RE: Eurmal

From: Hughes, John (NAT) <"Hughes,>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 17:17:25 +1000

        Heys folks

> Andrew:

>The effect of this is to ritually transfer all
> >guilt and blame for an action to the Eurmali performing the ritual.

>Thus even a divination would reveal that the Eurmali had committed
the crime.
> >This might be a good solution to a kinslaying. Persuading the Eurmali =

>to take the blame, though, is another matter.

Eek! That one sent my mind racing. How does a clan deal with its tricksters?

Two background factoids. Heortling society seems more shame/dishonour than guilt/sin, which in fact makes the institution of the trickster more viable. Second, Heortling law, in my reading, is rarely about individual blame per se, but about righting the effects of wrongdoing, making proper compensation, and - in those rare cases that attract capital punishment or full outlawry - ensuring that the evil doesn't happen again. Blaming a trickster doesn't make that much sense in a political context, though it certainly carries a lot of power in a ritual way. If Kathra LongTooth biffed my brother Braggi all the way to Daka Fal's doorpost, slicing and dicing the local Ermali wont assuage my feelings if Hargii is still walking around 'scot-free' (lit. 'not having to pay'). In social terms this would only encourage lawlessness and crime.

Historically tricksters have gotten away with a lot in terms of individual actions, but I don't know offhand of any ethnographic instance where they were able to encompass others within their protective mantle (which isn't necessarily a judgement one way or another, just an observation.)

My first response was to wonder how close-kin deal with a hearthmate who becomes recognised as an Eurmali. Do they pre-empt responsibility for her actions by casting her out? Are Eurmali in some ways kinless, as humakti become? Tricksters as 'orphans' feels right to me, at least some of the time. If I were a bloodline head, I'd certainly not want to be responsible for the actions of a known trickster, as bloodlines usually are for their members.

So how far does the chieftain's protection of his trickwster extend? I can't believe chiefs have much power to deny weregild payments. Who then pays? And any chieftain who lets his trickster get involved (even in a symbolic/ritual sense) in inter-clan feuding is *asking* for trouble.

Of course, Eurmal is sometimes the Scapegoat, and I'm sure that there must be powerful ceremonies and even magics that reflect this. The thought of a 'take blame' runespell seems intuitively strange though: I guess I'd expect such functions to be enacted in a more outward ritual way. (I know that a rune spell is often just shorthand for this, but I'd be interested to see it teased out a bit more).

Psychologically, a trickster has the power to say and do what others cannot, and their power and usefulness stem from the fact that they are both 'apart' and 'different', but ALSO that they are very much part of the community: i.e. they embody things that many in the community *want* to say and do, but cannot.

I've no concrete conclusions to draw either way, but think Andrew is on to something pretty fundamental that hasn't previously been explored.

John
(Arkat the Trickster (one of the hidden ones)).

And yes Andrew, we can blame it on the sticklepick.:) Guilty as charged!


Powered by hypermail