Concubinage in Themiclesia: Difference between revisions
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Nobility=== | ===Nobility=== | ||
Themiclesia distinguished between two types of nobility under the conceptual supremacy of the king or emperor. One, the autonomous type, carried true powers over the fiefdom; the other, the financial type, only carried a fixed taxation income. While these differ in many ways, their entitlements to concubines are the same, as they were equal in social rank. Initially, all aristocratic titles were autonomous, but all dynasties after the Tsjinh have generally sought to limit the extent and autonomy of autonomous aristocrats.<ref>The Five Principalities during the Tsjinh were originally separate states that came to recognize the supremacy of the Tsjinh in the 200s, though they remained almost completely sovereign, with the exception that they may not form alliances with foreign princes against Tsjinh; however, as mainstream Themiclesian history is written from the Tsjinh's perspective, these principalities were sometimes anachronistically treated as subsidiary states.</ref> As the Tsjinh codices did not apply to autonomous principalities, and the Tsjinh monarchy was one amongst them, the sumptuary entitlements of autonomous princes are assumed to be equal to those of the Tsjinh monarchy.<ref>This parity is particularly harmonious with the fact that the word for autonomous prince (王) is exactly the same as the Tsjinh king, who is their nominal liege. These autonomous princes also created subordinate lords, who were peers with the lords of the Tsjinh state. The autonomy of these lords was suspect: some principalities permitted a great range of powers to lords, others had purely financial titles in place, and still others had a mixture of both. Autonomous principalities and fiefs were only eliminated during the [[Meng-Rjang Dynasty|restored Meng dynasty]], after a general trend towards centralization. | Themiclesia distinguished between two types of nobility under the conceptual supremacy of the king or emperor. One, the autonomous type, carried true powers over the fiefdom; the other, the financial type, only carried a fixed taxation income. While these differ in many ways, their entitlements to concubines are the same, as they were equal in social rank. Initially, all aristocratic titles were autonomous, but all dynasties after the Tsjinh have generally sought to limit the extent and autonomy of autonomous aristocrats.<ref>The Five Principalities during the Tsjinh were originally separate states that came to recognize the supremacy of the Tsjinh in the 200s, though they remained almost completely sovereign, with the exception that they may not form alliances with foreign princes against Tsjinh; however, as mainstream Themiclesian history is written from the Tsjinh's perspective, these principalities were sometimes anachronistically treated as subsidiary states.</ref> As the Tsjinh codices did not apply to autonomous principalities, and the Tsjinh monarchy was one amongst them, the sumptuary entitlements of autonomous princes are assumed to be equal to those of the Tsjinh monarchy.<ref>This parity is particularly harmonious with the fact that the word for autonomous prince (王) is exactly the same as the Tsjinh king, who is their nominal liege. These autonomous princes also created subordinate lords, who were peers with the lords of the Tsjinh state. The autonomy of these lords was suspect: some principalities permitted a great range of powers to lords, others had purely financial titles in place, and still others had a mixture of both.</ref> While the monarchy has created new principalities after the Tsjinh, these were financial principalities, and similarities between them and the monarchy were much diminished, compared to auotnomous ones. Autonomous principalities and fiefs were only eliminated during the [[Meng-Rjang Dynasty|restored Meng dynasty]], after a general trend towards centralization. While early laws varied, particularly in autonomous principalities, in general the nobility was permitted concubinage according to their rank, in imitation of the royal concubinage. The following chart illustrates their entitlements. | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
Revision as of 20:59, 13 September 2019
Concubinage in Themiclesia refers to the legal relationship between one male and female(s) other than his spouse. The practice is inherited from Menghean, though it Themiclesia it has also seen development. In modern Themiclesia, concubinage is no longer legal, formally abolished in 1962, though obsolete since the 19th century. Concubinage was subject to sumptuary restrictions according to the male's social standing. That of the monarchy grew into a sizeable harem and, having access to the monarch and possessing independent wealth, gave some women and their relatives political clout. In commoners, concubinage was heavily restrained by the wealth of the provider, usually the husband. Themiclesian law did not recognize legal relationships between women and men other than their husbands.
Origins
Themiclesian society in its earliest ages practiced strict exogamy, marriage with a relative, however remote, being illegal.[1] Early Themiclesian settlements, often ruled by a single clan, were distributed at distance and amongst native societies, making travel hazardous. To forge alliances through marriage and to satisfy the exogamy rule, potential marriages were discussed by envoys, and the bride was conveyed at nighttime to avoid native hostility, which were more common at day. The ceremony of her departure with her husband was called the Rite at Dusk for this reason. While marriages were meant to be stable, alliances could fall apart if the bride died; thus, the bride's younger sisters or cousins would often accompany her to her new home, as a secondary wife. Normally, they would be her attendants and agents, but the husband's family could legally recognize the most senior second as spouse if she died or decided to leave, thus maintaining the alliance. This sort of secondary wife (媵) is one type of concubine became rare in all cases except royal marriages.
An entire different sort of concubine emerged from slavery, which was legal in Themiclesia until the 16th century. Female slaves were expected to provide sexual services to their owner when required. This was applicable to private chattel slaves, not slaves to the state. Through favours with their owners, such female slaves could acquire influence in the household and even supplant the role of the legal spouse, if the latter could not provide an heir. For some time, there was no legal distinction between female slaves and concubines, and it was forbidden to take commoners as concubines, as this would debase them to slavery. However, the law excepted nobles and high officials, and this gradually spread to the wealthy; by the 2nd century, it was common for wealthy commoners to take other commoners as concubines, though it still carried much social stigma to the concubine's original family. A commoner concubine was distinguished from a female slave as early as the mid-3rd century, though her right to claim some of a legal spouse's privileges in the latter's absence.
Aristocratic concubinage
The concubinage of the monarchy and nobility represents a merger of the two sources of concubines in early Themiclesian history. In imitation of the bureaucracy, the concubines of nobles are also typically arranged into a ranked structure. At an earlier time, this may have represented the dignity of their families, but later females (especially to the monarch) were seen as holding these ranks independently of their families. Such ranks could even be mean favour to them. In the most extreme case, the queen's (or after 543, empress') father, uncles, and brothers were made lords, in imitation of the monarch's own family, so that the two households united in marriage be symbolic equals; lesser magnates also granted favours, such as minor administrative positions, to the households of their concubines. While aristocratic men may be legally bound to multiple females, this is not to say that all females in service to him are his concubines. An aristocrat may have female servants and slaves that are not concubines, and concubines themselves may have servants and slaves. Per custom, a servant to a concubine is almost always female or an eunuch, though exceptions exist. Concubines to aristocrats were justified on grounds of provision of an heir to continue the household ancestral veneration of the husband
Monarchy
The Themiclesian monarch has, per sumtuary hierarchy, the right to the largest concubinage. As early as the Tsjinh dynasty (265 – 421), the administrative codices provide that the king has four ranks of marital concubines: the pja-njing (夫人), the rjang-njing (良人), the pret-tsje′ (八子), and the sn′jit-tsje′ (七子). Concubines of the first two ranks were given fiefs and deemed equivalent with male aristocrats, though their nobility was non-heritable. They could, as much as male aristocrats, tax their fiefdoms and enjoy income, though their ability to govern them directly or appoint officials in them was limited. The latter two ranks were deemed equivalent to high-ranking bureaucrats and provided with salaries, rather than fiefdoms. The station of pja-njing was once limited to the secondary wives that were given to the king along with the arrival with the queen, though in later ages lower concubines could be promoted to that rank under royal favour. The following chart illustrates their respective entitlements; while the queen or empress is emphatically not a concubine, her entitlements are presented for comparison.
| Title | Shinasthana | Income | Residence | Bureaucracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Queen/Empress | 后 | 30 – 40 counties | Entire palace | 3 principal counsels |
| Pja-njing | 夫人 | 2 counties | Entire hall | Household manager (1,000 bushels) |
| Rjang-njing | 良人 | 1 county | Entire hall | Household manager (1,000 bushels) |
| Prêt-tsje′ | 八子 | 2,000 bushels | Part of a hall | Secretary (600 bushels) |
| Sn′jit-tsje′ | 七子 | 1,000 bushels | Part of a hall | Secretary (600 bushels) |
Nobility
Themiclesia distinguished between two types of nobility under the conceptual supremacy of the king or emperor. One, the autonomous type, carried true powers over the fiefdom; the other, the financial type, only carried a fixed taxation income. While these differ in many ways, their entitlements to concubines are the same, as they were equal in social rank. Initially, all aristocratic titles were autonomous, but all dynasties after the Tsjinh have generally sought to limit the extent and autonomy of autonomous aristocrats.[2] As the Tsjinh codices did not apply to autonomous principalities, and the Tsjinh monarchy was one amongst them, the sumptuary entitlements of autonomous princes are assumed to be equal to those of the Tsjinh monarchy.[3] While the monarchy has created new principalities after the Tsjinh, these were financial principalities, and similarities between them and the monarchy were much diminished, compared to auotnomous ones. Autonomous principalities and fiefs were only eliminated during the restored Meng dynasty, after a general trend towards centralization. While early laws varied, particularly in autonomous principalities, in general the nobility was permitted concubinage according to their rank, in imitation of the royal concubinage. The following chart illustrates their entitlements.
| Rank | Consort | Pja-njing | Rjang-njing | Prêt-tsje′ | Sn′jit-tsje′ | Other concubines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomous princes | Queen | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Financial princes | Princess-consort | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Autononmous lords | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Financial lords | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
- ↑ In early texts, it is said that "after five generations", descendants of the same ancestor are marriagable. Later laws, however, forbade marriages between two individuals of any consanguineity in the paternal line. This was not strictly observed amongst peasants, but amongst nobles it was a rule. It is notable that, before consanguinious marriage was prohibited completely, the rule of five generations applied to the female line, not the male line.
- ↑ The Five Principalities during the Tsjinh were originally separate states that came to recognize the supremacy of the Tsjinh in the 200s, though they remained almost completely sovereign, with the exception that they may not form alliances with foreign princes against Tsjinh; however, as mainstream Themiclesian history is written from the Tsjinh's perspective, these principalities were sometimes anachronistically treated as subsidiary states.
- ↑ This parity is particularly harmonious with the fact that the word for autonomous prince (王) is exactly the same as the Tsjinh king, who is their nominal liege. These autonomous princes also created subordinate lords, who were peers with the lords of the Tsjinh state. The autonomy of these lords was suspect: some principalities permitted a great range of powers to lords, others had purely financial titles in place, and still others had a mixture of both.