re: Marriage

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 20:06:43 +0100 (BST)


Donald R. Oddy, replying to me:
> >You're implying that a bloodline is both a extension and a formalisation
> >of some more basic notion of a 'family', here. I'd question this
> >assumption. To take the Gaels, for them the derbhfine in
> >essence _is_ the family. It's not some abstract or higher-order
> >construct. (Whether this is best translated as 'bloodline' is
> >another matter. I don't myself think it's especially like the
> >Heortling variety. If you asked a H. who his 'family' were, you'd
> >likely get a list of the people who lived in the same hearth as he
> >did.)

> I think you are placing undue weight on legal texts here. While the
> Gaels had a legal definition of family (the derbhfine), that includes
> some pretty distant relatives and I do not think that this equates
> to the immediate family.

But what do you mean by 'immediate' family? The familiar modern focus on nuclear families isn't necessarily the most helpful starting point.

> IMO the derbhfine is closer to the extended
> family but not necessarily synonymous with what ordinary people
> regarded as the extended family. Certainly rural Irish culture still
> has the attitude of immediate family first, then extended family
> with anything else after that. And a person may become part of the
> *immediate* family by marriage if they are accepted. If not there
> can be some very nasty strains in family relationships.

Modern rural Irish cultural tells us more about modern culture everywhere, than it does about ancient Celtic practice, much less about the Orlanthi.

> >> So given that the family is the primary bond, it follows that if
> >> a couple come from different clans they technically become members
> >> of both clans on marriage.
> >
> >Since this is a quite different conclusion than John H and I arrive at
> >from reading KoS, I'd disagree what this 'follows' at all.
>
> Alternatively they legally remain members of separate clans which would
> make clan loyalties very weak where inter-clan marriages were common

That's what I think happens, but I disagree with your conclusion. Your husband and children are still your kin, clan membership nothwithstanding.

> >It's not that simple, since another clan is involved (in the cases
> >we're especially concerned with at present). Though I suppose
> >the local chief or ring gets to make this sort of decision in the
> >first instance, and then wait and see if the other party's clan
> >kicks up a stink about it...
>
> Yes, if the clans are part of the same tribe it would escalate to
> the tribal chief/ring. If not there is a very good chance of it
> developing into an inter-clan feud.

Or certainly a cause for raiding, legal suit, whining to the High King, and whatever else they manage to think of...

> >To put it (I hope) concisely: we know that the Orlanthi organise
> >themselves into hearths, and steads, We know that they have
> >bloodlines, and clans. How do these relate to each other? Are
> >there certain invariable patterns? What the the common ones?
>
> One of the trickiest issues is how a bloodline can be defined
> in a society that is neither matriarchial or patriarchal. All
> the real world examples we have are either one or the other,
> mostly patriarchal, so a person is only of one bloodline. If
> the bloodline is just taken back to grandparents that's four,
> assuming marriage within bloodlines is not allowed.

Orlanthi society is generally patrin_lineal_, so that's not a problem per se. Given an accepted ancestor, the membership is pretty clearly defined. What I'm not really seeing much addressed, is, what does a bloodline _do_, if it's a corporate entity, but notably distinct from members of a given hearth, and members of a given stead. If a bloodline sometimes corresponds to one of these, and sometimes not, then having a distinct corporate existence seems to me somewhat unlikely.

Cheers,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail