Re: wergild; better followers

From: Ian Cooper <ian_hammond_cooper_at_...>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:56:25 -0000


>
> Not sure of this. Wergild is a substitute for blood vengeance. If
the
> defender doesn't pay up, YOU are responsible for persuading him to
> pay up or face the consequences. As those consequences can extend
> over his entire bloodline, his relatives are likely to persuade him
> to pay up too.

This seems to be a frequent topic of debate. There is probably no one answer but another opinion is that it also supposed to be a deterrent to killing. The fact that reponsibility for the weregeld is divided amongst the bloodline (don't have figures for historical equivalents to hand but its about 2/3 to the household (father, grandfather, uncles, first cousins), 1/3 to the rest of the bloodline (out to fifth cousin)) is designed to create kin pressure on individuals not to expose the bloodline to financial ruin through their actions.

The kin could avoid their obligations buy declaring the individual an outlaw, so as to avoid exposing themselves to ruin in this case.

Note that fines or bot also exist and are certainly percieved as a detrrent/punishment not as a means of buying off vengance.

The high weregilds of the nobility are also supposed to be a detterent to attacking them. Only tribes or powerful clans could probably afford to pay off the 900 cows for killing a king.

>
> A defendant who refuses to pay agreed wergild is flouting the law
> that 'we talk before we fight', and, I expect, would be outlawed at
> the next moot. You (and your mates) could probably legally kill him
> before then.

AFIAK in Germanic law systems an essential point about jurors was that they were responsible for enforcement. That is why they needed to be men of some wealth and standing, so that they would have the resources to bring to ensuring the court decisons were carried out. It is also the reason why a juror might turn down a case, he might not belive that it would be possible for the court's decision to be carried out. Carrying out the cout's decision is a matter of honour even when the parties against who you are seeking to execute it may be of your own bloodline (a conflict that is the source of saga)(in Glranthan terms sounds like a good role for Humakti and their association with Justice).

AS law states some penalties for failing to pay:

"And the man who neglects this, and denies the doom of the hundred, and the same be afterwards proved against him, let him pay to the hundred pence; and for the second time lx. pence, half to the hundred, half to the lord. If he do so a third time, let him pay half a pound; for the fourth time, let him forfeit all that he owns, and be an outlaw, unless the king allow Him to remain in the country."

But enforcement would still be the job of the jurors.

Slavery is the traditional Germanic punishment for indebtedness. If the jurors turn up and you can't pay rather than refuse to pay you tend to be enslaved. Note that this was often for a fixed but long term (notions of the rights of slaves to property etc. were also quite different and could be the subject of another thread entirely, the major point is the law did not protect you as a it did a free man)

IMHO an essential aspect of Germanic/Celtic law codes tends to be a struggle to prevent of further conflict. Of course the presence of such laws suggest that such conflict exists...

remember you don't have to seek weregeld, you don't have to accept what the courts offer, but if you do you cannot pursue that infraction with blood vengance without running foul of the law yourself ( and probably being considered an oath breaker).

Powered by hypermail