On the whole it seemed best to concentrate attention upon the _Gulathingslög_ as the oldest of the Norse laws. The Danish and Swedish laws and the Grágás of Iceland no doubt under competent hands would yield valuable additional evidence, but the oldest of the Norse laws may probably be fairly taken as the most representative of early Northern custom, and at the same time most nearly connected with the object of this inquiry. Geographically the Gulathing law was in force in the southern portion of Norway. It seems to have embraced, in about the year 930, three, and afterwards six, _fylkis_ or districts each with its own _thing_ and local customs.[174] In this respect it resembled the Frisian and Saxon laws, both of which recognised, as we have seen, the separate customs of tribal divisions contained in the larger district over which the laws had force. The Gulathing law must therefore be regarded as in some sense a compilation or collection of customs rather than one uniform law. For instance, there are three or four separate descriptions of the wergeld and the modes of its payment and receipt. One of these is avowedly of later date. The older ones may probably describe local variations of general custom, belonging to one or another of the divisions, and even these bear marks of later modification and additions. As usual, the introduction of Christianity was the occasion and perhaps the cause of the compilation, and therefore from the time of the formation of Dioceses by King Olaf (A.D. 1066-93) ecclesiastical influence must be expected. But on the whole this Gulathing law presents in some points a far more interesting and instructive picture of social conditions resulting from tribal custom than the laws of other tribes already examined of much earlier date. [Sidenote: The Frostathing law.] The next important of the ancient laws of Norway is the _Frostathingslög_ belonging to the more northerly district of Drontheim. Without pretending to have made it the subject of special study, I have here and there found it useful in elucidation of the Gulathing law, and as showing that tribal custom, though with local variations, was in force over a wider district than that under the Gulathing law. The question of the structure of tribal society and the division of classes in Norway may be most conveniently approached from the point of view of the _rett_ or ‘personal right,’ somewhat analogous to the Irish ‘honour-price’ and the Welsh ‘saraad.’ [Sidenote: Grades of personal ‘rett.’] Both in the Gulathing law and in the Frostathing law this personal ‘rett’ lies at the root of the graduated payments for insults, wounding, and homicide. And the statements of it are practically identical in the two laws. They are as follows:-- _Gulathing_ (200) _Frostathing_ (X. 35)