LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJASOME HISTORICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ASPECTS
OF FAMILY, PATRONAGE AND SLAVERY IN EARLYSCANDINAVIA AND ANGLO-SAXON ENGLANDBY

STEFAN BRINKPROFESSOR OF SCANDINAVIAN STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN

The Dorothea Coke Memorial Lecturein Northern Studies
delivered at University College London
17 March 2005

PUBLISHED FOR THE COLLEGE BY THE
VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCHLONDON© UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 2008

ISBN: 978 0903521 77 2

PRINTED BY SHORT RUN PRESS LIMITED EXETERLORD AND LADY—BRYTI AND DEIGJASome Historical and Etymological Aspects of Family, Patronage
and Slavery in Early Scandinavia and Anglo-Saxon EnglandS

OMETIMES RESEARCH CAN BE SUCH FUN. YOU HAPPEN UPON AN

illuminating source, a clever word from a fellow-scholar ora passage in a book or an article. You are faced with aproblem that you have to solve. It’s like a thriller, or as we say in
Swedish, a ‘pusseldeckare’; you have the corpus delictum or betterdelicti, you have some idea of the modus and the plot; now you
have to find evidence in order to solve the problem and wrap up thecase.
In this particular case I came across the following facts thatpuzzled me. In all the handbooks and lexica a bryti was defined as
an unfree servant, steward or bailiff. For example, in Kulturhistoriskt
lexikon (KL) it is stated that a bryti was an attendant among theslaves on a farm, who later on turned into a bailiff and ended up in
the late Middle Ages as a tenant, a copyholder. An original function is said to have been that of delivering the food amongst theslaves.1 In the more recent Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA) Svend Gissel writes that bryti ‘bezeichnet einen
Unfreien oder Freigelassenen, der über die anderen Unfreien eines
Hofes die Aufsicht führte, einen Verwalter oder Schaffner’, 2whereas Grethe Authén-Blom,with reference to early Norway, says:‘Ursprünglich war einer der obersten unfreien Knechte mit dieser
Aufgabe [to deliver drinks and food] betraut. Ein bryti konnte aucheine Art Hausverwalter oder Schaffner über dem unfreien Gesinde
sein.’3 The original status of the bryti is corroborated with citations
from provincial laws, such as the Older Västgöta Law, the Östgöta
1 Fridlev Skrubbeltrang, Nils Lid and Gerhard Hafström in KL 2, 1957, cols

269–73.
2 RGA 4, 1981, 26.
3 RGA 4, 1981, 27.

3

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

law, The Frostating Law and the Law of Jutland,4 which aresupposed to show the antiquity of this institution.
This received opinion can be tested against what we know of
the bryti institution found in the inscriptions on Viking-Age rune
stones. Unfortunately there are very few occurrences of the word
bryti in runic inscriptions, but these rare examples tell a completely
different story from that found in the legal sources.
On the famous rune stone at Hovgården (U 11) on the island of
Adelsö, opposite the more famous island of Björkö where Birka islocated, we can read:raþu runaR ret lit rista toliR bry[t]i i roþ kunuki toliR auk gyla litu
ris . . .þaun hion eftiR. . .k merki srni. . .hakun baþ ristaRað þu runaR. Rett let rista ToliR bryti i Roð kunungi. ToliR ok Gylla letu
ris[ta . . . ], þaun hion æftiR [si]k(?) mærki . . . Hakon bað rista,

which has been translated as
Interpret the runes! Tólir the steward of Roþr had them rightly carved for
the King. Tólir and Gylla had [the runes] carved . . . this married couple asa landmark in memory of themselves(?) . . . Hákon ordered (it) be carved.5

This very important historical runic inscription from probably the
middle of the eleventh century is not easy to interpret.6 Elias Wessén(in U) assumes that the erection and the carving of the inscription
was commissioned by the king, and that that king was the Hákon
who is mentioned at the end of the inscription. 7 Wessén, and manywith him, have connected the passage ‘bryti i Rodh’ with the casein the Östgöta Law (Dråpsb. 14) which deals with iarls bryti i roþzs
bo, and he thinks that ToliR bryti was the King’s ombudsman in the
district called Roden (i.e. the coastal area). Erland Hjärne argues –4 E.g. Karl Wührer. RGA 4,1981, 25.
5 Samnordisk runtextdatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskning/samnord.htm).
6 According to the Samnordisk runtextdatabas it is to be dated to 1075–85.
7 Many, such as Sophus Bugge, Otto von Friesen, Erik Brate and Elias
Wessén (see Erland Hjärne, ‘Rod och runor’, in Kungl. Humanistiska VetenskapsSamfundets i Uppsala Årsbok 1946, 66 n. 5), have identified the Hakon
mentioned in the text with King Hakon the Red (Håkan röde), who, according
to Erik Brate (Sveriges runinskrifter (Natur och kultur 11) 2nd ed. Stockholm
1928, 76), supposedly lived c. 1066–79 (see also Samnordisk runtextdatabas).

4

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

in my opinion quite convincingly – against Wessén’s interpretation, and instead proposes that ToliR bryti was a bailiff, a manager
on the royal farm Hovgården.8
On a very badly damaged rune stone in Gillberga in Västerljung, Hölebo, in the province of Södermanland, we can read sigualtir[aisti. . .kil br]utia sin (Sö 42), which is probably to be understoodas ‘Sigvalde erected . . . (after) . . . (Tor)kel his bryte’. And finally,
the last example we have from Denmark, on a rune stone from
Randbøl on Jutland dated to the late tenth century we read: tufi brutirisþi stin þansi aft lika brutia þir stafaR munu þurkuni miuk liki lifa

(DR 40), i.e. Tofi bryti resþi sten þænsi æft lika brytia. Þer stafaRmunu Þorgunni miok længi lifa, which has been translated as: ‘Tófi
Steward raised this stone in memory of the steward’s helpmate. Verylong will these staves live for Þorgunnr.’9 The Randbøl rune stone
has been described by Erik Moltke as ‘the ugliest rune stone in
Denmark – but its inscription is the most beautiful and touching ofall’,10 and it is furthermore one of the few Danish rune stones obviously standing on its original site. In Denmark rune stones havebeen looked upon as some kind of indication of power in the landscape, alluding to ‘aristocrats’ and the highest level in society, andthis assumption is probably correct in most cases,11 suggesting that
this Tofi bryti must have had a rather prominent social position.
Erik Moltke hence assumes that the term bryti here ‘may refer to aking’s overseer’.12
This runic evidence unambiguously indicates that a bryti in thetenth and eleventh centuries was to be found rather high up the
8Erland Hjärne, ‘Rod och runor’, 25–56; see also Sigurd Rahmqvist, ‘Ortnamn påverkade av administration i äldre tid’. In Ortnamn värda att vårda.
Ed. G. Ulfsparre. Stockholm 1994, 109.
9Samnordisk runtextdatabas.
10
Erik Moltke, Runes and their origin. Denmark and elsewhere. Trans.
Peter Foote. Copenhagen 1981, 296.
11
See for instance Peter Sawyer, Da Danmark blev Danmark. Fra ca. 700 til
1050. Second edition. Copenhagen 2002, 33; recently Gunhild Øeby Nielsen,
Magt og mentalitet, kontinuitet og brud i tiden for religions- og kulturskiftet
ca. 950–1200 belyst ud fra runesten og deres fundforhold. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Århus 2004, 106, has qualified this assumption.
12
Moltke, Runes and their origin, 298.

5

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

social ladder, in the case of the Hovgården stone (and perhaps also
the Randbøl stone) a man in close proximity to the King, probably
his bailiff, and hence not a slave, on the very lowest rung. The
consensus of the handbooks on the originally unfree status of thebryti is actually surprising. There are legal rules in some provincial
law codes indicating that a bryti was not free, but the runic evidence,older by 200–300 years, tells a different story, although it admittedly
makes no explicit reference to whether the legal status of the bryti
was free or not. The problem of the status of the bryti is puzzling.
The word bryti (< *brütjan) is a nomen agentis derived from theverb ON brytja ‘to break into pieces’,13 and with the evidence ofsome provincial laws, together with the fact that the word has beenborrowed into Finnish as ruttio, ruttia with meanings like ‘slave’ aswell as ‘bailiff’, it is understandable that bryti has been interpreted
as denoting a slave and a bound steward, the one in charge of theslaves’ household and the one who delivers food to the slaves.
More unambiguous is the ON word deigja, found in dialects inScandinavia as deja, deje etc. with meanings like ‘milkmaid’, ‘housekeeper’, but also ‘concubine’, which is a later development.14 A
letter from 1338 places a deigja on an equal footing with a bryti, as
do also the Gulating Law (198), Erik’s Zealand Law (3:19), theOlder Västgöta Law (Ärvdab. 16) and the Younger Västgöta Law(Ärvdab. 21).15 In the letter in question, Bishop Haakon of Bergensacks a priest in Os parish and replaces him with a new one, and in
the letter he addresses the former priest’s ‘hjón’, i.e. servants, andhe names them ‘bryti’ and ‘deighia’ or ‘other hjón’ (at stemfnna
hiunum sira Peters hwart sem þat er bryti, deighia eðr onnur hiun)

13 See for instance Niels Åge Nielsen, Dansk etymologisk ordbog. Fourth
edition. Copenhagen 1989, 68.
14
See for instance Elof Hellquist, Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Third edition. Lund 1948, 137; Jan de Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.
Second edition. Leiden 1962, 75.
15
Den eldre Gulatingslova. Ed. Bjørn Eithun, Magnus Rindal and Tor Ulset.
Norrøne tekster 6. Oslo 1994; Eriks Sjællandske lov. Ed. Peter Skautrup.
Danmarks gamle landskapslove 5. Copenhagen 1936; Westgöta-Lagen. Ed.
H. S. Collin and C. J. Schlyter. Corpus iuris Sueo-Gotorum antiqui/Samling af
Sweriges gamla lagar 1. Stockholm 1827.

6

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA(DN ix p. 131). The etymology of deigja reveals incontrovertiblythat it referred originally to a female baker, someone who kneaded
the dough and prepared bread. The word is derived from ON deign. ‘dough’. The word deigja occurs sparsely in early written sources,
only once in Lokasenna (56),16 in the Gulating and Frostating Laws
and in the above-mentioned letter from 1338. Only in the Norwegianlaws is it intimated that the deigja was not free; in the Gulating Law
this is fairly obvious, in the Frostating Law not so explicit. 17 In
Lokasenna and in the letter from 1338 there is nothing to indicate
whether the maid is of free status. 18 To conclude, in early
Scandinavia a deigja was a female servant in a household, in latertimes a deja was a milkmaid or a housekeeper, but the etymology
confirms that she must originally have been a bread baker. It is notablethat the use of deigja in the Gulating Law, and perhaps also in the
Frostating Law, occurs in an obvious slave context.
This leads us over to England, and the obvious connection is, ofcourse, with the word lady, OE hlaf-dighe, hlaf-dæghe, a word
compounded of OE hlaf ‘bread (probably unleavened bread19)’ andOE dag m. ‘dough’, which makes it clear that an original meaningof lady was also ‘bread baker’. 20 In medieval texts lady often has
meanings like ‘a mistress in relation to servants or slaves(?); thefemale head of a household’.
The male equivalent, the lord, OE hlaf-weard, is a compound of
hlaf ‘bread’ and weard ‘keeper, guardian’.21 In lexica the word is

16 Edda. Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern. Ed.

Gustav Neckel. Fifth edition. Rev. Hans Kuhn. Heidelberg 1983.
17
Den eldre Gulatingslova (198): Tvær ero hans hinar bezto ambatter, Setaoc deigia, oc tveir þrælar, þionn oc bryti (Norges gamle Love indtil 1387 1.
Ed. R. Keyser and P. A. Munch. Kristiania 1846, 70); Frostatingslova (11:21):
Haulldr scal taca iij aura talda á bryta sínum oc þióni oc deigiu oc setu, ená öllum öðrum mannsmönnum ij aura. En þræll scal taka ij lutum minna rétten drottinn hans. En ef þræll lýstr annan þræl þá scal svá hit sömu, en dróttinn
á ecki á því (Norges gamle Love indtil 1387, vol. 1. Ed. R. Keyser and P. A.
Munch. Kristiania 1846, 234).
18
Cf. KLE 2, 492–93.
19
Cf. John Granlund in KL 1. 1956, cols 307–11 (bakning).
20
ODEE, 511–12.
21
ODEE, 537.

7

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

normally translated as ‘the warden or keeper of bread’, and theprimary sense is the head of the household, the master of thosedependent on him for their daily bread.22 In the earliest Anglo-Saxon
laws lord is used for a kind of ‘seigneur’. In Ine’s law we find thelord as the ‘lord of the slaves’ (3:§1, 24, 74) as well as a lord offreemen (3:§2).23
The word lord is an exclusively Anglo-Saxon word, not foundin other Germanic languages, 24 and it is in the Anglo-Saxon
vocabulary that we find some extremely interesting words relating
to lord and lady, and probably alluding to an ancient institution
which we get some insight into thanks to these Anglo-Saxon words.
I am referring, besides hlaf-weard and hlaf-dighe, to hlaf-ætam., hlaf-brytta m. and hlaf-gang m.25 All these compounds havehlaf ‘bread’ as the first element. Whereas the hlaf-weard is thekeeper or warden of the bread and the hlaf-dighe the bread baker,
the hlaf-brytta is the one who breaks the bread and probably
distributes it, the hlaf-æta is the one who eats the bread that the lady
has baked, the lord has provided and the hlaf-brytta has divided
and distributed. And finally, we have a term for all the members of
the household that the lord had the responsibility for feeding, thewhole gang so to speak: namely hlaf-gang, hence all of the hlafætan.

22

E.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 16, eleventh edition. Cambridge
1911, 992.
23
The Laws of the Earliest English Kings. Ed. and trans. F. L. Attenborough.
Cambridge 1922.
24
However, Otto von Friesen (‘Till tolkningen af Tune-stenen’. Arkiv för
nordisk filologi 16, 1900, 197) has made the interesting suggestion that theword also existed in the Old Nordic language. In one of the manuscripts ofSnorra Edda, the fragmentary Eddu-Brot (AM 748 4to), we have the hapax
legomenon hleifruðr as a heiti for Óðinn (Snorra Edda 2 p. 555). von Friesen
assumes that this word might be a folk-etymological reinterpretation of anolder ON hleiforðr, in conjunction with the many Óðinsheiti in -uðr (D†rruðr,Geiguðr, Váfuðr, R†gnuðr etc.). On the other hand, since this word is foundonly here, and other mss of Snorra Edda have other forms, Hlæf†þr and Hlefruðr,the hypothesis must be looked upon as more or less a shot in the dark.
25
See J. R. Clark Hall, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Fourth edition.
Cambridge 1960, 184–85.

8

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJAWhat we find here is an institution, a collective defined on thebasis of the bread which was obviously used metaphorically forfood very early on, hence a household, a family. As pointed out,
the terminology revealing the existence of this institution, at least
these compounds with hlaf-, is only found in Anglo-Saxon.26
However, the Scandinavian terms deigja and bryti must – as I see it– be directly equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon hlaf-dighe and hlafbrytta, the only difference being that we lack the qualifier in the
Old Nordic words. We do not have any equivalent of the lord or
the hlaf-æta or hlaf-gang in Nordic. All the same, the words deigja
and bryti reveal that in early Scandinavia we probably had the same
institution, a kind of household defined on the basis of the bread, as
we find in Anglo-Saxon England.
We have thus reached the stage where we have to start to try to
explain, where we have to root these words in some kind of historicalcontext, to make the institution we have before our eyes historicallyunderstandable.
When I first came across this institution, I thought that thephenomenon was to be explained in the context of the Germanic
warrior’s household, the retinue or Gefolgschaft, the collective
around the chieftain or king in his hall, and that the hlaf, the breadas a metaphor for food, alluded to the grand meals and banquets
that occurred and in a way defined the hall-culture, an institutionthat later developed into the feudal hof-institution. This would place
the hlaf-institution in roughly the eighth to the eleventh centuries.
Today I know better. It must be older than this, and it is not to beplaced in a warrior’s household, the Gefolgschaft or the comitatus,
which had a different and more developed terminology. It is my
opinion today that we have to go back to an archaic Germanic
household institution, with obvious roots in the Roman familia. To
understand this, we have to try to get some insight into the archaic
Germanic familia.
26 If von Friesen’s assumption is correct, however, we also had the *hleiforðr in
ON (see above). A semantically similar word must be the brotherr ‘lord, steward’,
OHG brotherro, found in German (see e.g. http://drw-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/drw/, art. brotherr).

9LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJAIn Roman times the basic unit in society was the familia or domus‘house’. This, of course, is also valid for earlier Greek society, andits oikos. Actually, Aristotle defines a State, in his Politics (I:2–5),27
as founded on the oikos, the families. The head of the Roman familia
was the paterfamilias or the dominus (cf. dominate), who had
ultimate authority over the members. In ancient Roman times familia
could refer to both persons and property.28 The word familia is
obviously to be derived from famulus, a common word for slave.29
This word, in turn, seems to have been borrowed into early Latinfrom the Oscan language, the Oscans being a neighbouring people
to the Romans.30 The borrowing hypothesis seems very probable,
and has plenty of parallels, where a word for a slave has beenborrowed from a neighbouring people, such as the Greek doûlos,from some non-Indo-European language in Asia Minor, and Latin
servus, which seems to be borrowed from Etruscan.31 The wordfamilia thus originally had the meaning of ‘a band of slaves’. The
Roman novelist Apuleius wrote in the second century: ‘Fifteen freemen make a people, fifteen slaves make a family, and fifteen prisoners
make a jail.’32 As David Herlihy concludes: ‘The word in its original
sense thus implied an authoritarian structure and hierarchical orderfounded on but not limited to relations of marriage and parenthood. . . Authority, in sum, and not consanguinity, not even marriage,
was at the core of the ancient concept of family.’33 The head of thefamilia, the paterfamilias, had, according to the Roman law, the27

Aristotle, The Politics and The Constitution of Athens. Ed. Stephen
Everson. Cambridge 1996, 11–15.
28
See Ulpian, Digest 50.16.195; Codex Justinianus 6.38.5.
29
R. Henrion, ‘Des origines du mot Familia’. L’Antiquité classique 10.
1941, 37–69; 11. 1942, 253–90.
30
A Latin Dictionary. Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short. Oxford 1879, art.
famulus [on-line at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu]; David Herlihy, ‘Family’.
The American Historical Review 96:1. 1991, 1–15.
31
Emile Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Society. Trans. E. Palmer.
London 1973, 289.
32
Apuleius, Pro se de magia liber (apologia). Ed. R. Helm. Leipzig 1959,
47.437: ‘XV liberi homines populus est, totidem serui familia, totidem uincti
ergastulum.’33 Herlihy, ‘Family’, 3.

10

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

father’s full authority, the patria potestas, which was absolute,
including even the ius necis, the right to put to death members of his
family.34
In Roman society, and obviously also in early Germanic society,a family did not consist only of the husband and wife and children,
as in the modern sense of the word. A familia was an extended
collective including relatives, servants and slaves, thus the famuli
were all the people the paterfamilias had power over.35 What is tobe noted is that owing to the authority of the paterfamilias, his patria
potestas, the members of a familia had a status that was not free,strictly speaking, which, from a legal point of view, in a way equatedthem with slaves, something that several Roman lawmen comment
on.36 The model for the Roman familia clearly was the early Roman‘slave household, band of slaves’.37 This fact probably has deep
implications for understanding the bonds in later co-operative groups,
such as the warrior’s household of the migration period, and theretinues in the hall-society of the Anglo-Saxon and Vendel/Viking
period.
An early Parochia or Dioecesis in the Roman world, i.e. a
Christian congregation in a Civitas, also bore the obvious fingerprintof the familia model. The paterfamilias in this religious familia was
the bishop and the close members of the family were his deaconsand priests; the extended family were the Christian disciples in thecity. This ‘family’ or congregation had their own important –34 Herlihy, ‘Family’, 3.
35
See Herman van den Brink, The Charm of Legal History. Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia 3. Amsterdam 1974, 45–46; David Herlihy, Medieval Households. Cambridge, Mass.
and London 1985, 3. — See the Codex Justinianus (6.38.5), which states: ‘wediscern that the name of family has the following force: parents and children
and all relatives and property, freedmen also and their patrons and likewise
slaves are identified by this word’ (Corpus Iuris Civilis 1–3. Ed. P. Krüger, Th.
Mommsen, R. Schoell and W. Kroll. Berlin 1928, vol. 2, 571.
36
E.g. Ulpian, Digest, 50.16.195.
37
This is noted by Ulpian in the second century AD in his Digest 50.16.195:
servitutium quoque solemus appellare familias ‘We are also accustomed todescribe slaves as forming a household’ (Trans. Alan Watson in Justinian,
Digest, 950).

11

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

constituting – ritual meal, the Holy Communion, where bread andwine were transformed into Christ’s flesh and blood.
In the same way the most elementary social group in Europe in
the period after the fall of Rome was the family. Before the emergenceof such institutions as the state and the parish it represented the basicsocial group and unit of production in the rural economy. In a societyof the kind we are dealing with, food supplies were limited. The
threat of famine was acute and always imminent, in a way we cannot
possibly understand today. Therefore to be part of a family, and inreceipt of the benevolence it could provide, was essential. However,
the threat did not hang equally over everyone. The ‘Man of Power’showed himself, first of all, as the man who could always eat, andeat as much as he wanted. This figure therefore achieved a very
central position, because he was also able to feed his subordinates if
he so wished. He was the one who provided the food.
This fact is also reflected among aristocratic families. The essenceof Germanic lordship can only be grasped, Otto Brunner emphasises,
through the lord’s house and household, which was the organisationalcore and the legal centre of lordship.38 This field of research – family,
kindred, clan, state and lordship – has been thoroughly studied overa long period by German and Austrian scholars such as Walter
Schlesinger, Otto Brunner, Karl Schmid, Karl Bosl and lately Gerd
Althoff;39 outside the German-speaking world important contributions have been produced by the Cambridge scholars Bertha
Phillpotts, Jack Goody and D. H. Green and the American historian

38 Otto Brunner, Land and Lordship. Structures of Governance in Medieval

Austria. Trans. H. Kaminsky and J. Van Horn Melton. Philadelphia 1992, 211.
[Land und Herrschaft. Grundfragen der territorialen VerfassungsgeschichteÖsterreichs im Mittelalter. Wien 1965.]
39
Walter Schlesinger, Beiträge zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte desMittelalters 1–2. Göttingen 1963; Otto Brunner, Land and Lordship; Karl
Bosl, Die Grundlagen der modernen Gesellschaft im Mittelalter 1–2. Stuttgart 1972; Karl Schmid, Gebetsgedenken und adliges Selbstverständnis im
Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Beiträge. Festgabe zu seinem 60. Geburtstag.
Sigmaringen 1983; Gerd Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers. Politicaland Social Bonds in Early Medieval Europe. Trans. Ch. Carroll. Cambridge
2004. [Verwandte, Freunde und Getreute. Zum politischen Stellenwert derGruppenbindungen im früheren Mittelalter. Darmstadt 1990.]

12

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJADavid Herlihy.40 From these studies we can conclude that theGermanic family or household was very similar to the Roman familia,
with obvious roots in the latter. In West Germanic languages words
used for such a unit were OHG hiwon, OE hiwan m. pl., OE hiwen
n. and hired m. ‘household, members of a family’, and thesubstantivated adjective hiwisc ‘household’. The caput was calledhêrro, truthin or frô in OHG and had a similar role to that of thepaterfamilias in the Roman familia. The power he could exercise
was called mund m. ‘guardianship, protection’; another name forthe hêrro was therefore OHG mundboro, OE mundbora.41 His duty
was to protect his family and to put food on the table, which links
with the Anglo-Saxon term lord (< hlaf-weard) for the caput, andthe semantically identical German brotherr.42
An important social institution that was fundamental to Germanic
culture in this period was the military retinue around a king or
chieftain, the Gefolgschaft or, in Latin, the comitatus. This institution
was modelled on the normal family unit. This fact is underlined by
the etymology of the word for such a retinue, OE hired m. ‘retinue,family, household’, which is derived from the stem *hiw- that we
find in the aforementioned OHG hiwon, OE hiwan m. pl., OE hiwen
n. and also in ON hjú n. pl. ‘family’. The ON hirð f. ‘retinue’ isobviously a loan from Anglo-Saxon.43 Therefore it has been assumed

40

Bertha Phillpotts, Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After. Cambridge 1913; Jack Goody, The Development of the Family and Marriage inEurope. Cambridge 1983, The European Family. An Historico-anthropological Essay. Oxford 2000; D. H. Green, The Carolingian Lord. Semantic studies
on four Old High German words: balder, frô, truhtin, hêrro. Cambridge 1965
and David Herlihy, Medieval Households. 1985, Women, Family and Society
in Medieval Europe. Historical Essays, 1978–1991. Providence & Oxford
1995. — For critical analyses on especially the earlier of these works, see On
Barbarian Identity. Critical approaches to ethnicity in the early Middle Ages.
Ed. Andrew Gillett. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 4. Turnhout 2002.
41
See J. E. A. Jolliffe, The Constitutional History of Medieval England,
from the English Settlement to 1485. London 1937, 17.
42
For these words, see West Germanic etymological dictionaries; D. H. Green,
The Carolingian Lord. Cambridge 1965.
43
Elof Hellquist, Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund 1948, 354; Jan de Vries,
Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden 1962, 228–29.

13

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA– for excellent reasons – that the Germanic comitatus grew out of
the family household, with reflexes, for instance, in Beowulf, where
King Hrothgar’s retinue were the members of his household.44
The head of the retinue, OHG truht, OE dryht, ON drótt (<PGmc *druhti-), was called OHG truhtîn, OE dryhten, ON dróttinn(< PGmc *druhtinaz), and the followers had to subject themselves
to his jurisdiction. The bond that tied them to the leader was
the oath of fidelity, which gave them the new rank of ‘tablecompanion’, the right to share the table and bread with the leader
and the rest of the retinue. From historical and linguistic evidence,
you obviously entered into this kind of retainership as a youngster,a child. Several words for ‘retainer’ seem to have the earlier meaning‘child’, such as OHG thegan, OE ðegn, ON þegn (cf. Greek téknon
‘child’, OI tákman ‘child’), and maybe also ON rekkr,45 sveinn anddrengr.46 In eighth-century Anglo-Saxon England, for example, agroup of young warriors called geoguð ‘youth’ was found aroundthe king, unmarried men that had not yet settled on landed estates, avery mobile retinue in several respects. A member of the geoguð
was a vital brick in the power puzzle of that time, in that he could
move and offer his services to the highest bidder. The main payment
a member of the geoguð could expect was a share of tribute andbooty.47 Beside the ‘youths’ (geoguð) stood the ‘tried men’ (duguð),44

Schlesinger, Beiträge zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte . . . 1 passim.
ON rekkr m. ‘warrior, hero’, OSw rinker, OE rinc, OHG rinch, Latinised as
rencus, has in the Salic laws a semantic component of ‘unfree’, as well as‘young’, according to Gabriele von Oldberg (Leges Barbarorum. Arbeiten zur
Frühmittelalterforschung 11. Die Volkssprachigen Wörter der Leges Barbarorum 2. Berlin and New York 1991, 236–38). From the textual evidence in
the Frankish laws von Oldberg extracts a meaning ‘noch nicht erwachsener(schwacher), im Wachstum befindlicher Mann, also im rechtlichen Sinne:“der Unmündige”’, 238.
46
See de Vries, Altnord. etym. Wörterb. passim — Cf. also the common Lat.
vassus ‘retainer, servant, slave’ found in several Germanic laws, such as Pactus
legis Salicae, Lex Alamannorum and Lex Baiwariorum; see von Oldenburg,
Die Bezeichnungen für Soziale Stände . . . in den Leges Barbarorum, 231–34,
which is the base for vasall ‘servant’, and which is assumed to come from a
Gallo-Latin vassus, originating in a Celtic word for ‘child’; compare Cymr.
gwas ‘child, servant’ (Kluge, 948).
47
Thomas Charles-Edwards, ed., After Rome. Oxford 2003, 39.
45

14

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

married retainers in a king’s following with landed estates. When amember of the geoguð had proved himself to his lord’s satisfaction,
he could receive a suitable endowment from the king, and moveout from the lord’s household.48 It has been assumed that in Germanicsocieties this comitatus institution, an early hirð, hired, consisted ofthe ‘private’ household of the leader, an institution that developed
into the later hirð, hired of the king or chieftain in his hall.49
An overview of the relevant material in this Germanic wordgroup shows that we have to assume two Ablaut-related stems:
Proto-Germanic *hiwa- and *hïwa-.50 These two stems evolved
from Proto-Nordic to Old Nordic thus: *hiwa- > hy-,51 *hïwa- >*hewa- > he-/hæ-, in the same way as *sliwa- > ON slý ‘slimywater plant’, *slïwa- > *slew(a) > *slé, ODa slæ (Danish slæ ‘aweather between frost and thaw’). This must be the background to
the parallels ODa hæski, hæskap ‘household, home’ (hæ < *hëwa< *hïwa-) and ON hýski ‘household’, hý ‘family, household’, (hy< *hiwa-).52
Relevant Old Germanic words formed from these stems are:ON hý ‘family, household’, ON hýski, OE hiwisc, OHG hiwiski‘family, household’(< *hiwiskia), ODa hæski ‘household, home’(< *hïwiskia), hýbýli, with the variant form híbýli53 ‘house andhome’, ON hýrógi n. ‘animosity between members of a household’(Hávamál 137), ON hýi m. ‘slave, servant’ (< *hïwian or *hiw(i)an)
probably with an original meaning ‘the one who belongs to thefamily’, ON hý ‘family, household’ (< *hiwa), OHG hiwo m.

48

Richard P. Abels, Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England. London 1988, 32.
49
Schlesinger, Beiträge zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte . . ., vol. 1, 11
and passim.
50
Already assumed by F. Tamm (Etymologisk svensk ordbok, vol. 1. 1890–
1904, 364), later also by Sigmund Feist (Vergleichendes Wörterbuch dergotischen Sprache. Leiden 1939, 253) and J. Brøndum Nielsen (see n. 52).
51
See Adolf Noreen, Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik. Halle
1923, §77:6.
52
For the different sound changes leading up to these stems and words, seeTamm, Etym. sv. ordb., pp. 309–10; J. Brøndum-Nielsen, Gammeldansk
Grammatik, vol. 1. Copenhagen 1950, §§ 61, 75, 111:2, 117:2, 162.
53
Noreen, Altisl. Gram. §77:6.

15

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA‘husband’, OHG hiwa f. ‘wife’, OSax hiwa f. ‘wife’, ON hjú(n),hjón n. ‘married couple; household members; servants’ (actually
dual *hiwona n. of a PGmc *hiwan n.), OE hiwan, OHG hiwon54‘family, household’, Gothic heiwafrauja ‘lord of a household,family’, OE hired ‘household, family’, OHG hirat ‘marriage’ (<*hiw-ræd), ON hýrr adj. ‘mild, friendly, happy’ (< *hiurja, literally
something like ‘suitable as a household member’), ON hjúka ‘tocare, treat’ (< *hjú-kan), ON hjá prep. ‘at’,55 actually ‘visiting
someone’s household’ (< *hïwa), and perhaps also ON herað, OSwhæraþ ‘administrative district’, where one proposal is < *hïwa-raða),although the etymology of this latter word is much disputed.56
The two parallel stems have thus resulted in word pairs like ONhý (< *hiwa) : ON hjá (< *hïwa), ON hýski (< *hiwiskia) : ODahæski (< *hïwiskia), and perhaps ON herað, OSw hæraþ (< *hïwaraða) : hirð < OE hired (< *hiw-ræd). The words discussed here
are of course related to Lat. civis ‘citizen’.57 A variant with a shortvowel (*cïvis) seems to be unknown in Latin.58 Indeed, since theshort-stem variant (*hïwa-) is only to be found in North Germanic,
exclusive to the Old Scandinavian languages, it is likely to be an
innovation.
In Anglo-Saxon England, Bede talks about the land of one family(terra unius familiae) as a unit, a tract of land. He states that theregion of the south Saxons consists of the land of 7,000 families,
and that the measure (mensura) of the Isle of Wight is, according to
the English mode of reckoning, he states, 1,200 families. The OE
term equivalent to Bede’s terra unius familiae was hîd, sometimes
hiwisc or hiwscipe (discussed above). The hîd probably refers to
the land of one family.59 Maitland also discusses how large such an
54

von Oldberg, Bezeichnungen für Soziale Stände, 238–40.
Compare the preposition Swedish hos ‘at’, actually a weakly stressed
form of hus ‘house’, in the same way as French chez derives from Lat. casa
‘house’.
56
See etymological dictionaries of the Germanic languages.
57
See Hellquist, Svensk etym. ordb., 356.
58
For this information I thank Prof. Monica Hedlund, Inst. of Linguistics
and Philology, Uppsala University.
59
F. W. Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond. Three Essays in the Early
History of England. Cambridge 1897, 353.
55

16

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

early Anglo-Saxon family was: ‘we may reasonably guess that thehousehold was much larger in the seventh . . . century. We might
expect to find married brothers or even married cousins under one
roof.’60
The archaic Proto-Nordic word *hiwa-/*hïwa- ‘family’ seems
also to be found in a man’s name hiwigaz nom., 61 found on an earlyrune stone from Årstad, Sokndal, Rogaland in Norway, perhaps
from the sixth century, and which has been seen as a parallel to theadj. OE hiwisc, OHG hiwiski and ON hýski. On the Hassmyra
runestone in Västmanland (Vs 24) we read the touching epitaph fora deceased wife:
buonti × kuþr × hulmkoetr × lit × resa × ufteR × oþintisu × kunu ×
seno × kumbr × hifrya × til × hasuimura × iki betr × þon × byiraþr roþbalir × risti × runi × þisa × sikmuntaR × uaR. . .sestR × kuþ

which has been translated as:
The good husbandman Holmgautr had (the stone) raised in memory ofÓðindísa, his wife.

and then, in poetic form,
There will not come to Hassmyra a better mistress who holds sway over thefarm. Balle the Red cut these runes. To Sigmundr was Óðindísa a goodsister.62

Here we have the compound (probably) hefrøya ‘the mistress ofthe family, household’, which has a direct, although male, counterpart
in the Gothic heiwa-frauja ‘the head of the family’.63 An apparently
closer parallel is found on the Malsta runestone according to a new60

Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, 519.
Lexikon över urnordiska personnamn, 11 (on-line at http://www.sofi.se/
images/NA/pdf/urnord.pdf), de Vries, Altnord. etym. Wörterb., 229.
62
Sven B. F. Jansson, Runes in Sweden. Trans. Peter Foote. Stockholm 1987,
128.
63
Sigmund Feist, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache.
Leiden 1939, 253–54. For a discussion of the possible interpretations of therunic hi- in this word and hikiulf- (below), see Lena Peterson, ‘The Graphemic
System of the Staveless Runes’. In Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Ed. J. E. Knirk. Runrön 9. Uppsala
1994, 247–49.
61

17

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

reading proposed by Lena Peterson.64 The famous and historicallyimportant inscription goes:hrumunt rit. . .staina þina| |aftiR hikiulf- ÷ brisa sun ÷ in brisi uas
lina sun : in lini uas unaR sun : in un ua. . . . . .faks| |sun i(n)(u)faka þuris| |sun krua uas muþiR hikiulf. . . in þa barlaf in þakuþrun ÷ hrumunt hikiulfa sun faþi runaR þisaR : uiR sutum stinþina nur i balas. . .in : kiulfiR uarþ um lanti þisu in þa nur i uikai þrim bium in þa lanakr in þa fiþrasiu

which can be translated as:Hróðmundr erected this/these stone/s in memory of Hé-Gylfir, Bresi’s/
Brísi’s son. And Bresi/Brísi was Lini’s(?) son. And Lini(?) was Unn’s son.
And Unn was Ófeigr’s son. And Ófeigr was Þórir’s son. Gróa was Hé-Gylfir’s
mother. And then <barlaf>. And then Guðrún. Hróðmundr Hé-Gylfir’s soncoloured these runes. We sought this stone in the north in Balasteinn.
Gylfir acquired this land and then in Vika in the north / further north threeestates, and then Lønangri and then Feðrasjór.65

The hi- in the name hikiulf- is probably, like the hi- ‘family’ in hiwigaz
and hifrya, to be seen as a qualifier in a by-name for Gylve, thehead of an important or large family, who has acquired a lot of landfor his household. Peterson, however, hesitates between thispossibility and ON hé- ‘outer appearance, deceptive appearance’
which gives the by-name OSw He-GylfiR ‘the light-haired GylfiR’.66
I would prefer the former explanation, for semantic reasons. This
runic hi- could be understood as equivalent to an ON hý, PGmc
*hiwa- ‘family, house’, but according to the considerations set out
by Lena Peterson perhaps the short stem *hïwa- is more probable,
since /y:/ would normally be represented in runes as iu, /æ:/ and /æ/as a, while /i:/, /i/, /e:/ and /e/ could all be denoted by i.67 One canalso note in the inscription the five-generation rule for claiming legal
access to the *hiwa-, the household and its farms and land, hence
this family’s oðal.68
64Peterson, ‘The Graphemic System’.
See Samnordisk runtextdatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskning/
samnord.htm).
66
Peterson, ‘The Graphemic System’, 248–49.
67
Peterson, ‘The Graphemic System’, 247.
68
See Stefan Brink, ‘Law and Legal Customs in Viking Age Scandinavia’.
In The Scandinavians from the Vendel Period to the Tenth Century: An
65

18

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

A fundamental aspect when dealing with archaic and medieval
society is of course lordship, dependence and patronage. In the
Middle Ages there were two essentially different forms of lordship,over the free and over the legally unfree. The former was based on
mutual faith between a vassal or a lord, and not on command andobedience. This was the system that became the normal means ofgovernment in feudal Europe, beginning in the eighth century andbecoming the essential instrument of lordship in Europe from theninth century onwards. The latter, with roots in Roman society andits familia, was exercised over the family (large or small in number)and included all members of a ‘household’, ranging from family
members, through servants, maids, tenants, slaves, to the functionaries who carried out special tasks in relation to administrationand military services. There seems to be a consensus today among
historians that this kind of lordship over the unfree, the familia orhousehold model, was the one used for all medieval lordship.69
It was a common custom for young men in the upper social
stratum to attach themselves to a lord, a princeps, and to be a part ofhis retinue. The main purpose was of course to win fame in battles
and war, and for the principes a large following was an honourable
acquisition that laid the foundation for power and a grand reputation.
At least according to Tacitus, and thus at an early period, thefollowers were free to leave during peacetime. In German scholarship
this early Gefolgshaft is considered to have been very much a freeman’s choice in a partnership which, if not equal, was at least basedon free will, in which followers could come and go by their own
choice.70 I am not so sure that this was the case. I assume that fairly
early on these retinues were tied to the lord by certain obligations
and bonds and also bound by oath-taking,71 something that of course
is also found in the later feudal lordship. This kind of dependence
amounted to a personal relationship between a lord and a follower.

ethnographic perspective. Ed. Judith Jesch. Studies in historical archaeoethnology 5. Woodbridge 2002, 103.
69
Gerd Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 103.
70
See for instance Hans Kuhn, ‘Die Grenzen der germanischen Gefolgschaft’.
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Germ. Abt. 73. 1956.
71
Jolliffe, The Constitutional History of Medieval England, 8–9.

19

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJAAn example of a man who has sworn an oath to his lord is theON væringi (pl. væringjar), in Russian varjag, perhaps – according
to the traditional explanation – originally a retainer of the Varangian
guard in Constantinople. This word contains the stem var- ‘oath,promise’ found in ON várar f. pl., OE wær f., OHG wara f., and it
has recently been suggested that it is compounded with Proto-Nordic*-gangian, giving the word væringi the meaning ‘one who has taken
an oath’, ‘one who has “walked” into a binding relationship byswearing an oath’.72
It is a well known fact that a whole series of bonds emerged in
the Middle Ages, imitating the familia and the kinship model from
the Migration Period and earlier on. Thus the guilds and the military
retinue were modelled on the structure of the family. The aim wasto reproduce the conditions and obligations existing within the familygroup. With no functional state or other superior power, every partof medieval life was shaped by personal bonds. This network of
personal ties and associations was necessary in a society that wasessentially hostile, and that in turn led to a culture where war andfighting were idealised.73 The bonds between the individuals withinthese groups, and especially the family, guaranteed security andsupport in every area of life. Co-operative groups, guilds or
coniurationes, were thus formed to protect the individual in the local
community. They were legal bodies in their own right, just like aretinue. They developed their own leadership arrangements, had
their own jurisdiction and had communal funds and property.
The situation regarding the military retinue in early Scandinavia
was probably identical to that found in West-Germanic areas. The
reason for believing so is that archaeology and early poetry point to72

Thorsten Andersson, ‘Waräger’. RGA 33. 2006.
See for instance Lawrence Keeley, War before Civilization. New York
1995; Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society. Ed. A. Nørgård Jørgensen
and B. L. Clausen. Publications from the National Museum 2. Copenhagen
1997; Neil Price, The Viking Way. Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia. Aun 31. Uppsala 2002; Guy Halsall, Warfare and Society in the
Barbarian West, 450–900. London 2003; Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonsson,
The Birka Warrior. The material culture of a martial society. Theses andPapers in Scientific Archaeology 8. Stockholm 2006.
73

20

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

a more or less pan-Germanic ‘aristocratic’ culture during this period.
The word for an early Scandinavian retinue, as already noted, washirð, obviously a loan from the Anglo-Saxon hired. A more genuine
term for a Scandinavian retinue was probably drótt or lið found on
the famous runestone from Karlevi on Öland (Öl 1), where theinscription starts withs-a. . . —(s)- i(a)s * satr * aiftir * si(b)(a) * kuþa * sun * fultars * inhons ** liþi * sati * at * u * -ausa-þ-. . .
This stone is set up in memory of Sibbi Góði/Goði, son of Foldarr, and his
retainer (en hans liði) set on . . . 74

These kinds of hirð, drótt or lið – or any kind of co-operative
friendship or communal group, such as the ON gildi,75 the þing (forinstance on Gotland, see below) and the goðorð in Iceland, or forthat matter an Oxbridge college – carried with them an obligationof mutual support and help. When people entered into a bond withina group, they performed some ritual, most likely swearing an oath,to support each other, and in the case of a retinue, to help and defend
their lord and leader, literally to lay their lives in the hands of thelord. It was then important, from an ideological point of view, that
this group, which was bound by oaths of fidelity and friendship,should take their meals together. The communal meal – with a laterreflection in the Oxbridge colleges’ High Table – strengthened thebonds between the members, and it was a reflection of the familia,
the basic model these groups were trying to relive.
This leads us to the hlaf-, that is, to the fact that we havea terminology focused on the bread and its providers: the bakerof bread, the breaker of bread, the bread-eater and the gangthat gathered around the table to eat the bread. Obviously thisgoes back to the institution of the familia, the household members
who shared the food. Our knowledge of meals and food consumption is unfortunately rather limited for early medieval Europe.

74
Cf. Samnordisk runtextdatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskning/
samnord.htm), which however has the translation ‘retinue’, which must be a
mistake for ‘retainer’. A liði ‘retainer’ was part of a lið ‘retinue’.
75
The word ON gildi (< PGmc gelða-), a derivation of ON gjald, Goth gild‘money, payment’, is borrowed into English as guild (see e.g. SAOB, G401).

21

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

The well-known French Annales-historian, Georges Duby, has
written:
We know very little about the food of early medieval man in western
Europe outside the monastic communities. Here is an excellent and urgent
subject for research upon which further progress the history of rural
economy may well depend.76

For Europe in general, however, Duby concludes that ‘documents. . . reveal the universal acceptance of bread as a basic foodstuff,
even in the least civilized regions of the Christian world’.77 This
fact also has a reflex in early Anglo-Saxon society. An isolatedclause in the law of King Ine seems to imply that a normal renderin a village had to deliver to a lord in a ten-hide estate in Wessex
10 sheep, 10 geese, 20 chickens, 10 cheeses, 10 measures of honey,
12 ‘ambers’ of clear ale, an ‘amber’ full of butter, 5 salmon,
2 full-grown oxen or 10 wethers and 100 eels for royal consumption,
but first and foremost 300 round loaves.78 There is no doubtthat bread ‘was the mainstay of existence’ for medieval man inEurope.79
Since the everyday struggle for survival was the main occupationof ordinary people – as pointed out above, famine was never far
away in medieval society – the meal became a sacrosanct occasion,often conducted with some ritual, with invocations to gods. This
continues into the ‘hall-culture’, where a grand banquet, an ON
veizla, was a most precious gift to one’s subordinates and followers.
These kinds of ritual meal have an interesting counterpart in thearchaic Old Gotlandic Guta saga, in the first chapter of which we
can read:Firir þan tima ok lengi eptir siþan troþu menn a hult ok a hauga, vi ok
stafgarþa ok a haiþin guþ. Blotaþu þair synum ok dytrum sinum ok fileþi
miþ mati ok mungati. Þet gierþu þair eptir vantro sinni. Land alt hafþi sir
hoystu blotan miþ fulki. Ellar hafþi huer þriþiungr sir. En smeri þing hafþu
mindri blotan miþ fileþi, mati ok mungati, sum haita suþnautar, þy et þairsuþu allir saman. (Guta saga ch. 1)
76

Georges Duby, Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West.
Colombia 1968, 8.
77Georges Duby, Rural Economy, 9.
78
F. M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford 1971, 288.
79
Georges Duby, Rural Economy, 9.

22

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

Prior to that time, and for a long time afterwards, people believed in grovesand grave howes, holy places and ancient sites, and in heathen idols. They
sacrificed their sons and daughters, and cattle, together with food andale. They did that in accordance with their ignorance of the true faith. The
whole island held the highest sacrifice on its own account, with humanvictims, otherwise each third held its own. But smaller assemblies held alesser sacrifice with cattle, food, and drink. Those involved were called‘boiling-companions’, because they all cooked their sacrificial meals together. 80

Here it is said that the þing on Gotland, obviously a small group ofpeople, had collective sacrificial meals, and the members of thisgroup were called suþnautar, a hapax legomenon in Old Swedish,consisting of the verb suða ‘to cook’ (a word related to ON seyðir
‘cooking pit’ and sauðr ‘sheep’ as well as Old Gotlandic sauþr
‘well’ and to Gothic sauðs f. ‘sacrifice’, hence with a semantic content of something cooked and sacrificed – and eaten),81 and nøte,
pl. nøtar ‘companion’, cf. Germ. Genossen. We have a synomymin ON m†tunautr ‘eating companion’; cf. m†tuneyti ‘eating group’.82
We have all read about the grand feast during the Middle Ages,
the convivium, where a lord entertained his followers, but thecommunal meal – for profane as well as religious purposes – wasimportant at all levels in society, at the þing-congregation as on
Gotland, at the guild and in the family; friendships were made andstrengthened at such meals. Gerd Altoff has stated in his importantbook Family, Friends and Followers. Political and Social Bonds
in Early Medieval Europe: ‘Meals . . . played a prominent role inmany bonds in archaic society. They were a legal ritual and performed an important social function.’83 And the main metaphor forthe ritual meal was ‘bread’, a widespread usage already found in
the Bible.
The importance of bread and the existence of a ‘bread-collective’ in early Scandinavia are finely illustrated on the famous Tune
80
Guta saga. The History of the Gotlanders. Ed. and trans. Christine Peel.
London 1999, 4.
81
See for instance Hellquist, Svensk etym. ordb., 916.
82
Norrøn ordbok. Ed. Leiv Heggstad, Finn Hødnebø and Erik Simensen.
Oslo 1997, 308; de Vries, Altnordisches etym. Wörterb., 402.
83
Althoff, Family, Friends and Followers, 97.

23

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

inscription from Østfold in Norway. This rune stone is to be dated
to as early as around AD 400, and it is the longest and most important of the runic inscriptions in the older fuþark.84 It starts ek wiwaR
after woduride witadahalaiban worahto, ek WiwaR after Woduride
witandahalaiban worahto [runoR], which can be translated as:‘I, WiwaR, in memory of WoduridaR, the lord (‘bread-provider’),made the runes’.85 Here we have a man (WiwaR ) in Østfold
who, in memory of WoduridaR (his lord?), erected the stone andcarved the runic epitaph. He praises WoduridaR with the epithet
witandah(a)laiban, ‘the bread-provider’, which is certainly a noble
title, an obvious equivalent to OE lord (< hlaf-weard). The second
element in this compound is, according to Sophus Bugge and other
scholars, a Proto-Nordic equivalent of the Gothic gahlaiba ‘table
mate, the one you share your bread with’, literally a companion, Fr
compagnon (< *companio from Lat. com- ‘together with’ and panism. ‘bread’).86 However, as Otto von Friesen has correctly remarked,
one would expect the prefix ga- in the runic form.87 Instead theword must be a weak noun related to ON hleifr ‘bread’. The qualifier, witanda-, is, according to Otto von Friesen, related to a
Proto-Nordic verb *witan (< PGmc *witen-) ‘to care for’,88 withcognates in OE witan ‘know, understand’, OE (be-)witian ‘to regard, to care for, see to, have charge of, govern, carry out’ etc.,
Gothic witan ‘know’, OE witod adj. ‘decreed’, Gothic witoþ n.
‘law’89 and OE wita m. ‘wise man, counsellor’, used of those who
made up the witan, the Anglo-Saxon king’s council (in early AngloSaxon times the King’s household or family), and their assembly,
the witenagemot. Hence the word is set in a semantic field consisting of meanings such as ‘knowledge’, ‘patronage’ and ‘family’,84
See for instance Ottar Grønvik, Runene på Tunesteinen. Oslo 1981; Terje
Spurkland, I begynnelsen var fuþark. Norske runer og runeinnskrifter. Oslo
2001, 46–53.
85
See Samnordisk runtextdatabas.
86
See for instance Harald Bjorvand and Fredrik Otto Lindeman, Vårearveord. Etymologisk ordbok. Oslo 2000, 518.
87
von Friesen, ‘Tune-stenen’, Arkiv för nordisk filologi 16, 1900, 193.
88
von Friesen, ‘Tune-stenen’, 196; Spurkland, I begynnelsen, 49.
89
Cf. Vladimir E. Orel, A Handbook of Germanic Etymology, Leiden 2003,
464, who identifies the witanda- with these two words.

24

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

important qualities and assets for a chieftain to have in the Migration
Period. The chieftain WoduridaR was thus to be remembered as awitandah(a)laiban, someone who provided his subjects with bread(food).
Bread probably had a significant role not only for the Romans,
but also in the early Germanic world (cf. OHG brotherro), even
if – as has been assumed for good reasons – it was an early culturalloan from the Romans.90 As far as Scandinavia is concerned,
the so-called Swedish gravklot (lit. ‘grave globes’) have received
some attention in this connection. They are small round stones
often incised with a cross or other ornaments, and they havebeen found placed on top of large burial mounds, very often dated
to the early Iron Age or the middle of the first millennium. The
most common explanation of these gravklot is that they represent
round bread loaves, or then rather rolls, with the explanation thatbread was part of a fertility cult or the death ritual and the cult of thedead.
During the early Iron Age, at least in Sweden, bread very often
occurs in places where cultic rituals have been performed (e.g.
Helgö, Uppåkra). From the late Iron Age it is not unusual for breadto be placed in graves, as in Birka.91 During the excavation at Helgö‘the Holy Island’, at a place where cultic rituals most probably were
performed, many items of bread, in the form of ‘buns’ as well as‘loaves’, have been found, as well as fragments of ovens and large
quantities of querns. Some of the bread was found in graves, inovens, but interestingly enough most of it (about 70 pieces) was
found below a rock believed to be a cult site. 92 Bread was also thefood of the gods. In the famous stanzas in Hávamál where Óðinn isretelling his own story, he says (st. 139; cf. The Poetic Edda, trans.
C. Larrington, Oxford 1999):

90
Ellen Anne Pedersen and Mats Widgren, ‘Järnålder’. In Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Jordbrukets första femtusen år. Ed. Janken Myrdal. Stockholm 1998, 400–01.
91
Ann-Marie Hansson, ‘Bread in Birka and on Björkö’. Laborativ Arkeologi.
Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 9, 1996, 61–78.
92
Torun Zachrisson, ‘The holiness of Helgö’. Excavations at Helgö 16.
Exotic and Sacral Finds from Helgö. Stockholm 2004, 153–55.

25

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJAVið hleifi mik seldo né við horniginýsta ek niðrNo bread did they give me nor a drink from a horn,
downwards I peered

The normal archaeological interpretation of bread in graves and atcult sites is that it has symbolic significance, presumably representing fertility and regeneration.93
The PGmc word hlaiba- ‘bread’ is found in most Germanic
languages, and as a loan in Slavonic (as in Russian chleb) and FinnoUgric (as in Finnish laipä). We have already seen an n-extension
on the Tune rune stone (*hlaiban-), and interestingly for our discussion we find words such as Gothic gahlaiba m. and OHG
gi(h)leibo m. (< *ga-hlaiban-) meaning ‘fellow, friend’, originallyobviously ‘one you share the bread with’, thus a direct equivalentof companion, Fr compagnon.
The importance of the meal and of food in early Scandinavia
came to affect Scandinavian ideology deeply. This can be illustrated from many rune stones. The warlike ideal of the Viking94 isvividly and eloquently expressed on rune stones and in skaldic poetry. In early Scandinavia it was also important to be a ‘good’ man.
The kind of goodness referred to probably had little to do with what
we mean by good in our modern world; an important aspect of
being ‘good’ in Viking society was to be generous, and especiallygenerous with food.95 On the famous Turinge stone (Sö 338) in
Södermanland we read:ketil : auk + biorn + þaiR + raistu + stain + þin[a] + at + þourstain: faþur + sin + anuntr + at + bruþur + sin + auk : hu[skar]laR +hifiR + iafna + ketilau at + buanta sin * ¶ bruþr uaRu þaR bistramana : a : lanti auk : i liþi : uti : h(i)(l)(t)u sini huska(r)la : ui- +han + fial + i + urustu + austr + i + garþum + lis + furugi +lanmana + bestr
Ketill and Bjorn, they raised this stone in memory of Þorsteinn, their father; Onundr in memory of his brother and the housecarls in memory of thejust(?) (and) Ketiley in memory of her husband.
93

A.-M. Hansson, ‘Bread in Birka and on Björkö’, 75.
See for instance Neil Price, The Viking Way.
95
Frands Herschend, The Idea of the Good in Late Iron Age Society. Opia
15. Uppsala 1998, passim.
94

26

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJAThe brothers wereamong the best of men
in the land
and abroad in the retinue,
treated theirretainers or housecarls well.
He fell in battle
east in Garðar (Russia),
commander of the retinue,
the best of landholders.96

Generosity was a characteristic of a chieftain that is frequently
praised in skaldic poetry and runic inscriptions. And if you werea solid, frequent and generous provider of food, this was worth
praising. On the Väppeby stone in Uppland (U 703) we can read:mantr matar koþr auk mls risia, mandr matar goðr ok malsrisinn,‘a man generous with food and eloquent’ and on the Gådistone, also in Uppland (U 739), Holmbjörn praises himself
as miltr matar auk mals risin, ‘liberal with food and eloquent’.
On a couple of runestones we can read that the man commemorated had been mildan orða ok matar goðan, kind withwords and generous with food. This theme is also found in
Hávamál (39):
Fannka ek mildan man
eða svá matar góðan
I found no man so mild
nor so generous with food.

Being matar góðr defined a ‘good’ man.
What we are faced with here, in my opinion, is an archaic institution with special rules difficult for us to understand today, ahousehold with a hlafweard or a witandah(a)laiban (or forthat matter an OHG brotherro) as the caput. It has, I think,
implications for our understanding of the rather complex and multidimensional network of dependence, patronage and lordship tobe found in Scandinavia during the middle of the first millennium
and in the late Iron Age (in Scandinavian terms, c.600–1050),
a point I am trying to make in a new book on slavery in early
96

Samnordisk runtextdatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskning/
samnord.htm).

27

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

Scandinavia. It would take too long to present the arguments
here; suffice to say that dependence and socially and legally unfree
status had many facets and levels in society, and that an importantroot of the institution is to be traced back to Roman society and its
familia.
To conclude, there is an obvious link between Anglo-Saxon
England and early Scandinavia – admittedly partly because bothbelong to the more or less homogeneous pan-Germanic culture of
the period – a link formed by the PGmc *hiwa(n), a household
institution found all over the Germanic area, including that occupied by the Goths, centred around the communal meal and the sharing of bread, a PGmc *hlaiba-gangaz m. This Germanic ‘household’ seems to be documented in Scandinavia as early as around AD
400 with the occurrence of witandah(a)laiban on the Tune-stone,
and it can obviously be traced back to the Roman familia. The*hiwa(n) ‘household’ was also used as the basis of several kinds ofco-operative groups in medieval society, such as the military retinue, the hirð or the lið, and the guild, an institution which to datehas received astonishingly little attention in Scandinavia. I am nottalking about the town-guilds from the thirteenth, fourteenth andfifteenth centuries,97 but an older guild institution, a Viking-Age
ON gildi, or perhaps a gild-institution (a strong noun), that we havereminiscences of in our sources.98 In all these co-operative groups
eating and drinking were of prime importance; it was the glue thatbound the members together.

97

See for instance Helge Søgaard, Sven Ljung, Grethe Authén Blom andMagnús Már Lárusson, Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid 5. Copenhagen etc. 1960, cols 299–313. It is however interesting to note that Authén
Blom (col. 309) intimates an older institution for Norway (hvirfingsdrykkjur,
samdrykkjur, samburðar†l, samkoma) with a supposed pagan origin.
98
See the interesting discussions of an early gill(e)-institution in Scandinavia, especially Norway, by (among others) Alexander Bugge, ‘Tingsteder,gilder og andre gamle midtpunkter i de norske bygder’. Historisk Tidsskrift
25. Olso 1920, 97–152, 195–252; Harald H. Lindbach, De norske middelaldergildene: økonomiske, religiøse og sosiale funksjoner ved gildene i Norge,ca. 1250–1550. Hovedoppgave-thesis in history, University of Tromsø 1997;
Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, Norsk historie 800–1300. Frå høvdingmakt til kongeog kyrkjemakt. Samlagets Norsk historie 1. Oslo 1999, 146–53.

28

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

Note This lecture is based on a paper conceived and written during the winterof 2005, when I had the privilege of being a Visiting Professor at the dynamic
and intellectually stimulating Centre for Medieval Studies (CMS) at the
University of Bergen. I would here like to thank the director of CMS,
Prof. Sverre Bagge, and the members of the Centre for input and help. I havealso benefited from comments made when in late spring 2005 I gave the same
paper at my own seminar in Uppsala, The Seminar for the Study of Early
Scandinavian Society and Culture (SESSoC). — Many thanks also to Dr Alison
Finlay and Prof. Michael Barnes for revising and improving the text.
Bibliography and Abbreviations
Codex Justinianus = Codex Justinianus. Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 2. Ed. P.
Kreuger, Th. Momsen, R. Schoell and G. Kroll. Berlin 1928.
The Digest of Justinian, vols 1–4. Latin text edition by Theodor Mommsen
with the aid of Paul Kreuger. Trans. and ed. T. Watson. Philadelphia 1985.
DN = Diplomatarium Norvegicum 1–. Oslo 1849 ff.
DR = Danmarks runeindskrifter, vols 1–3. Ed. Lis Jacobsen and Erik Moltke.
Copenhagen 1941–43. [cited as DR + nr]
Justinian Digest. See The Digest of Justinian.
KL = Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid från vikingatid tillreformationstid 1–22. Copenhagen etc. 1956–78.
KLE = Klaus von See, Beatrice La Farge, Eve Picard, Ilona Priebe andKatja Schulz, Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, vols 1–. Heidelberg
1997 ff.
Kluge = Fr. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Ed.
Elmar Seebold. Berlin and New York 2002.
ODa = Old Danish.
ODEE = The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Ed. C. T. Onions. Oxford
1966, repr. with corrections 1969.
OE = Old English.
OHG = Old High German.
ON = Old Norse
OSw = Old Swedish.
PGmc = Proto-Germanic.
RGA = Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde. Ed. Heinrich Beck et
al. Berlin and New York 1973 ff.
SAOB = Svenska akademiens ordbok, vols 1–. Lund 1898 ff.
Snorra Edda = Edda Snorra Sturlusonar, vols 1–3. Ed. Jón Sigurðsson et al.
Copenhagen 1848–87.
Sö = Södermanlands runinskrifter. Ed. Erik Brate and Elias Wessén. Sveriges
runinskrifter 3. Stockholm 1924–36. [Cited as Sö + nr]
U = Upplands runinskrifter 1–4. Ed. Elias Wessén and Sven B. F. Jansson.
Sveriges runinskrifter 6–9. Stockholm 1940–58. [Cited as U + nr]
Ulpian Digest. See The Digest of Justinian.

29

LORD AND LADY – BRYTI AND DEIGJA

Vs = Västmanlands runinskrifter. Ed. Sven B. F. Jansson. Sveriges runinskrifter
13. Stockholm 1964. [Cited as Vs + nr]Öl = Ölands runinskrifter. Ed. Sven Söderberg and Erik Brate. Sveriges runinskrifter 1. Stockholm 1900–06. [Cited as Öl + nr]

30