Index | About | Mission | Vor Vegr | Resources | Contacts | Book Store | What's New |
Back to Common Law Index





(This essay used in reference to another article this author had read where people in thew were referred to as "lawless", substituting the word "thew" for "law".  If one is in-thew, on is in-law.  The commonly understood term “law” is valid here.)

Words have meaning, and can convey either enlightenment or confusion depending on how they're used.

We need to remember that Elder Terms -- like "blot", "thew", and the like -- those with little meaning outside our context can't supplant those words commonly used in our daily lives among our non-heathen neighbors. The often convey an immediate impression, and may need explanation that one might not be able to do effectively or in a timely enough manner if they're being used in a way contrary to the way they're generally understood.

So, with the word "lawless".

For as much as we might wish to reclaim and begin to use words more descriptive to us -- thew, troth, trú, etc., as well as the terms used in the Irminensmenn's lexicon -- let us not forget that we are products of this time.

One must live in the world in which one finds ones self.

Let us also not fall into the trap of making our society "esoteric" by the use -- or by redefinition -- of commonly held words and concepts, commonly meaning not only by us but by our non-heathen neighbors.

It's like the word "witch". Our Wiccan neighbors can be cute and try to take some of the "odd" out of it, but they're then stuck with marginalizing themselves by using -- in fact, in large part wishfully thinking and misusing -- a word which had a particular meaning and still does.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't refer to yourself as a "cocksucker", and then go about redefining what a cock is, what it is to suck, and explain that it's a word "we use" which has a special and sacred meaning. People won't buy it.

Look at our Christian neighbors using words like "fear God", "washed in the blood" and "shepherd" and "sheep" and "flock". Maybe they make sense in context, but I remember having to have the reason that Jehovah had to be "feared" to me very slowly and carefully as a child...and it (obviously) still never sunk in.

"Law" is our word, and an accurate word.

Garman and the Theodish might've wanted to draw a distinction between secular law -- common law, that binding all peoples in our rather religiously and ethnically diverse modern society -- and tribal law, and might've wanted to use words commonly understood. To then call tribal law a thew or some other original term reinforces what one means. To do otherwise is to first confuse the listener, and then to "let them in on it".

What is a "thew"? It is a duty, a requirement, a trust...in short, a law. It is imposed on or assumed by the individual and on the people from within (the Gods are, after all, within), in our case as a condition for being counted among our people (I'd hope).

If one wishes to distinguish the duty one owes one's tribe from what one owes one's neighbors as members of the common society, that is good. It's nobody outside the Innangardh's business, but it's OK.  But, to use words like "lawless" to me smacks of saying your tribal law takes the place of one's duty to society, which is not only false -- I would hope -- but misleading to ütländer.

In short, it's just like self-marginalizing Wiccans calling themselves "witches".

The use of "lawless" in this case may be very minutely explained, but even the seasoned reader might not shake the parallel between "lawless" and "outlaw". They are, to my mind, synonyms, after all. So a "lawless society" is one which might lead a reader, serious or not, inside or outside, to think that no law exists...and, given the rest of the piece posted, might lead one to think -- with the "king's word is law" business -- that the society being explained is some sort of Middle Eastern tile'd-and-cushion'd despotism...which is foreign to our blood.

I'm all in favor of using -- if anything, overusing -- the word "law", and in fact -- once we arrive at a commonly agreed and equitable codex -- using it with an initial capital..."The Law".

The word "law" itself is a heavy word, not a "fun" word. It implies "duty", "requirement", "task", and "we're making a list and checking it twice". For that reason, particularly today, I'd rather use a heavy and serious word for a serious subject.

I'm not part of any "lawless society", and I have little use for anyone who is.