re: Marriage

From: Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:51:24 GMT


In message <200008311845.LAA21891_at_chaosium.com> owner-glorantha-digest_at_chaosium.com (The Glorantha Digest) writes:
>
>From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
>
>Donald Oddy:
>> I've been following this discussion but feel you are all trying
>> to make it far to precise, I think it is far messier than this.
>
>It can be as messy as it likes, but the problem with the thread is
>a basic lack of (and disagreement about) the definition of some
>fairly fundamental concepts. If it were a matter of "a bloodline
>[say] is the thing I point to when I say 'bloodline'" that'd be
>fair enough, but firstly, I don't think that's true, and secondly,
>even if it were, we'd still want to know what a _typical_ Heortling
>bloodline was like, the sort of range of variation that routinely
>occurs, etc. There will be local, and not-so-local customs and
>practices which determine what a bloodline looks like, what it
>acts like (if it acts at all per se), which isn't to say that said
>customs won't themselves often have exceptions and anomalies.
>
>> Both Gaelic and Norse culture and by analogy Orlanthi are family
>> based with bloodlines, clans and tribes being built from that
>> base. Thus the first loyalty is to the immediate family - parents,
>> spouse, brothers, sisters and children.
>
>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. 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.

>> 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, or one partner transfers to the other clan on marriage which implies a cutting off of relations with the family as well. It is possible that Heortling culture emphasises clan relationships above family but that is more reminicent of 19th Century european nationalism than any pre-renaissance culture.

>> However the clan they live with will
>> tend to be the stronger link and more importantly the children
>> will be of that clan and that bloodline.
>
>The children will be of the clan that the form of marriage provides
>for. This, at least is clear and explicit. (And yes, it does
>generally correspond to the clan where the couple live.)

>> Of course this leaves a lot of untidy ends which cause all sorts
>> of problems over who is entitled to what when people fall out and
>> who is responsible for who. Basically the clan chief gets the job
>> of deciding and will generally fall back on precedent unless it
>> would clearly cause injustice. The precedent may not even be the
>> same in different clans but until someone makes a legal case, it
>> doesn't matter.
>
>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.

>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.

Powered by hypermail