact. This custom is, for example, known from frankish law ( Lex Ribuaria 67.5) in the eighth century.

Pre-historic thing** Assembly Sites**

it is possible to reconstruct a prehistoric division of scandinavia into provinces ( land; fylki), hundreds ( hundari; hærað), and sub-districts within a lething/

leþunger/ leiðangr naval organization (cf. Brink 2008). These districts did also function as legal districts. When we have written documents from the Middle ages, we can see that the thing assemblies within the legal districts were ambu-latory; they moved to different places within the district. in some documents, however, a proverbial expression occurs: a rættom þingstaþ( er) (at the right thing site), which probably hints at an older situation with a fixed þing site (Brink 2003b: 62). This assumption can be substantiated with a couple of important runic inscription from the eleventh century.

454

• Stefan Brink*

figure 20.2. The icelandic alþingi (general assembly) site at Þingvellir. Photo: Cecilia ljung.

at a place called Aspa löt in Rönö hundred in södermanland, sweden, we find a large burial mound called Tingshögen (the thing mound) and beside the mound is a rune stone (sö 137, Samnordisk runtextdatabas), which bears the inscription:

stain: sar:si: stanr: at: ybi: o þikstaþi: at: þuru: uar

(This stone stands in memory of Œpir on the

thing assembly site in memory of Þóra’s husband).

This is probably the old thing assembly site for Rönö hundred.

on one of the two rune stones (U 225, Samnordisk runtextdatabas), which stand (obviously on their original site) at Arkils tingstad, in Bällsta, Täby, just north of stockholm, we read the following:

[Ulfkil] uk arkil uk kui þir kariþu iar þikstaþ

(Ulvkel and arnkel and gye they made here a thing site ( þingstaþer)).

This thing assembly site was probably not for the hundred (Valænda hun-dare); instead, it has been suggested that it was a private thing site for a family or a group of people living within the hundred.

20 – Laws and Assemblies

455

figure 20.3. The assembly site at Bällsta, ‘arkels tingstad’

in Vallentuna in Uppland. Photo: Cecilia ljung.

The important aspect these two runic inscriptions reveal is that they indicate a fixed thing site in the landscape, in these cases thing assemblies at different levels of society. it can be assumed that each of the legal districts mentioned above had its fixed thing assembly site (cf. Brink 2003b, 2004a).

furthermore, it can be assumed with a great deal of confidence that law and pre-Christian religion were closely connected at least during the Viking age. Two cases may illustrate this.

The thing site for the hundred of Östkind hæradh in the province of Östergötland, sweden, was in medieval documents called Lytisberg. This can be identified with the place where the parish church in Östra Husby now stands.

it is situated on a striking hill and has as its neighbour the farm Bossgård. Both these names, Husby and Bossgård, indicate some central administrative function in probably the late Viking age and early Middle ages (see è19). The name of the thing assembly, Lytisberg, obviously contains as its first element the title of a pagan cult leader, lytir (Elmevik 1990, 2003b; è29), who therefore was connected to the thing assembly.

The old thing assembly for the hundred of Trögd in the province of Uppland, sweden, was Enhelga (Rahmqvist 2010: 23), which during the Viking age consisted of an island in an inlet reaching far inland from today’s lake Mälaren.

456

• Stefan Brink*

figure 20.4. anundshög at Badelunda in Västmanland and a tall rune stone erected in front of the mound after a certain Heden, son of folkvid and brother of anund (Vs 12, Samnordisk runtextdatabas). Photo: Bengt a. lundberg, Riksantikvarieämbetet, stockholm.

This name goes back to old swedish Øin helgha (the holy island). as Karin Calissendorff (1964: 134–35) has — no doubt correctly — assumed, the old name for this island is to be found in the name of a nearby hamlet, Gåde (< Gudhø ‘the island of/dedicated to the gods’) (cf. Brink 2011: 20). again we find a direct link between law and pagan religion.

it seems plausible to assume that in the legal negotiations and settlements at a thing assembly in pre-Christian scandinavia, pagan rituals and actions were vital elements in the proceedings (for suggestions on how these may have been conducted, see Brink 2004b).

We thus know of a couple of prehistoric thing assembly sites in scandinavia, such as the above-mentioned aspa löt and Bällsta, furthermore anundshög east of the city of Västerås in the province of Västmanland. at Elliðavatn by Þingnes west of Reykjavík in iceland, a thing site has been excavated, which may be assumed to be the famous Kjalarnesþing, mentioned in Landnámabók (guðmundur Ólafsson 1987, 2004). a number of archaeological surveys and excavations have been carried out at some of these to try to discover traces of the activities at these sites (see, e.g., sanmark and semple 2008, 2010). in some cases, it has been possible to see traces of what are probably thing booths and in others

20 – Laws and Assemblies

457

we have finds of cooking pits. However, it is of course difficult to discern traces of short-time gatherings, which must have left very few objects and structures, but hopefully more excavations will uncover the construction dates of such sites.

The Forsa Rune Ring: The Earliest Law in Scandinavia

it is obvious that Viking society was a type of legal society. There is no doubt about this, but it is very difficult to find traces and to reconstruct it. We do, however, have some — more or less — indisputable evidence. one is the inscription on the so-called forsa rune ring (Hs 7, Samnordisk runtextdatabas). in the parish church of forsa in the province of Hälsingland, northern sweden, an iron ring with a runic inscription has been hanging on a door for centuries. The ring was observed and mentioned already in 1599, and the inscription was published and translated around 1700 by the famous olof Celcius. The ring measures 43 cm in diameter and it contains nearly 250 runes. Traditionally, and ever since an important and influential analysis of the inscription by the Norwegian sophus Bugge in 1877, this inscription has been referred to as the oldest legal inscription (law-rule) in scandinavia. for a long time, the scholarly consensus was that the inscription contained an ecclesiastical law-rule, regulating tithes, the protection afforded by asylum in a church, or the illicit cancellation of divine service. The main argument for this being a church law is the occurrence of two key words, staf ‘(bishop’s) staff ’ and lirþir ‘the learned (clergy)’, so read and translated by Bugge. The ring and the inscription have therefore been assumed to stem from the Christian period, although the runes on the ring are very archaic; the same kind are found on, for example, the famous Rök rune stone in the province of Östergötland (from *c. * 800 ce). in an important analysis of the inscription, made by the Norwegian runologist aslak liestøl in the 1970s, he was able to prove that Bugge’s reading of lirþir was wrong. instead, it should be read liuþir ‘people’. This does away with the foundation for the traditional interpretation and dating of the ring. There is nothing that forces us to link the ring to a clerical context any more. The inscription reads:

**:uksatuiskilanaukauratua stafatfurstalaki: **

**uksatua aukaurafiurataþrulaki: **

**: inatþriþialakiuksafiuraukauratastaf: **

**aukaltaikuiuarrifanhafskakiritfurir: **

**suaþliuþirakuatliuþritisuauasintfuraukhalkat: **

**inþarkirþusikþitanunra tarstaþum: **

**: aukufakra hiurtstaþum: **

**inuibiurnfaþi: **

458

• Stefan Brink*

which may be translated as:

(one ox and two aura [in fine] [to?] staf [or] aura staf [in fine] for the restoration of a cult site ( vi) in a valid state for the first time; two oxen and four aura for the second time; but for the third time four oxen and eight aura; and all property in suspension, if he does not make right. That, the people are entitled to demand, according to the law of the people that was decreed and ratified before. But they made [the ring, the statement or?], anund from Tåsta and ofeg from Hjortsta.

But Vibjörn carved).

Today, it seems more obvious to date the forsa rune ring to the ninth or tenth century, which of course makes its title of ‘the oldest law-rule in scandinavia’

even more accurate (Brink 1996b; Källström 2010b: 145, 201–02).

We have here a legal text, a kind of law-rule, from the early Viking age. it has been proposed that it regulates the maintenance of a vi, a cult and assembly site (Ruthström 1990). for the failure of restoring the vi in a legal way, one had to pay fines, an ox and two aura (ørar) for the first time, two oxen and four ørar for the second time, and four oxen and eight ørar the third time, and, failing this, all your property was to be suspended. Perhaps the most important part of the inscription is the phrase svað liuðir æigu at liuðrétti ‘that, which the people are entitled to demand according to the people’s right’ (i.e., the law of the land).

Thus, this inscription provides evidence of a special kind of law of the people or of the land (most certainly Hälsingland), a liuðréttr, cf. old Norse lýðréttr (see von see 1964: 57). This statement is, to my knowledge, unique for Viking age scandinavia, and it actually supports the statement by snorri sturluson that different people had different laws in early scandinavia. The forsa rune ring must be regarded as one of the most important artefacts of the early Viking age because of the light it sheds on early scandinavian society.

Prohibitions against Pagan Customs in the Laws

The interaction between society, law, and religion continued after the conversion to Christianity. Many early laws contain prohibitions against certain kinds of behaviours linked to paganism, with surprisingly varied punishments and fines. These provisions open a window onto the processes of Christianization in the various polities.

The prosecution of pagans and the prohibition against pagan customs started in the Roman Empire already by Constantine and were codified in laws and edicts by his son Constantine ii (337–61), ordering the closure of pagan temples, prohibiting pagan sacrifices on the threat of death penalties,

20 – Laws and Assemblies

459

figure 20.5. an iron ring from forsa in

Hälsingland, dated probably to the ninth

century. The forsa ring contains a long

runic inscription, which is the oldest

preserved legal text in scandinavia

(Hs 7, Samnordisk runtextdatabas).

Photo: Bengt a. lundberg,

Riksantikvarieämbetet, stockholm.

and this ban was later manifested even more severely by Theodosius (381–95) in his ‘Theodosian decrees’, with the injunctions of the killing of pagan priests, destruction of pagan temples, holy sites, idols, images and objects (see, e.g., MacMullen 1984 passim). This endeavour to eradicate pagan customs, buildings, and objects continued in the frankish Empire, and Charlemagne issued a capitularium in 785, Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, whereby saxons were forbidden pagan practices, such as divination, human sacrifices, cremation of the dead, the adoration of pagan deities at the temples or holy places, and forced to convert to Christendom:6

6. si quis a diabulo deceptus crediderit secundum morem paganorum, virum aliquem aut feminam strigam esse et homines commendere, et propter hoc ipsam incenderit vel carnem eius ad commedendum dederit vel ipsam commederit, capitali sententiae punietur.

7. si quis corpus defuncti hominis secundum ritum paganorum flamma consumi fecerit et ossa eius ad cinerem redierit, capitae punietur.

8. si quis deinceps in gente saxonorum inter eos latens non baptizatus se abscondere voluerit et ad baptismum venire contempserit paganusque permanere voluerit, morte moriatur.

9. si quis hominem diabulo sacrificaverit et in hostiam more paganorum daemonibus obtulerit, morte moriatur. ( Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, i, 68–69) 6 see also Effros (1997) and sullivan (1953: 732).

460

• Stefan Brink*

(6. if any one deceived by the devil shall have believed, after the manner of the pagans, that any man or woman is a witch and eats men, and on this account shall have burned the person, or shall have given the person’s flesh to others to eat, or shall have eaten it himself, let him be punished by a capital sentence.

7. if any one, in accordance with pagan rites, shall have caused the body of a dead man to be burned and shall have reduced his bones to ashes, let him be punished capitally.

8. if any one of the race of the saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.

9. if any one shall have sacrificed a man to the devil, and after the manner of the pagans shall have presented him as a victim to the demons, let him be punished by death.) (pp. 2–5; cf. Nilsson 1992: 14)).

However, it is notable that there are no actual prohibitions against pagan cult or sacrifices to be found in the salian frankish laws ( Pactus Legis Salicae and Lex Salica Karolina) from around 500 and onwards. What these laws reveal instead are rulings against witchcraft, sorcery, and magic:

§ 1 si quis alterum herburgium clamauerit, hoc est strioportium, aut illum, qui inium portare dicitur, ubi strias coccinant, et non potuerit adprobare, mallobergo humnisfith hoc est, mmd denarios qui faciunt solidos lxii semis culpabilis iudicetur.

§ 3 si stria hominem commederit et ei fuerit adprobatum… ( Pactus legis Salicae, pp. 230–31).

(1. He who calls another man a sorcerer ( herburgium) — that is, a strioportio or one who is said to carry a brass cauldron in which witches brew — if he is not able to prove it (called humnisfith in the Malberg gloss), he shall be liable to pay twenty-five hundred denarii (i.e., sixty-two and one-half solidi).

3. if a witch eats a man and it is proved against him…) (p. 125, cf. p. 199) There are some Visigothic law texts where pagan customs are discussed, ordering people to desert their pagan temples and warning them that pagan idols are demons. However, most of the laws in Lex Romana Visigothorum on paganism were concerned with the practice of divination and magic (McKenna 1938: 120–21).

in the frisian law ( Lex Frisionum) from *c. * 790, there are two mentions of paganism; one is a paragraph (17.5) condemning the selling of slaves to ‘pagan people’ ( paganas gentes), and the other is the famous and utterly strange paragraph that appears in an addition attributed to somebody named Wlemar (11.1)

20 – Laws and Assemblies

461

Qui fanum effregerit, et ibi aliquid de sacris tulerit, ducitur ad mare, et in sabulo, quod accessus maris operire solte, finduntur aures eius, et castratur, et immolatur Diis quorum templa violavit.

(if anyone breaks into a shrine ( fanum) and steals sacred items from there, he shall be taken to the sea, and on the sand, which will be covered by the flood, his ears will be cleft, and he will be castrated and sacrificed to the god, whose temple he dishonoured).7

it is not specified that the fanum/ templa alluded to here is a pagan one, but everyone commenting on this bizarre paragraph is of that opinion (see, e.g., siems 1980: 348), and it is difficult to see the law paragraph in a Christian context.

as with the Visigothic laws and the salian frankish laws, the regulations in the anglo-saxon laws are mostly mainly about the prohibition of witchcraft and other behaviour condemned by the Church, but in principle never referring directly to pagan cult as such. one early example is from the Kentish king Wihtræd’s law ( *c. * 695) (§ 13): ‘gif þeuw deoflum geldaþ, vi scll gebete oþþe his hyd’ (pp. 26–27) (if a slave makes offerings to devils, he shall pay six shillings compensation or undergo the lash). in the laws of King Edgar, it is stated that the priests shall promote Christendom and totally exterminate all kinds of heathendom, such as the worship of wells, trees, stones, black magic, divinations, and the use of spells (Nilsson 1992: 28, with old English citation in n. 57). More general prohibitions are mentioned in later laws, and in King Canute’s laws (1020–23) it is finally forbidden to worship pagan gods, the sun, the moon, fire, rivers, springs, stone or trees, with further prohibitions against witchcraft, sacrifice, and sorcery.8

There was, thus, a clear condemnation of pagan practices and customs by the early Church in Europe, but this had astonishingly little impact on the bar-7 online at http://www.keesn.nl/lex/lex\_en\_text.htm [accessed 4 april 2019]; cf. Nilsson (1992: 15).

8 and ‘[we] forbeodað eornostlice ælcne hæðenscipe. Hæðenscipe byð, þ æ t man deofolgyld weorðige, þ æ t is þ æ t man weorþige hæðene godas & sunnan oððe monan, fyr oððe flod, wæter-wyllas oððe stanas oððe æniges cynnes wúdutreowa, oððon wiccecræft lufige oððon morðwe-orc gefremme on ænige wisan, oððon on blote oððon fyrhte, oððon swylcra gedwimera ænig þíngc dreoge’ (f. liebermann 1903–16: i, 312; cf. Nilsson 1992: 29); ‘and we earnestly forbid every heathenism. Heathenism is, that men worship idols, that is, that men worship heathen gods and the sun or the moon, fire or rivers, water-springs or stones, or any kind of forest-trees, or love witchcraft, or promote murder in any way, or conducts sacrifice or divination, or in any such delusions’ (my translation).

462

• Stefan Brink*

barian law codes.9 in all likelihood, this is partly due to the fact that when the law codes were written, their society was Christian, and therefore there were no need to deal with lingering pagan customs. However, one would have expected to find in some of the early anglo-saxon laws more elaborate legislation against pagan customs and cult, but alas. Therefore, the earliest scandinavian laws become all the more interesting. although hundreds of years later than the barbarian law codes, they are written in the same ‘vein’ and in an astonishing way cover the same legal fields. it is in the scandinavian laws we come closest to pagan, pre-Christian cult and custom.10

The Provincial Laws in Scandinavia

The earliest written laws in scandinavia emanate from the High and late Middle ages (roughly eleventh to fourteenth centuries). Normally, they are linked to provinces ( land), such as Uppland, gotland, skåne, Jylland, or regions, such as the Gulaþing and Frostaþing Law areas. They are to be seen as branches of the same tradition as the continental germanic laws ( leges bar-barorum), such as the laws of the franks (i.e. Lex Salica), the lombards, the Bavarians, the anglo-saxons, and so forth, which, however, began to be written down much earlier than in scandinavia. The continental laws are all — in principle — written down in latin, whereas the laws of the anglo-saxon kings and the scandinavian provinces are, strangely enough, in the vernacular. a big issue in the discussion of these early provincial laws of scandinavia has been to determine to what extent they reflect earlier legal customs, or whether they exclusively reflect medieval legal ideology, based mainly on continental law. in other words, do these laws constitute orally transmitted legal traditions and customs, which were then written down, or are they medieval codifications and legislation by political agents in the Middle ages, who based their law codes on continental judicial patterns? Today, there seems to be an understanding within the current research that these earliest laws are, in fact, a combination of both (see, e.g., Brink 2015).

9 outside of the laws, however, we have ample evidence of condemnations of pagan practices and customs by the Church (see, e.g., filotas 2005).

10 for a broad overview of pagan custom and cult among germanic speaking people in medieval Europe, see, e.g., Krutzler (2011). for the early Church’s attitude towards pagan customs and cult, see Nilsson (1992). for an in-depth analysis of the practice of magic and magicians in early iceland, see Dillmann (2006).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

463

When analysing and discussing the old Norse religion, the forn siðr, the legal aspects are central, albeit elusive, phenomena. Questions regarding them include whether the prohibitions against pagan cults and conducting rituals found in the laws are to be seen as actually stipulative (for the time of writing down the laws) or as obsolete relicts, what the relations were — if any —

between the cult site and the legal assembly site, and so on. But first, it is essential to inventory what the laws actually say about prohibitions of pagan cult practices.

Prohibitions against Pagan Cult Practices in the Scandinavian Provincial Laws in the earliest icelandic law collection, Grágás, we read: Men n s co lo trva a ein n gvð oc ahelga men h an s. oc blota eigi heiþnar vættir. þa blötar h ann heiþn a r vættir. ef h ann signir fe sitt oþr v m en n gvði. eþa helgvum mavn n vm h an s. Ef maðr blotar heiþnar vættir. oc uarþar þ at f ior b avgs g arþ. Ef m aþ r ferr með galldra eþa gørningar. eþa fiolkýngi. ef h ann queðr þ at eþa kennir.

eþa lætr queða. at s er eþa at fe sinv. þ at varþ a r h onv m f ior b avgs g arþ. oc s ca l h onv m heiman stefna. oc sækia vi ð .xij. qvið. Ef m aþ r ferr með fordæs skap. þ at varþ a r s cog g ang. þ at ero fordæs skapir. ef m aþ r gérir i orðvm sinvm. eþa fiolkyngi sott eþa bana. fe eþ a mavnnv m. þ at s ca l sekia vi ð .xij. qvið. Men n s co lo eigi fara m e þ steina. eþa magna þa ti l þ ess at binda á menn eþa a fé man n a. Ef men trva a steina ti l heilindis s er. eþa fé. oc varþ a r f ior b avgs g arþ. scalat m aþ r eiga fé öborit. ef m aþ r a fe o borit. oc letr o merkt ganga. ti l þ ess at h ann trvir aþ at h e ldr en n a an n at fe. eþa ferr m e þ hindr vitni neccvers kyns. oc varþ a r h onv m f ior b avgs g arþ. Ef m aþ r gengr berserks gang. oc varþ a r h onv m þ at f ior b avgs g arþ. oc s va varþ a r kavrlvm þeim er hia ero staddir. nema þeirhefti h ann at. þa varþar aungvm þ eir ra. ef þ ei r vin n a heftan h ann et. en n ef optar kemr at. v a rþ a r f ior b *avgs * g arþ. (pp. 22–23) (Men are to put their trust in one god and His saints and are not to worship heathen beings. a man worships heathen beings when he assigns his property to anyone but god and His saints. if a man worships heathen beings, the penalty is lesser outlawry.

if someone uses spells or witchcraft or magic — he uses magic if he utters or teaches someone else or gets someone else to utter words of magic over himself or his property — the penalty is lesser outlawry, and he is to be summoned locally and prosecuted with a panel of twelve. if a man practises black sorcery, the penalty for that is full outlawry. it is black sorcery if through his words or his magic a man brings about the sickness or death of livestock or people. That is to be prosecuted with a panel of twelve.

People are not to do things with stones or fill them with magic power with the idea of tying them on people or livestock. if a man puts trust in stones for his own

464

• Stefan Brink*

health or that of his livestock, the penalty is lesser outlawry. a man is not to keep

‘unborn’ livestock. if a man has ‘unborn’ livestock and lets it stay unmarked with the idea of putting more trust in it than in other livestock or if he uses superstition of any sort, the penalty for that is lesser outlawry.

if a man falls into a berserk’s frenzy, the penalty is lesser outlawry, and the same penalty applies to the men who are present unless they restrain him — then they are liable to no penalty if they succeed in restraining him. But if it happens again, the penalty is lesser outlawry. (pp. 38–39)

in Grágás, the belief in pagan ‘beings’ and the practice of sorcery is penalized with lesser outlawry ( fjǫrbaugsgarðr), by which was meant a fine, the loss of some property, perhaps also an ox or cow, and the banishment from iceland for three years (but, noteworthily, that, while abroad, the excommunicated person enjoyed normal immunity) (foote and others 1980–2000: 250; cf. Jones 1940; Riisøy 2014: 123). However, practising witchcraft or sorcery to the effect that man or livestock became ill or died was deemed black sorcery, and this was penalized with full outlawry ( fordæðuskapr),11 which meant that the person forfeited all his property and all his rights and could be killed by anyone with impunity, even abroad (foote and others 1980–2000: 246). What is meant by

‘unborn’ livestock, mentioned in the paragraph, is unknown. and finally, the act of frenzyness, acting like a berserkr, was linked to pagan beliefs and therefore penalized with lesser outlawry.

in another passage in Grágás, we are confronted with the terms tréníð and níðstǫng:

Ef m að r ger ir m ann e níð oc v arðar f iorbavgs g arð. En þ at ero níð ef maðr scer m ann e tré níþ e ða rístr e ða reis ir m ann e niðstöng s ca l søkia vi ð xii. q u ið. (pp. 182–83) (and it is shaming slander if a man carves or incises a ‘wood-shame’ directed against him or raises a ‘shame-pole’ against him. He is to prosecute with a panel of twelve. (p. 197)

These terms, tréníð and níðstǫng, are not directly to be linked to any pagan custom here, but they are obviously to be seen in the same context as the skáldstǫng and flannstǫng mentioned in Kong Sverrers Christenret ( Kristinréttr) (see below).12 lesser outlawry, fjǫrbaugsgarðr, was as mentioned a three-year banishment from iceland.

11 for fordæðuskapr, see fritzner (1972–73 art. fordæðuskapr), and fordæða ‘sorcery’, fritzner (1972–73 art. fordæða); cf. Dillmann (2010: 216).

12 for níðstǫng, see Dillmann (2006: 128 n. 133 with refs).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

465

figure 20.6. The opening page of the Older Gulaþing Law, Codex Rantzovianus (E don. var. 137). Photo: Det Kongelige Bibliotek, Copenhagen.

466

• Stefan Brink*

in the Older Gulaþing Law, applied in south-west Norway, we find older and younger redactions of the law, known respectively as the olav text and the Magnus text.13 Here, there are prohibitions against divination ( spá), augury ( galdr), and sorcery (e.g., bad or evil deeds),14 and anyone who is knowledgeable in such things and makes divinations or sings galdrar 15 will normally be outlawed and excommunicated, while his property will be confiscated and divided into two parts, one part for the king, the other for the bishop.16

Vm spár oc um galld ra

Ðat er nu þvi nest at ver scolom eigi lyda spám ne golldrum ne gerningum. illum.

En sa er kunnr oc sannr verðr at þvi. at hann segir spar. æða ferr með spám. þa er hann maðr utlagr oc uheilagr. oc hverr penningr fiár hans. þat a halft konongr. en halft biscop. En annar er spám lyðir. oc verðr sannr at þvi. þa scal sa [/þa] beöta

.xl. marca. þat a halft konongr. en halft biscop. En sa annarr er ferr með galldra oc gerningar. oc verða [/værðer] at þvi kunnir oc sanner. þeir scolo fara or landeign konongs várs. þvi eigu menn eigi at lyda. þa hava þeir firigort hverium penningi fiár sins. En þeir scolo kost eiga at ganga til scripta oc beöta við Krist. En ef þat mælir biscop. æða hans ærendreke at maðr ferr með spár. æða galldra. æða gerningar. en þeir kveða við þvi nei. þar ero syniar mæltar firi. Ef manne er þat kent at hann fare með spár. syni með settar eiði. nefna menn .xii, iamgoða hanom. þar scal hann einn hava af þeim .xii. monnum. En hann scal sialfr annarr væra. hinn [þriði] nanaste niðr. En þeir [/hinir] þrir er firi orðe oc eiði kunni hyggja. fellr til utlegðar. ef fellr.

Magnus. En ef maðr verðr at þvi kunnr oc sannr. at hann vinnr eið usöran. æða leiðir aðra menn með sér. þa er hann sialfr seccr .xv. morcom. en .iij, morcom firir hvern er svór með hanom ef þeir vissu eigi at usört var. En ef þeir vissu at usört var.

fyrr en þeir vynni. þa giallde hverr [/þeira] .xv. mercr. sem hann. Baðer. En ef þat er konom kent at þær fare með golldrum oc gerningum. þa scal þar nefna konor .vi.

þriar a hvara hond henne huspreyiur þær er menn vitu at goðar se. þær scolo vitni bera at hon kann eigi galldra ne gerningar. En ef henni þat vitni fellr. þa fellr til utlegðar. þa a konongr fe hennar halft. en biscop halft. En hana scal ervingi föra or landeign konongs várs. (p. 17)

13 How old these redactions are, and hence which olav and Magnus are alluded to, is disputed; for different opinions, see, e.g., Trygve Knudsen (1960: 559) and Magnus Rindal (1994: 12); pace Ebbe Hertzberg (1905) and Tore iversen (2011: 103–22).

14 Cf. Hemmer (1947) for prohibitions in the scandinavian medieval laws regarding sorcery and poisoning.

15 for galdrar, see lindquist (1923); fjeld Halvorsen (1960: 1159–61); Dillmann (2006: 119–20).

16 for a discussion and comparison between Grágás and the Gulaþing Law on this topic, see also Kværness (1996: 143–51).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

467

(Now it is so that we shall not listen to divinations, nor sorcerer’s songs, nor evil deeds. But he who is known and found guilty in such things, such as soothsaying or the conducting of divinations, then he is an outlaw and ‘unholy’ (not entitled to legal protection and therefore deprived of all personal rights), and all his property and money (shall be forfeited and divided) half to the king, and half to the bishop.

But another one who listens to divinations, and believes in this, he shall pay 40

marker (in fine), the king ‘owns’ half, the bishop half (of the fine). But another one who performs sorcerer’s songs ( galdrar) and deeds, and believes and is knowledgeable in such things, he shall be expelled from our king’s realm. such things people shall not indulge in (i.e., listen to). But if they do (listen to it), then they have forfeited all their money and property. But they should have the option to do penance and show remorse before Christ. But if a bishop, or his emissary, says that a man conducts divinations or sings galdrar or other evil deeds, but he denies this, then this must be verified. if a man is accused of conducting divinations, then he must clear himself with a séttareiðr oath. Twelve men shall be named, equal to him, these twelve shall be represented as one, he shall be the second, and the third shall be his closest kin. and these three shall be in control of the word and oath, and they shall outlaw him if he fails. [Magnus:] But if a man is found to take a false oath, or misleads other men in a false oath, then he is to be penalized with 15 marker, and each of the men who took the oath with him and did not know it was false should pay three marker. But if they knew that it was a false oath, then they shall pay 15

marker each as he did. [Both:] But if women are accused of singing galdrar and conducting evil deeds, then six women shall be named, three on each side of her, housewives ( húspreyjur), whom people know are good (trustworthy), they shall bear witness that she does not know how to sing galdrar or conduct sorcery. But if that witness fails her, then she is to be outlawed. Then the king owns half of her property, and the bishop half. and her kin must lead her out of our king’s realm.) (my translation)

it is clear, then, that for conducting sorcery and singing galdrar one was to be outlawed and to lose all one’s property. However, if not an acting part in such evil-doings, one could do penance and pay a sizeable penalty of 40 marker. if falsely accused of sorcery, one could together with twelve oath-takers — in a rather complicated composition, where the twelve was counted as one — take an oath, the so-called séttareiðr,17 and clear oneself. if a person failed the oath, and was found guilty, then s/he was to be outlawed. in the younger Magnus redaction of the law, there is nonetheless a more lenient outcome. Here, one could, on being found guilty of swearing a false oath, get away with paying a fine of 15 marker. according to both redactions, women conducting sorcery 17 for séttareiðr, see, e.g., Hamre (1958: 494).

468

• Stefan Brink*

were given the same severe punishment, outlawry, but in such instances, there was no séttareiðr to be named and oaths to be taken; instead, six housewives (probably female acquaintances of the accused) were to be named as witnesses.

if the woman was found guilty, her family was responsible for forcing her out of the kingdom.

in the following paragraph (29) in the Older Gulaþing Law, we find the famous prohibition against sacrifices to pagan gods and the usage of (burial) mounds and hǫrgar as cult sites. anyone who is caught in the act of such pagan activities has, according to the law, forfeited his property; he must confess and do penance before Christ. if he does not repent, he must be outlawed.

Um blot

Blot er oss oc kviðiat at vér scolom eigi blota heiðit guð. ne hauga. ne horga. En ef maðr verðr at þvi kunnr oc sannr. þa hever ha n n firi gort hveríum pen n íngi fiar síns.

han scal ganga til skripta oc bøta vid Crist. En ef ha n n vill þat eígi. þa scal han fara ór landeign konongs várs. (p. 18)

(it is also admonished for us that we should not sacrifice to pagan gods, nor mounds, nor hǫrgar. But if a man is a believer and sacrifices, then he has forfeited all his property (in money), and he shall confess and do penance before Christ. But if he refuses, then he shall be outlawed (e.g., leave our king’s realm). (my translation)

from this legal enactment we can see that a burial mound could be used as a cult site in the pagan religion, which probably reflects an ancestor cult or ancestor worship in function (perhaps still when the law was written down).18 a hǫrgr we know was a kind of cult site, although we do not actually know what it looked like; was it a heap of stones structured as a sort of ‘altar’ (which the etymology suggests), was it an outdoor site for cult and sacrifice, was it some type of construction, a small building, or could it even denote a house or a hall (see also è25)?19

18 Regarding ancestor worship and cult of ancestors, see Triin laidoner (2015) for a comprehensive discussion.

19 see, for example, olsen (1966), Rostvik (1967), Brink (1996a), and Vikstrand (2001); see also the discussion regarding the etymology of hǫrgr/ harg by Heide (2015a, 2015b). Many archaeologists have used the term hǫrgr/ harg as a term for excavated sites, constructions, or buildings, which they have identified as cultic; this usage has, unfortunately, been taken up in the scholarly writings and discourse in this discipline.

20 – Laws and Assemblies

469

similar prohibitions against sorcery are also still found in the Younger Gulaþing Law, resulting in outlawry and loss of property if the culprit was found out:

En þæsser luttir høyra till villu ok hæidins atrvnaddar. galdrar ok gerni(n)gar ok sa er kallar nokorn mann trollridv spadommar ok at trva a landvættir at se j lvundum æda havgum æda forsom sva ok vtti sættor at spyria orlaga. ok þæir er segia afhendes ser gud ok hæilaga kirkiu till þess at þæir skollu i haogum finna æda adrar læidir rikcir verdda æda visir sva ok þæir fræista draugha vpp at væickia æda haugbua.

(p. 308)

(The following things belong to heresy and heathen beliefs: incantations and sorcery/witchcraft, and when someone calls another man witch-ridden, divinations, and belief in guardian spirits that are seen in groves or barrows or rapids, and also sitting out at night performing divinations, and those who reject god and the Holy Church in order to find (valuables) in barrows or become rich or wise/foresighted in other ways, and also those who try to raise ghosts or barrow dwellers.)20

in the Older Frostaþing Law, we find this paragraph on sacrifice ( blót) and pagan gods/idols/supernaturals ( vættir):

Vm blot a heiðnar uettr

Ef maðr blotar a heiðnar uetter eða fer hann með spasogur eða með gerningum sa maðr er þui lyðir oc þann mann husar [ok heimar] til þess. hann er sua utlægr sem manz bane. en biskup a huern pening fear hans. En ef [hann] dyl. bere karlmaðr iarn firir. en kona take i kætil. En sa er þessor mal kennir manni þa værðr hann af þui fiolmæles maðr ef skirskotat er. nema hann hafe firir ser heimilis kuiðiar vitni.

(p. 152)

(But if a man sacrifices to heathen supernatural beings or conducts divinations or evil deeds, that man who listens to and houses such things are of that kind,

[namely] an outlaw similar to an assassin, and the bishop shall take all his property.

But if he denies, then he must carry (the red) iron, but a woman must ‘take into’

the cauldron. But anyone who blames a man for such a deed, he is a fjølmælismaðr (a loudmouth) if it is examined by witnesses, and no witness proves his claim.) (my translation)

The Frostaþing Law has, as we can see, the same severe punishment for sorcery as the Gulaþing Law in the sense that anyone who is linked to or caught in the act of such aberrations should be outlawed. if indicted for such a crime, a man 20 i am most obliged to Dr Erik simensen, oslo, an expert in translating old Norse laws, for help with the translation of this tricky paragraph.

470

• Stefan Brink*

had to prove his innocence by carrying red-hot iron, but for a woman the test was the ‘cauldron test’, where she had to pick up an object from a cauldron of boiling water.21 To falsely inculpate someone for sorcery and such pagan evil deeds was looked upon as defamatory, and a person guilty of this was given the epithet of fjølmælismaðr, a slanderer.22 The headline and the beginning of this paragraph is most interesting in that it refers to blót (pagan sacrifice) and also sacrifice to heiðnar vettir (pagan supernatural beings/gods); this clause is not found in any other law, except Grágás (see above), with the similar wording ( blóta heiðnar vættir), and consequently in Kong Sverrers Christenret ( Kristinréttr) (see below).23

in the Kristinréttr (Church law), which has (misleadingly) been attributed to King sverrir and which is a compliation or a redaction of paragraphs taken from the Gulaþing and the Frostaþing Laws, we find similar stipulations:24

Blott er os kuiðiat at ver skulum æigi blota hæiðnar vetter. oc æigi hæiðin guð ne hauga ne horgha. En ef maðr værðr at þui kunnr eða sannar at han læðr hauga eða gerer hus oc kallar horgh. eða ræisir stong oc kallar skaldzstong huern lut er han gerer þæirra þa hæfir han firergort huerium pæningi fear sins. han skal ganga till scripta oc bøta við Crist. En ef han vill þætt æigi þa skal han fara or landæign konongs vars. (p. 430)

(We are told that we must not sacrifice to heathen supernatural beings and heathen gods, nor to mounds or hǫrgar. But if a man is knowledgeable in and a believer of this, so that he builds a mound, or makes a house, and calls it hǫrgr, or raises a staff and calls it skaldstong, every time he does this then he has forfeited everything he owns of money and property. He must do penance and show remorse before Christ.

But if he refuses to do that, then he shall leave our king’s realm.) (my translation) Here we find the same beginning as in the Older Gulaþing Law: ‘blota hæiðnar vetter. oc æigi hæiðin guð ne hauga ne horgha’ (sacrifice to heathen supernatural beings and heathen gods, nor to mounds or hǫrgar), but following this we find the interesting continuation: ‘han læðr hauga eða gerer hus oc kallar horgh.

eða ræisir stong oc kallar skaldzstong’ (he builds a mound, or makes a house, and calls it hǫrgr, or raises a staff and calls it skaldstong). in this fairly unique passage, we are told that a hǫrgr could be a house, and we are furthermore 21 for an in-depth discussion of these kinds of ordeals in medieval scandinavia, see Nilsson (2001); cf. the article ‘gudsdom’ (iuul and others 1960), for the ‘caulderon test’, esp. p. 548.

22 Cf. fritzner (1972–73 art. fjölmæli).

23 for the word oN vættr/ vettr f., see fritzner (1972–73 art. vættr) and also Brink (2007a: 56).

24 see, e.g., Bøe (1964: 301).

20 – Laws and Assemblies

471

confronted with another object used in the pagan cult, the skáldstǫng, which appears to be some kind of a pole or idol. in a transcription by arne Magnusson of the sysslumaðr Bjarne Pedersson’s excerpts of the Gulaþing Law, this pole is called flannstǫng (Nordland 1967: 517). Both words are very interesting and have been linked to the word tréníð found in Grágás. There are indications that this kind of pole was of an offensive, perhaps immoral, nature (see almqvist 1967: 298–99 and also Nordland 1967: 517–18).

in the Church law of the Borgarþing Law, valid for the area around oslo and Viken, there is a prohibition against pagan sacrifice and sorcery, specifying that anyone indulging in such aberrations must pay — an astonishingly small fine of — 3 marker, and only to the bishop:

a guð skulu m *enn * væll trua en æigi a boluan eða a blot skapp. En ef m aðr uærðr at þui sannr at h an fær m eð hæiðin blott þau er f iri boðen ero at bok male. h an er sæckr .iij. morkum. (p. 351)

(People must believe in god and not in anathemata or sacrifice ( blótskapr). But if a man is found guilty of conducting pagan sacrifices, which are forbidden in latin

[i.e., according to the Kristinréttr in the law book], then he is guilty [and must pay a fine] of 3 marker.) (my translation)

Why the penalty for pagan sacrifice is so lenient in the Borgarþing Law is uncertain. The difference between punishment with outlawry in the Gulaþing and Frostaþing Laws, hence social death, and this fine of only 3 marker is remarkable.

The longest and most elaborate prohibition against and exemplifications of pagan cult and sacrifice mentioned in any Norwegian law is found in the Church law of the Eidsivaþing Law, valid for the area around lake Mjøsa in eastern Norway.

(E)Ngi m aðr skal hafa i husi sinu staf eða stalla. vit eða blot. eða þat er til hæiðins siðar uæit.

En ef hefer oc uærðr ha n n at þui kunnr eða sannr. þa er ha n n utlægr oc uhæilagr.

oc huær pæningr fear hans.

Nu ef blot er funnit i husi laslausu matblot. eða læirblot gort i ma n nzliki. af læiri. eða af dægi. þa skal ha n n þedan løysa i brot. mæð lyrittar æiði. sæckr .iij. m arkum ef æiðr fællz. (p. 383)

(No man shall keep in his house staff/idol or stalli [altar], a sorcerer’s tool or sacrifice, or things connected to pagan customs.

But if he does, and is found guilty of this, then he is [to be] outlawed and excommunicated, and will also [lose] every coin of [i.e., all of ] his property.

472

• Stefan Brink*

Now, if sacrifice is found in an unlocked house, food offerings or clay offerings, shaped like a human body [i.e., a small clay idol/figurine], of clay or dough, then he must free himself from this with a lýréttr oath, [and he is] guilty [and must pay a fine] of 3 marker if he fails the oath. (my translation) and in a subsequent paragraph:

(E)Ngi maðr a at trua. a finna. eða fordæðor. eða a vit. eða blot. eða rot. eða þat. er til hæiðins siðar høyrir. eða læita ser þar bota.

En ef m aðr fær til finna. oc uærðr h ann sannr at þui. þa er h ann utlægr. oc ubota m aðr oc firigort fe sinu allu. oc skal u era þriskift. skal k onong r taka þriðiung. b iscu p a n nan. bøndr hi n n þriðia.

En hi n n e r sok er gefen. oc kueðr h an n næi uið. þa skiri ha n n sik m æð .vi. ma n na æiði. þ æi ra er þar ero fødder i þui heraðe. se m ha n n er stadðr. oc ha n n fær æi uitni.

þa skal ha n n na iarnburði. En ef ha n n fællr at iarnburði. ta e r ha n n utlægr oc obota.

m aðr. se m aðr uar skillt.

Kona huær er fær m eð lif. oc læz ku n na bøta ma n nu m. Ef hon er so n n at þui. þa er hon sæk .iij. m arkum. ef hon hefer fe til.

En ef æigi er fe til. þa take e r uill oc fenyti ser. En ef ængi uil ser fenyta. þa fare hon utlæg. (pp. 389–90)

(No one shall believe in sámi, nor witches, nor a sorcerer’s tool or sacrifice or rot

[to fall into a trance?], or things connected to pagan customs, nor is anyone to seek help from this.

But if a man goes to the sámi, and if he is found guilty of this, then he is [sentenced to] outlawry and an outlaw and has forfeited all of his property, which shall be divided into three [lots], the king takes one third, the bishop the second, the farmers the third.

But the one who is accused of this, if he says no hereto [i.e. denies the accusation], then he must clear himself with an oath sworn by six men, who are born in the same hundred/district [ hærað] [as the accused]. if he is unable to muster witnesses, then he has the right to undergo the test of the red-hot iron [ iárnburðr]. if he fails the test of the red-hot iron, then he is [sentenced to] outlawry and will be an outlaw, as said before.

Every woman who conducts witchcraft, and claims she can heal people, if she is found guilty of this, then she must pay 3 marker [in fine], if she can afford it.

But if there is not enough capital/property, then anyone who wants can take what there is and use it. But if no one wants to use it, then she shall be outlawed.) (my translation)

according to this law, it was not allowed to have anything that could be linked to pagan cult in one’s house, such as a (sorcerer’s) staff, a (pagan) altar ( stallr), certain plants (used in sorcery), and so forth. anyone in possession of such

20 – Laws and Assemblies

473

things was to be deemed ‘unholy’, be outlawed, and lose all property. The word vit found in these enactments is not easily understandable. odd Nordland (1967: 517) interprets it as some sort of instrument used to conduct sorcery or create ecstasy ( vitt), twigs, and links this to the expression kjósa hlautvið in Vǫluspá st. 63, a term referring to sticks or twigs to be used together with the sacrificial blót.25

in the paragraph cited above, the materials used in the household cult are also specified, such as food offerings and dough and clay shaped into man-like figurines. These sorts of cult objects are also mentioned in another paragraph in the same law, but this time with the addition of a prohibition against visiting sámi (who were often linked to sorcery in sagas, etc.) or witches to be cured of some illness. This was considered a serious offence and resulted in the loss of all property and the severest form of outlawry.

it is notable that there is a discrepancy regarding the punishment for being associated with pagan cult practice and objects in the different Norwegian laws. Punishments range from a fine of 3 marker to the loss of all property and outlawry. Bertil Nilsson (1992: 36) notes that the most lenient punishment is to be found in the oldest of the laws, the Older Gulaþing Law, where after a first offence one loses all property but is still given the possibility of doing penance; however, if being caught a second time, a person was to be outlawed. in other Norwegian laws, being associated with pagan cult and sorcery immediately led to the loss of all property as well as outlawry.

in the swedish provincial laws, which can be divided into two groups — the Göta Laws (The Västgöta Laws, the Östgöta Law, and the Law [Church law only] for Småland or Värend) and the Svea Laws (The * Law for Uppland, * the Hälsinge Law, the Västmanna Law, the * Södermanna Law*, and the Dala Law)

— it is noteworthy that there is no mention in the Göta Laws of prohibitions against pagan customs or cult; such are found only in the Svea Laws. a special case is the Guta Law, valid for the island of gotland, which contains more elaborate and unique prohibitions of this kind.

in the Uppland Law, prohibitions appear already in the first paragraph of the Church law:

a krist skulu allir kristnir troæ at han ær guþ. ok æi æru guþær flere. æn han æn. ængin skal affguþum blotæ. ok ængin a lundi ællr stenæ troæ. allir skulu kirkiu dyrkæ.26

25 for the word oN vitt ( vétt, vett), see fritzner (1972–73 art. vitt), strömbäck (1935: 22, 43), and Dillmann (2006: 132 n. 144).

26 old swedish text from lars-olof Delsing’s online edition at <http://project2.sol.lu.se/

474

• Stefan Brink*

(all must believe in Christ, that he is god, and that there are no other gods than he alone. No one shall sacrifice to idols ( afguþar), and no one shall believe in groves or stones. all must worship the church.) (my translation)

The first sentence is almost certainly a rephrasing of the first commandment in the law of Moses: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’. The Hälsinge Law, which is dependent on the Uppland Law, opens with two sentences identical to the ones just cited.

it is significant that the enactment in the Uppland Law (and the dependent Hälsinge Law) is not to be found in any other of the Svea Laws. instead, these contain prohibitions of other kinds, such as against witchcraft, as in the Dala Law (Church Balker § 11):

Warþir kuna takin meþ truldom. meþ horn oc haar quict oc döt þæt ma wel truldom heta. þæt ær fyritighi marka sak. […] hawir æi böta. wari stens mattit oc stranda.27

(if a woman is caught in the act of witchcraft, with nails and hair, with living or dead, that may with reason be called witchcraft; that is the case of 40 marker […] if she is unable to pay the fine, she shall be taken to a shore and be stoned (to death)

[litt. ‘be food for stone and beach’].) (my translation)

This type of prohibitions is not, of course, alluding to pagan customs directly, but to folk beliefs and customs and folk medicine that was not approved of by the Church.

in the same way as with the Göta Laws, there is no mention of prohibitions against pagan cult or customs in the Old Danish Laws (the Law of Skåne, the Law of Jylland, and the Law of Sjælland). instead, the most comprehensive laws prohibiting pagan customs is found in the Guta Law:

4. aff blotan

Þet ier nu þy nest at blotir iru mannum mier firj buþni oc fyrnsca all þaun sum haiþnu fylgir Engin ma haita a huathci a hult eþa hauga. eþa haþin guþ. huatki a vi {etþa} [eþa] stafgarþa ¶ Þa en nequar verþr at þi sandr oc laiþas hanum so vitni a hand et hann hafi haizl nequara þa miþ mati eþa miþ dryckiu senni sum at fylgir cristnum siþi þa ir hann sacr at þrim marcum viþr kirchiu menn.28

fornsvenska/01_Bitar/a.l7.a-Ul.html> [accessed 4 april 2019]. My translation.

27 old swedish text from lars-olof Delsing’s online edition at <http://project2.sol.lu.se/

fornsvenska/01_Bitar/a.l6.a-Dl.html> [accessed 4 april 2019]. My translation.

28 old swedish text from lars-olof Delsing’s online edition at <http://project2.sol.lu.se/

fornsvenska/01_Bitar/a.l3.a-gl.html> [accessed 4 april 2019].

20 – Laws and Assemblies

475

(<4> Concerning sacrifice

Now the next thing is that sacrifice is strictly forbidden to allmen, together with all those old customs that belong to paganism. No one may pray to either groves or howes or heathen gods, nor to holy places or ancient sites. if someone is found guilty of this, and it is proved against him and confirmed with witnesses that he has invoked something of this sort with his food or drink, contrary to Christian practice, then he is to be fined three marks to the parishioners, if they win the case.) (p. 9)

This law enactment contains several very interesting aspects. The beginning resembles the wording of the Gulaþing Law: hult eþa hauga ‘groves or (burial) mounds’, but this is followed by the unique vi eþa stafgarþa ‘vi (cult sites) or stafgarþar’. The word vi is unambiguously linked to pagan cult sites in scandinavian placenames and is derived from Proto-germanic * wīha- ‘holy’.

The word stafgarþer, however, is rather difficult to translate and to understand.

in gotlandic placenames Stavgard is linked to house foundations from the Migration Period, but although many interpretations have been suggested, it remains unknown what the first element, staf-, alludes to. The most thorough analysis of the word and the placename element has been conducted by ingemar olsson (1976; cf. 1992), but, although he spent many years analysing this problem, he was not able to find a general solution. The word is truly enigmatic. it seems probable that these house foundations could be referred to as stafgarþar and that they had some sort of function in the pagan belief system on gotland. it is also interesting to note that the law prohibits the custom of offering food or drink ( mat eþa dryckia), which probably represents a custom where you either bring food or drink offerings to gods or supernatural beings in the landscape, or perhaps a custom related to ancestor worship, where you share the meal with the ancestor on special occasions. This food offering has been a tenacious custom in scandinavia and is well attested also in later centuries (Bringéus 1976: 141; cf. Celander 1928 passim).

in the scandinavian medieval laws, we find a range of prohibitions regarding pagan customs and cult practices, from the general repudiations of witchcraft and (black) sorcery, similar to what we find in the barbarian law codes, to more specific and detailed rules regarding blót, idols, and staffs (such as skaldstǫng), hǫrgr, the worship of certain supernatural beings ( vættir), burial mounds (which in many cases represent some kind of ancestor worship), stones, groves, and the sorcery by sámi. The most elaborate is the Guta Law, which adds vi (cult site) and the enigmatic stafgarþar as well as the offerings of food and liquids ( mat, drykkia).

476

• Stefan Brink*

The punishment for such aberrations differed, sometimes quite considerably. The normal and most severe punshment for conducting sorcery or pagan cult practice was outlawry, that is, excommunication; this is the case in the icelandic Grágás, the Gulaþing Law, and the Frostaþing Law, and similarly in Kong Sverrers Christenret and the Eidsivaþing Law. in Grágás a rather more lenient punishment was introduced, the fjǫrbaugsgarðr (lesser outlawry) for blóta heiðnar vættir and for conducting witchcraft and magic; however, black magic ( fordæsskap), whereby people or animals became sick or died, resulted in full outlawry.

in the Gulaþing Law, a person who was only a passive spectator of sorcery and pagan cult got away with a fine of 40 marker. The same, really quite substantial, fine, 40 marker, was according to the Dala Law given to women conducting witchcraft, but if a woman could not pay, she was to be taken to a shore and be stoned (to death). in the Borgarþing Law as well as in the swedish laws, the punishment for sorcery and pagan cult was 3 marker, and this was also the fine in the Eidsivaþing Law for food offerings.

We see that the laws reveal four different punishments: full outlawry, lesser outlawry, 40 marker, and 3 marker. Bertil Nilsson (1992: 36) has noticed this discrepancy among the laws, but has not been able to find any logical reason for it.

another question to be asked is whether these regulations in the laws had any relevance in reality during the time when the laws where edited and written down. We are inclined to agree with Bertil Nilsson (1992: 38) that pagan customs cannot have been totally absent during this period in society, in the twelfth, thirteenth, and even fourteenth centuries; otherwise, there would be no incentive to include these prohibitions in the laws. What follows from this assumption is that in medieval Denmark there was no need for prohibitions against pagan customs, which probably reflects the situation there.

Concluding Remarks

older scholarship thought it possible, for example, to trace aspects of PCRN

in informal law (e.g., Vordemfelde 1923), but that enterprise amounts to little more than hunting for details out of context. of more lasting validity has been the discussion on the possibility of discerning varying attitudes toward the sacral in germanic death penalties (classic study by von amira 1922; see also è23); today, however, we consider the evidence for human sacrifice, archaeological as well as textual, linked to religious and mythological concepts more than to hypothetical legal provisions or social structures. Walter Baetke’s

20 – Laws and Assemblies

477

insistence on the societal nature of germanic and scandinavian religion (e.g., Baetke 1936, 1938, 1973) simplifies the social situation and overlooks local and household cult. a major shift came in 1964, with Klaus von see’s classic study of legal vocabulary (von see 1964), which attempts to strip away the religious layer from the law codes. This remains a fundamental study.29 yet, as this survey has shown, it is possible with today’s tools and outlook to address such issues as the relationship between secular and religious leadership, and between assembly sites and cult sites, as well as the surviving legal provisions regarding the practice of pagan behaviours in the early Christian polities.

in general, it seems that the question of whether laws and judicial systems are of a religious or a secular nature is fundamentally misplaced when it comes to religions such as those of pre-Christian scandinavia: as was argued in (è1), the religious sphere was not regarded as being substantially different from the secular sphere. Even though it cannot be expected that people at the time thought about the relation between law and religion, the relation will most often be there.30 This means that, for instance, the hanging of a prisoner of war might well be understood from different perspectives: in certain situations and by certain individuals, it could be viewed as a sacrifice to the war god, whereas the focus of others could be more secular, namely, as a punishment or a revenge, and most often, we should expect both notions to have been present. in any case, we should not expect that everybody in pre-Christian societies regarded legal affairs in exactly the same way. although we do not have direct evidence for it, we should probably, as with many other religions, see the legal system as something that was ultimately understood as part of divine interference in a more or less direct way. Therefore, we actually need to bring knowledge of the social structures and legal concepts into any study of PCRN.

29 William ian Miller (1997) shows, by means of close readings, how the legal system functions in the sagas: the discourse is wholly secular. on the other hand, lindow (1995b, 1997a) has shown the importance of the same structures within the mythology.

30 Even nowadays, oaths related to the other World are often taken in court rooms, just as certain social norms refer to mythic figures and things that took place in illo tempore.