The Saxon Code.

No crown but ours shall govern here,
No strangers rule with gold or fear,
No plow but ours may slough the loam,
No prow but ours slash the spume,
No hand but ours may bind our kin,
No gods but ours proclaim a sin,
No law but ours may stay a blow,
No hand but ours may draw a bow,
No men but ours may hunt the land,
No sons but ours bear sword in hand,
No word but ours shall we trust,
No flags be flown except of us,
No land but ours do we demand,
No more than what we have farmed,
No strangers slaving on our soil,
No man unpaid or forced to toil
No heroes priased but ours alone,
No other kin but our blood and bone
No strangers to tell us who we are,
No obedience to any foreign laws.

This is interesting to chew on; perhaps obvious to everybody else, but it seems to highlight the essential distinction between modern & ancient rights. Under egalitarianism, the idea is that we cannot tolerate any rights which are restricted to some but not others. A right exists either for everybody or nobody, for we can make no distinctions.

I think one thing most on the Left and the Right would agree upon is that either everybody should have the right to bear arms or nobody should. The suggestion that such a right might be properly restricted to those of a certain status -- landowners, for instance -- would cause both wings of America to go ballistic.

Grendel might have been one of the first honest libertarians from the Anglo-Saxon line. When Dr. Fleming first made the above quoted remark about Grendel years ago on the Beowulf thread, I found it very strange -- assuming cold blooded murder the more heinous offense. Since then I have come to understand that the classical definition of hell is to have ones own will forever. Grendel certainly is this type of hellish creature. Especially when contrasted to the hero who must lay down his life to slay the dragon.

I find generalizations about Germanic peoples to be troublesome. The Vikings of the 10th century are truly horrible people, violent in a sick way that is hard to find parallels for among white Europeans. They appear to have been as fond of torture and mass murder as the Comanche. This may have something to do with the build-up of state power in Denmark and Norway and the imposition of Christianity.

In general, systems of vendetta are designed to reduce, not increase violence. The depiction of the city at peace on the shield of Achilles is a scene or arbitration for blood money. It is true that vendettas can get out of control but it is also true that we have crooked cops and judges and in general government authorities who refuse to protect the innocent against black and Mexican gangs and against Islamic terrorists, whom we actively recruit for the armed forces. Every system has its limitations. In the AS system, it is not easy to divorce the idea of vendetta from the general sense of obligation toward family members and a warrior's obligation to his lord. Byrhthnoth made a mistake, but that mistake in no way releases his companions from their duty to avenge his death, even though the death took place in battle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252145/David-Camerons-plan-impose-women-gays-ethnic-candidates.html

If only a Byrhtnoth were around today....Cameron would be swimming the channel faster than one could say feyman.

While marriage among the Germanic peoples might have been more egalitarian, don't you think it was somewhat strict? On this subject, Tacitus writes: "[The Germans'] marriage code however is strict and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy. Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife, except a very few among them, and these not from mere sensuality, but because their noble birth procures for them many offers of alliance." Interestingly, stressing the warrior code, the "gift of arms" given at marriage are considered to be the "strongest bond of union, these their sacred mysteries, these their gods of marriage." He then goes on that "very rare for so numerous a population is adultery."

Granted, Tacitus at times seems to romanticize the Germans. He might have been contrasting them, especially in terms of monogamy, to the more polygamous cultures of the Asiatics; or, in terms of adultery, to imperial Rome, but he paints a rather sympathetic picture. Do you think Tacitus is completely off?

Regarding the Germanic warrior code, the codes in the Havamal often stress a form of moderation that one would find among the Greco-Romans: many warnings about the dangers of drinking too much (because it might have been a real problem), how to treat friends, how to work hard / not be lazy, etc.

A saying regarding fatalism:

"Moderately wise
a man should be
not too crafty and clever.
A man's fate
should be firmly hidden
to preserve his peach of mind."

This one, regarding the importance of procreation to keep alive the ancestral religion, reminds me of Roman practice:

"A son is better
though late begotten
of an old and ailing father.
Only your kin
will proudly carve
a memorial at the main gate."

(I've read that the Germanic kobolds might have served the same function as the lares.)

Regarding homicide in the Germanic world, what do you think of the story "Thorstein the Staff-Struck"? It emphasizes a moderation in retribution for homicide and moderation in maintaining honor. It seems to be both pagan and Christian, borrowing elements from both. When reading it, I've always felt that I've mostly left the Wergeld-world of Beowulf.