>Most relevant to the above was that long after church law was well
>established, and the upper class's were following it, observers still
>commented that in peasant villages it was common for people to simply
>move in together, with "no" ceremony at all (I suspect that actually
>meant no church ceremony). Certainly this suggests that from a
>sociological point of view, it is entirely possible for the 'lower
>classes' to follow a completely different pattern than the upper
>classes.
>
>
This is something that's actually missing, IMO, in both Glorantha and KAP.
Marriage, as the legal institution that we in the West currently know, is actually a relatively recent invention. That is, prior to the modern invention of pervasive legalism, marriage was, generally speaking, just the social recognition that a man and a woman were living together and producing offspring (or not). Except for the rich and/or powerful.
>In earlier medieval times, there was a lot of conflict between upper
>class traditions and law on the one hand, and church law on the
>other. Frex, in Germany by tradition and law nobles had concubines
>with recognized status, something forbidden by church law.
>Eventually church law won out, but it was no quick thing.
>
>
The original church was AFAIK very anti-legalistic. Pagan marriage laws
were (as I'm sure you know) basically formalized property contracts
betwen the bride and groom's families. Church weddings OTOH were
religiously sanctioned love affairs, very much against the legalisms of
the pagan or hebrew marriage contract.
I don't think Church law won out ; I think what we have now is a compromise between secular law and the professed ideals of Christian Love.
>So yah,
>just living together, having sex, and jointly taking care of kids may
>not mean that you are married, so it may not matter who you do it
>with.
>
>
Depends on the legal system.
Julian Lord
-- __________________________________ "Hmmm, I've heard of other powers. Can you tell me about ... ... Real Life ?"
Powered by hypermail