Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

[Crimson Horizons]

How to maintain it in the face of family adversity, what it means to modern heathens, what it is/isn't, how it differs from grith, etc?

[Rae'ya]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

I'm interested... only not right now in this post, 'cos I'm about to get ready for work.

I'd also be interested in expanding the discussion outside of family and into core community units, like the workplace.

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

Frith outside of the family is an interesting concept. At its core, Frith only exists within the family. And yet, our definition of family has changed so much from what the ancestors would have understood it to mean that it is worth serious discussion.

A think the best beginning would be to describe frith, especially for those casual viewers who may not know.

As a simple definition, frith is the tie that binds kin together, that drives one member to seek revenge for another, to defend them (both physically and legally), to shelter them, and a host of other things. To stand against kin was an unconscionable act, and there was no worse crime than that of kin-slaying. Frith didn't mean that fights and arguments didn't show their face (our ancestors were no more above the human condition than we are), just that there was an understanding that it would never leave the clan and would never involve weapons.

The idea of maintaining frith in today's standards can be difficult, especially with the death of the classic kin-unit mixed with members of the family flat out acting against one another. Do we treat family members who are not worth the name well in the name of frith? In the old days outlawry was basically a death sentence because it divorced the member from the frith of his/her family. By today's standards, is a jail sentence the same as outlawry? Are we obligated to help our kin that have found themselves in the slammer?

The extension of frith to friends may be common now, but it was unheard of in ancient times. To side with your best friend over your detestable brother would have been a terrible event, poisoning the wyrd of the clan. Now, it is common place. Our friends have, to a large degree, filled the function of family. A common phrase I hear, and one I have voiced myself, is 'Chosen Kin'. I'm not sure the ancestors would understand the term but it deserves real discussion in our modern times.

To what extent are we bound to revenge our kin, given that today's laws are so vastly different than those of our ancestors? The law of the land would have been, essentially, an eye for an eye. Indeed, this is why the term wereguild exists, to help mitigate blood feuds between clans in the community (which shows that, to the ancestors, frith did not extend to the community at large). Now, to kill my father's killer (as an example, mind) would land me in jail for a lengthy amount of time, if not for life. Indeed, revenge is handled impersonally through a jury of our peers. How would our law-loving ancestors deal with this brutal disharmony between frith and law? How do we, as modern heathens, overcome this hurdle?

I have many more thoughts on the subject, but I hope this is enough to get us started.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

Frith outside of the family is an interesting concept. At its core, Frith only exists within the family. And yet, our definition of family has changed so much from what the ancestors would have understood it to mean that it is worth serious discussion.

My understanding of frith (as a non-recon) is not limited to just the blood or marriage kin, but I'm open to sources discussing it.

Either way, our core social units have changed enormously from those that our ancestors experienced. If you discount sleeping hours, those of us who work full time spend more time with our colleagues than we do with our spouses, let alone our extended families. The family group is no longer the primary social unit, and as we've moved further away from kin-based groups, the context for harmonious relationships and loyalty has also changed.

The idea of maintaining frith in today's standards can be difficult, especially with the death of the classic kin-unit mixed with members of the family flat out acting against one another. Do we treat family members who are not worth the name well in the name of frith? In the old days outlawry was basically a death sentence because it divorced the member from the frith of his/her family. By today's standards, is a jail sentence the same as outlawry? Are we obligated to help our kin that have found themselves in the slammer?

This is an interesting question, because jail is not something that we can directly correlate or equate with the justice system of our ancestors. Is jail the same as outlawry? I don't think so. Jail is a consequence for any number of unlawful acts, not all of which would be deserving of exile in Viking-age Europe. So how does that tie into applying frith to kin who have ended up in jail? This is getting into territory that non-recons tend not to think too hard about, because the nuances of translating historical concepts and actions into modern times is less important for us.

The extension of frith to friends may be common now, but it was unheard of in ancient times. To side with your best friend over your detestable brother would have been a terrible event, poisoning the wyrd of the clan. Now, it is common place. Our friends have, to a large degree, filled the function of family. A common phrase I hear, and one I have voiced myself, is 'Chosen Kin'. I'm not sure the ancestors would understand the term but it deserves real discussion in our modern times.

I subscribe to the concept of chosen kin far more than I do to the idea that my extended family are deserving of my loyalty just because they are related to me. My family unit is quite small, and most of my extended family live interstate and have no relationship with me or my husband. My husbands family lives in America, and some of them have been downright abusive and neglectful. At what point does the actions of your own kin against you justify you casting them out of your chosen kin unit? Are we to work to maintain frith with those who actively abuse us or who's ongoing relationship with us causes continuing trauma? I think there's a point where blood ties must be ignored in favour of our own continued health, and in favour of the frith of the social unit in general.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

What precisely was outlawry? What actions earned it? Who made the decision to level such a sentence?

[SilverShadow]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

The idea of maintaining frith in today's standards can be difficult, especially with the death of the classic kin-unit mixed with members of the family flat out acting against one another. Do we treat family members who are not worth the name well in the name of frith? In the old days outlawry was basically a death sentence because it divorced the member from the frith of his/her family. By today's standards, is a jail sentence the same as outlawry? Are we obligated to help our kin that have found themselves in the slammer?

Whenever someone asks a question like this, I always like to ask myself what practical reason there was to make the rule in the first place.

If, as you say, being divorced from your family basically meant death then it becomes clear as to why it was so important to stick with your family, even if they were horrible.

I don't know that gaol is the same as outlawry. (Rae'ya pretty much summed up the good reasons as for why). Though, I would say that dependant on why the family member has been incarcerated, might give some weight as to whether you help them out or not.

The extension of frith to friends may be common now, but it was unheard of in ancient times. To side with your best friend over your detestable brother would have been a terrible event, poisoning the wyrd of the clan. Now, it is common place. Our friends have, to a large degree, filled the function of family. A common phrase I hear, and one I have voiced myself, is 'Chosen Kin'. I'm not sure the ancestors would understand the term but it deserves real discussion in our modern times.

Or maybe they'd understand it quite well.

If a family member acting against the best interest of everyone else in the family was just cause for chucking them out, I think the ancestors might understand why you'd give them the flick. I've read that fostering of children wasn't uncommon back then. Though it was more of a political move than out of the goodness of their hearts, there's at least some historical precedence for bringing an outside into the family unit.

Maybe making a family unit out of friends, rather than destructive people who happen to share your blood, wouldn't be so much of a stretch for the ancestors to understand.

To what extent are we bound to revenge our kin, given that today's laws are so vastly different than those of our ancestors? The law of the land would have been, essentially, an eye for an eye. Indeed, this is why the term wereguild exists, to help mitigate blood feuds between clans in the community (which shows that, to the ancestors, frith did not extend to the community at large). Now, to kill my father's killer (as an example, mind) would land me in jail for a lengthy amount of time, if not for life. Indeed, revenge is handled impersonally through a jury of our peers. How would our law-loving ancestors deal with this brutal disharmony between frith and law? How do we, as modern heathens, overcome this hurdle?

They had legal proceedings back then, not completely dissimilar to the way we do now. (Actually, I think the word 'law' comes from the Old Norse). While you're right, it was the family that decided on the punishment that was probably more due to the fact that they didn't have police. In the event that a decision couldn't be made as to correct punishment to fit the crime, I'm fairly certain that it would have gone to a 'Thing' where it would have been decided upon by a group.

There are also striking similarities to the ways they changed laws in general, to the way we change laws now.

You are right though, it's a very different set up. I like to believe that it's that way for a reason. There is evidence to suggest that ancient Norse changed their own laws, they evolved with the times and new information/theories about how things should be.

So, when you ask "how do we overcome the hurdle?" I think we should recognise it as a hurdle not that different to the ones the ancient Norse would have seen at their time. There would have been discussions, like this one, happening at a Thing. Maybe someone would have said "but our ancestors did this!" and another would have replied "But we know THIS now, so we have to change!". They weren't a stagnant culture, so fluidity in practise is far from unheard of.

By the way, LOVING this topic! Can't wait to read other people's responses.

[Rick]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

I always took frith to refer to how one deals with those in his innagarth, and grith to refer to how one deals with those in the uttgarth.

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

My understanding of frith (as a non-recon) is not limited to just the blood or marriage kin, but I'm open to sources discussing it.

Either way, our core social units have changed enormously from those that our ancestors experienced. If you discount sleeping hours, those of us who work full time spend more time with our colleagues than we do with our spouses, let alone our extended families. The family group is no longer the primary social unit, and as we've moved further away from kin-based groups, the context for harmonious relationships and loyalty has also changed.

Interestingly enough, Frith didn't even extend to marriage kin (other than the two married, that is). In the story of Sigurd and Gudrun, Gudrun's brother's murder Sigurd. They are required to pay the weregild (which Gudrun refuses) and she swears that she will kill them. One of her brothers (Gunnar, I believe) tells her that then her sorrow would be double. Indeed, Gudrun's is an interesting case, where two frith's compete; the need to revenge her husband, and her inability to do harm to her brothers.

As a further example of frith, as much as Gudrun detested her brothers for their act, Gudrun goes on to murder her second husband, Atli (better known as Atilla the Hun) as well as her children by him, in revenge for killing her brothers (the ones she hates). The story goes that even death would not take her, for she had committed the unconcionable crime of kin-slaying, having slain her children. She had to drown herself twice, the second time after reminding Sigurd (dead and residing in Valhol) of his oaths, in order to escape the mortal coil.

Now, as a recon, it is important to me to keep things as historically acurate as possible. That said, I realize that the world operates differently now than it did then. We no longer depend upon our kin for our very survival as the ancestors once did. I disagree with your assessment that the family is no longer the primary social unit as it would apply worldwide but admit you are sadly correct as it applies to the "white" populations around the world. My experience with Chinese and Mexican families tell me that family is still very much the primary social unit for them.

For sources, so far I think Gronbech's Culture of the Teutons is a pretty good work for discussing the importance of Frith. I believe the entire first chapter is dedicated to it.

This is an interesting question, because jail is not something that we can directly correlate or equate with the justice system of our ancestors. Is jail the same as outlawry? I don't think so. Jail is a consequence for any number of unlawful acts, not all of which would be deserving of exile in Viking-age Europe. So how does that tie into applying frith to kin who have ended up in jail? This is getting into territory that non-recons tend not to think too hard about, because the nuances of translating historical concepts and actions into modern times is less important for us.

At first glance, jail resembles nothing like the outlawry of the past, and yet dig deeper and there are many similarities. A jury (thing) decides the defendant is guilty and he/she is sentanced to X number of years in prison (away from society; outlawry). If the crime is not worthy of jail (outlawry), one pays the fine (weregild) and they are in the clear.

Now, am I likely to disavow a member of my family because he commits tax fraud (as an example); no. Am I likely to disavow a member of my family because he killed the killer of his wife? No. Am I likely to disavow a member of my family because he killed my father? Yes, if I don't kill him first myself. I think the crime matters more (i.e. did it hurt the family) to a modern concept of outlawry than simply landing behind bars.

But, as you rightly surmise, those of us looking to rebuild the worldview as accurately as possible tend to worry more about these things than the non-recons, which is not in any way intended as a slight.

I subscribe to the concept of chosen kin far more than I do to the idea that my extended family are deserving of my loyalty just because they are related to me. My family unit is quite small, and most of my extended family live interstate and have no relationship with me or my husband. My husbands family lives in America, and some of them have been downright abusive and neglectful. At what point does the actions of your own kin against you justify you casting them out of your chosen kin unit? Are we to work to maintain frith with those who actively abuse us or who's ongoing relationship with us causes continuing trauma? I think there's a point where blood ties must be ignored in favour of our own continued health, and in favour of the frith of the social unit in general.

There are examples of kin working at cross purposes, hindering one another as best as they could without breaking the bonds of frith. At what point would I be done with just such an individual? Very early on. If someone is abusive towards me, I never need to see that individual again. I wouldn't tolerate them in my life and, were they kin, I would see them only during such functions as was absolutely necessary and would likely answer any further abuse with violence (though without weapons, of course).

I have family members who are deadbeats. They have asked me for money, promising to pay me back by X date without ever doing so. The first two times I lent them money (a relatively small sum) but the third time I said no, reminded them of the previous broken promises, and have not heard from them since. I can easily cut them out of my life without issue or remorse. Would I help them out if they came to me seeking asylum or needing revenge? I honestly don't know, but thankfully that is a drastically less frequent occurance than it would have been for the ancestors, so hopefully I'll never face that particular quandary.

- - - Updated - - -

Or maybe they'd understand it quite well.

If a family member acting against the best interest of everyone else in the family was just cause for chucking them out, I think the ancestors might understand why you'd give them the flick. I've read that fostering of children wasn't uncommon back then. Though it was more of a political move than out of the goodness of their hearts, there's at least some historical precedence for bringing an outside into the family unit.

Maybe making a family unit out of friends, rather than destructive people who happen to share your blood, wouldn't be so much of a stretch for the ancestors to understand.

I don't think the idea that ancestors would find close friends an odd idea, no. That said, I do believe that the idea of choosing a friend over family in a situation where the laws of frith say to do otherwise would be quite bewildering to them. There did exist the idea of blood-brothers, but I believe the kin-clan had to accept this new member, just as they would have for accepting a foster child (though sadly I don't have any sources for this practice handy at the moment, so take it with a grain of salt).

They had legal proceedings back then, not completely dissimilar to the way we do now. (Actually, I think the word 'law' comes from the Old Norse). While you're right, it was the family that decided on the punishment that was probably more due to the fact that they didn't have police. In the event that a decision couldn't be made as to correct punishment to fit the crime, I'm fairly certain that it would have gone to a 'Thing' where it would have been decided upon by a group.

There are also striking similarities to the ways they changed laws in general, to the way we change laws now.

You are right though, it's a very different set up. I like to believe that it's that way for a reason. There is evidence to suggest that ancient Norse changed their own laws, they evolved with the times and new information/theories about how things should be.

So, when you ask "how do we overcome the hurdle?" I think we should recognise it as a hurdle not that different to the ones the ancient Norse would have seen at their time. There would have been discussions, like this one, happening at a Thing. Maybe someone would have said "but our ancestors did this!" and another would have replied "But we know THIS now, so we have to change!". They weren't a stagnant culture, so fluidity in practise is far from unheard of.

By the way, LOVING this topic! Can't wait to read other people's responses.

I agree, they were not a stagnant culture. They adapted to hardships as they met them. However, as a recon, I strive to understand the worldview prior to christianity. Many of these changes, these differences in laws, came about through a change of worldview. Thus, the why of the change is understood (the values changed to meet the needs of the new religion), but the how of those whose worldview I seek to immerse myself in would respond to today's laws regarding these things is unknown. The battle is thus how do we regard the needs of revenge conflicting with the laws of the land.

By the way, LOVING this topic! Can't wait to read other people's responses.

Glad to hear it! I know that I did not see anything like it on the boards, and I don't recall ever having this discussion back before the great PF server crash either. Then again, I wouldn't have had the knowledge then to hold my own, let alone originate the topic. Let's have a big 'yay' for the knowledge and wisdom that come with the grey hairs of age!

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

I always took frith to refer to how one deals with those in his innagarth, and grith to refer to how one deals with those in the uttgarth.

To my knowledge, Grith means a place/pact of non-violence. Things/Allthings were places of Grith, but one had to watch themselves on the road to said Thing because the paths there were not extended that same assurance. So, yeah, I would say that your interpretation is mostly spot on. One would never need to extend grith to those in his innangarth but grith was not necessarily extended to everyone in the uttgarth.

[Ullr's Chaote]

Re: Is anyone interested in a discussion on Frith?

I'm not fully sure where I stand on Frith as my family is dysfunctional at best and broken is still being kind. I have a few key friends who I treat as family and they treat me as such. What I'm here for primarily is to offer a term I've seen Kith as a term for "Chosen Kin" To be precise

Those related by oath, or by marriage, not blood.

So your wife would be Kith not Kin but my main point is I call those friends that are family to me Kith not because I do not think thy are good enough to be Kin but simply to make a distinction.