Talk:Concubinage

"In twenty-first-century parlance, 'concubine' refers either to a mistress or to a sex slave."

There isn't really any "typical" usage of the word alone. The word tends to be always contextualized, and the contexts can be very different from each other. --Grufo (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

According to ... what source exactly? And in what context? In academic literature, or in more general usage? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The source for this is The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, which is a pretty reliable source.VR _talk 14:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Having a source might not be enough, especially when a sentence lowers down the quality of an article. What one thinks when they hear the word concubine is inherently a subjective thing, and we tend not to hear the word alone. I am honestly unable to imagine an example of a sentence where the word concubine appears without being contextualized, either explicitly or implicitly. If a woman says today "I am a concubine", the first thing I will think will be the oddity of the sentence, the second thing I will think will be that she lives with the boyfriend, the third think I will do will be asking "What do you mean?". --Grufo (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It strikes me that the statement is at once correct and incorrect on both counts. Conceptually, a concubine is more bonded than a mistress but freer than a slave. Genghis Khan had concubines whose power and status exceeded that of some of his lesser wives, just as court eunuchs have become grand viziers. The great modern fallacy of interpretation is to impose our moral values on historical situations that we can barely grasp the implications of. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is really subjective, Iskandar323. When I hear the word concubine alone there will no meanings at all until I am able to contextualize. I would definitely not think about Genghis Khan, since I never think about Genghis Khan, and the last thing I will think about will be Islamic Harems. If you really force me to think about something (but you have to force me), I will likely think about European aristocratic persons from the past, and the concubine will be aristocratic too. --Grufo (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we are have our biases, but ultimately we have to go with what sources say. If there are sources that say other things, they can be included. But a high-quality academic source should be complemented by another high-quality academic source. Don't use a WP:PRIMARY source to say "Academic source says X, but primary source says Y". That's an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE.VR _talk 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't automatically use what sources say if a statement is inherently subjective, we are free to omit it (WP:UNDUE) --Grufo (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) applies: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analysing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." Omitting those truths that do not suit an editor's point of view is not consistent with NPOV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A subjective statement is not a “truth”. It is also not a secondary source in this case, since it does not interpret what a primary source says. Regarding this specific sentence the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History becomes a primary source and offers no means for WP:V. --Grufo (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you calling an encyclopedia a primary source? That's ridiculous. An encyclopedia is almost the most secondary type of source you can get - as with Wikipedia, typically collating the input of legions of other secondary sources to come up with fair, balanced and neutral definitions. It's not primary because you don't like it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I got this slightly wrong. Since encyclopedias are derived from secondary sources, Wikipedia considers them one step further still for the purposes of source categorisation, labelling them WP:TERTIARY. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

You are not free to omit anything simply because you 'think' it is subjective, unless of course there are no objections from any other editors or of course you achieve a consensus in talk that something is indeed WP:POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually came here to question the same phrase. Reviewing three modern dictionaries, (Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins) two of them include "mistress" as a common meaning or synonym, and all of them mention social status, but none of them mention slavery. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Can refer to" is not the same as "defined as". I think the Oxford source is saying some concubines in the 21st century happen to be sex slaves, not that that's how the term is defined. Also the Collins source you mentioned does say the concubine is regarded as "sexually subservient".VR _talk 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The article reads "it typically refers" rather than "can refer to", but if we clarified the "sex slave" part of that sentence as "can refer to" then my objections would be resolved. As for Collins, "sexually subservient" and "sex slave" are not synonyms. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I quote the rather pertinent tertiary source cited by VR on Talk: Sexual slavery in Islam: "Voluntary concubinage should be distinguished from involuntary concubinage. In the latter the woman is sold, usually by her family. As a concubine she is rarely a slave, at least legally...yet in practice, the life of an involuntary concubine may look very much like a slave." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. The reality is that the concepts of freedom and slavery were often greyer and more blurred in the ancient and medieval world. A concubine, who may well be "sexually subservient" to a master, and even sold by their parents, might still not be legally classified within society as a slave. This a rather good illustration of the oversimplicity that can creep in when a reductive approach is taken to define a term. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are slightly mistaken about the topic we are discussing; we are discussing "In the twenty-first century, it typically refers explicitly to extramarital affection, "either to a mistress or to a sex slave", without the same emphasis on the cohabiting aspect of the original meaning", which is about how the word is used in the twenty-first century, not how it was used in the ancient or medieval world. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the way in which the term is used differs depending on whether it is being used to refer to events in the 21st-century or events in the distant past. In any case, the definition of "either to a mistress or to a sex slave" also encapsulates the way in which the term can refer to range of roles where a participant may be free or very much enslaved. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In any case, would you object to the clarification that VI seemed to propose, using "can refer to"? BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

revert

With this edit, Editor Toddy1 reverted a Monkbot edit with the edit summary unhelpful. it is a recipe for cite conflicts. Explain how that is, please.

Before the Monkbot edit, this article was (and now is again) a member of Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default. Articles are listed in that category when the value assigned to |ref= in a cs1|2 template (in this case {{cite encyclopedia}}) is the same as the value that the cs1|2 template would create for itself. Here is the original {{cite encyclopedia}} template with |ref={{sfnRef|Rodriguez|2011}}:

{{cite encyclopedia |title=Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression |entry=Concubines |editor-first1=Junius P. |editor-last1=Rodriguez |page=203 |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]]| year=2011| ref = {{sfnRef|Rodriguez|2011}}}}

Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. (2011). "Concubines". Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression. ABC-CLIO. p. 203.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

When Module:Citation/CS1 (the engine that underlies all cs1|2 templates) is finished processing the template, this is what it hands-off to MediaWiki for final rendering:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000025-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFRodriguez2011" class="citation encyclopaedia cs1">Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. (2011). "Concubines". ''Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression''. [[ABC-CLIO]]. p.&nbsp;203.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Concubines&rft.btitle=Slavery+in+the+Modern+World%3A+A+History+of+Political%2C+Social%2C+and+Economic+Oppression&rft.pages=203&rft.pub=ABC-CLIO&rft.date=2011&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ATalk%3AConcubinage" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite encyclopedia|cite encyclopedia]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default|link]])</span>

Here is the same {{cite encyclopedia}} template after the monkbot edit:

{{cite encyclopedia |title=Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression |entry=Concubines |editor-first1=Junius P. |editor-last1=Rodriguez |page=203 |publisher=[[ABC-CLIO]]| year=2011}}

Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. (2011). "Concubines". Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression. ABC-CLIO. p. 203.

and what Module:Citation/CS1 hands-off to MediaWiki:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000029-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFRodriguez2011" class="citation encyclopaedia cs1">Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. (2011). "Concubines". ''Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression''. [[ABC-CLIO]]. p.&nbsp;203.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Concubines&rft.btitle=Slavery+in+the+Modern+World%3A+A+History+of+Political%2C+Social%2C+and+Economic+Oppression&rft.pages=203&rft.pub=ABC-CLIO&rft.date=2011&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ATalk%3AConcubinage" class="Z3988"></span>

The output from both versions of the template is exactly the same except for the TemplateStyles stripmarkers and the original has the link to Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default. Note that the <cite> tag content is exactly the same in both versions of the template:

<cite id="CITEREFRodriguez2011" class="citation encyclopaedia cs1">

The id=CITEREFRodriguez2011 attribute is automatically created when |ref= is omitted or is empty. |ref={{sfnRef|Rodriguez|2011}} is redundant in this case because it creates the same value for the id= attribute:

CITEREFRodriguez2011 ← {{sfnRef|Rodriguez|2011}}

Please explain how the Montbot edit was unhelpful. Please explain how the Monkbot edit is a recipe for cite conflicts.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't get the explanation, but I was also wondering why it was unhelpful. Incidentally, how and why do these |ref= functions appear in the templates in the first place? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What about the explanation above don't you get?

Before the 18 April 2020 update to Module:Citation/CS1, cs1 templates required |ref=harv or |ref={{sfnref|...}} or |ref=CITEREF... (plaintext) to create id=CITEREF... anchor id attributes suitable for use with {{sfn}} and the {{harv}} family of short-form templates. From 18 April 2020, all cs1 templates automatically create id=CITEREF... anchor id attributes from the first four names in the contributor-, author-, or editor-name lists (in that order; names from different lists not mixed) and year from |year= or |date=.

For this particular example, the original citation had |ref={{sfnRef|Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political, Social, and Economic Oppression|2011}} which was created at this edit. That template was replaced with |ref={{sfnRef|Rodriguez|2011}} at this edit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, there was an update that obseleted the old function. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Editor Toddy1 has declined to participate in this discussion, I have restored the monkbot edit that that editor reverted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

LDS section

I'm removing the recently added section on the Latter Day Saint movement for a few reasons:

1. The principal reason is that it is using a single primary source. What we need are secondary sources, which leads into the next concerns I have...
2. Right now it seems like it fails WP:UNDUE, which is actually really hard to gauge based solely on a primary source since the weight should reflect the weight in secondary sources. I also don't think that the Latter Day Saints are unique in saying OT figures had concubines. I'm pretty sure that other Christian groups use or have used similar verbiage for most if not all of these individuals, so why is it important to single out Latter Day Saints? Again, secondary sources would help.
3. Context feels like it is an issue. The paragraph is based on the occurrence of the word/concept in the movement's scriptures which themselves are commenting on occurrences in the ancient world. But does that mean that it belongs in a the New World section that also tends towards the modern era? This isn't really a New World occurrence of the practice of concubinage. I am uncertain where it makes sense for this mention to occur or if it even should occur, again largely without secondary sources to put the mention in Latter Day Saint scripture in context.

Which brings me back to the first point - we need reliable, secondary sources to really answer the other concerns, imo. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that secondary sources would be better. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Indonesia?

Why there is no mention of indonesia on this article despite it has undocumented infos of concubine system? Eg yogyakarta concubinage in pre modern age. 2404:8000:1027:2C72:C42A:D8CC:B3DA:AF04 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionist Nonsense

Keep the Zionist nonsense off of this article, please. Hagar was not Abraham's concubine; she was his second wife. 70.55.216.171 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

1000 apologies

Hi, I tried to make a page for Norse co-wives, the fridla, but klutzed up the public sandbox ... so I turn to this page to store the text, which is a very rough draft (apology for that, too) written by a non-nativr EN speaker (blame my parents for that one). Hit me over the head if you need to. Here below, in sandbox'stead, my oeuvre, appended.

Friðla refers to a «free woman», a free and independent woman who lives with a man to whom she is not married. The man could also be married to another woman, and the friðla then acted as a "co-wife". A friðla who had been received into the household as a co-wife was called an ‘aarenelja’. A friðla was not under her husbands ‘mund’ (‘ward’), instead she was still a member of her original clan.

Etymology Friðla (from Norse friðla, 'mistress', from friðill 'lover, beloved'), from the same root as the words «free», "fred» («peace") and "frende" («friend, fellow»),

Friðlar in pagan times According to Saxo's Gesta Danorum, Danish chieftains had friðlar in the 9th and 11th centuries. Judging by the Norse sources, friðlar seem to have been quite widespread in Norway in the Middle Ages. The parishes have many rules on friðlar and friðlar children, and the laws regulate the arrangement, especially when it comes to inheritance. Children of friðlar could inherit from their father if he had acknowledged paternity; but children born to a full wife took precedence.

The friðlar could be resourceful women from the same social strata as the male party, such as Sigurd Jorsalfare's friðla Borghild Olavsdatter, mother of the later Magnus IV. In this way the friðlar could attain high social status both through a liaison with the male party, and also through the children she might bear him; but the custom may also have had its roots in efforts to rise from poverty.

Becoming a friðla was a free choice: Harald Fairhair wanted Gyda Eiriksdatter to be his friðla, she refused and became queen instead.

In Iceland In Iceland, most chieftains from the end of the 12th century until the 1260s had relationships with several friðlar at the same time. This is how they entered into binding relationships with the most influential families in the local population. The relationships were entered into with the consent of the girls' families, who thus secured extra protection. The girls themselves had secured their position in society. If the frill had a son who later became a chieftain, he’d be a source of pride for her family, and in any case it was better for many to be a chieftain's frill than a poor farmer wife. If the chief married, he could send the frill home without damaging relations with her family, and she herself could still get married.

The Icelandic legislation Grågås set as a condition for marriage that the couple dispose of the equivalent of the value of six cows. Many did not. In the Sturlungasagaen, it is told about the alliances a big man was able to obtain with the help of his daughters-in-law. Of the children Snorre had with his three friðlar, two daughters were married to Iceland's most powerful chieftains - one of these was later responsible for the execution of his father-in-law Snorre.

Inheritance rights of friðla children

A friðla child was entered into the father's clan if he acknowledged paternity. Friðla children often grew up with their mothers or foster parents. Njål Torgeirsson in Njål's saga and Rodny Hoskuldsdaughter together had an son out of wedlock, Hoskuld, named after his maternal grandfather. The boy is mentioned as one of "Njål's sons", and when he was killed, he was avenged by his half-brothers whom Njål had in his marriage.

Friðlar in the Christian era In Norse times, the parents' marital status did not affect the status of their children, as long as both parents were freeborn. A king's son had the right of inheritance to the throne whether the father had been married to the boy's mother or not. But with the increasing dominance of Christianity, Canon Law dmanded that "children of harlots" should have no right to any paternal inheritance. Older Nordic laws enter into a compromise between canon law and pre-Christian laws. An illegitimate child could therefore inherit his mother in the same way as half-siblings born in marriage, while the right of inheritance from the father was limited. This was nevertheless counteracted by the fact that the father, before his death, might bequeathe upon any friðla child various gifts; however, the church's growing power gradually weakened the legal protection of friðla children.

Towards the end of the 12th century, Bishop Øystein Erlendsson decided that friars were not allowed to receive sacraments if they did not promise to marry, but in 1280 there was a response from Eirik Magnusson's council of guardians which stated: "It is forbidden for a man to be forced to take that oath that he should marry the woman with whom he had an affair, when he sleeps with her after he went to confession and penance." Unmarried nobles still kept friðlar, but did not want to comply with the church's injunction to marry them. Beyond the 14th century, the bishops made several orders that people who lived in an adulterous relationship should marry, but the only Norwegian woman known to have been sanctioned for having lived in an extramarital relationship is Groa Munansdatter, who in 1317 offered to make amends for 23 years of illegal cohabitation with Simon of Tangen.

Although Canon law condemned adultery, the friðla custom was common and accepted. Only in 1237 was marriage for priests prohibited in a papal bull. From Laurentius' saga (around 1300) we know that the Icelandic bishop Laurentius Kalvsson (1267-1331, bishop of Hólar from 1322) had been taught church law by the learned Jon Flamlending, who had a frill that was downright unbelievably ugly. When Laurentius asked why he stayed with such an ugly woman, Jon replied, "I am hot-tempered and would not tolerate someone luring my handmaiden away from me." The pious Laurentius himself had an affair with whom he had a son who later became a priest. The arrangement must have been widespread, based on the amount of dispensation letters from the Pope for illegitimate children who were nevertheless ordained into priesthood.

In the cities, owners of a house had the exclusive right to brew and serve beer, but could rent out the right to a beer wife. It was nevertheless specified that it must be a "dannekone" (a woman with a good reputation), because "no friðlar or loose women are allowed to tap beer". A law codicil reinforced that Friðlar were not allowed to sell goods other than their own. This was meant to curb the Hanseatics at Bryggen in Bergen who were not allowed to run retail trade, but could conceivably use their friðlar as intermediaries.

A statute from the Norwegian bishops' college in the 1340s established that "fornication and all kinds of carnal pleasure that is done with human reproductive organs outside of marriage are forbidden and cursed by God himself and the Holy Church". The church had always demanded that monks and nuns live in celibacy, and from 1237 the requirement also applied to parish priests in Norway.

In an ordinance from 1305, Håkon V emphasized that marriage was the only legal form of cohabitation, and marked the difference between legal wives and mere cohabitants by allowing wives to wear "such clothing as God bestows on them". In comparison, friðlar and loose women were not allowed to own clothes more expensive than a cost of 2 1/2 English shillings per ell, and they were not allowed to wear silk, gold and silver. But since 2 1/2 English shillings were two-thirds the price of a cow, they were still able to dress nicely, even by medieval standards, when people could invest fortunes in presentable attire.

Famous friðlar

Dyveke Sigbrittsdatter, courtesan of Christian II of Denmark-Norway
Tora Guttormsdotter, friðla of Harald Gille, mother of Sigurd Munn
Tora Jonsdatter, friðla of Olav Kyrre, mother of Magnus Berrføtt
Tora Mosterstong, friðla of Harald Hårfagre, mother of Håkon the Good
Inga from Varteig, friðla of Håkon Sverresson, mother of Håkon Håkonsson

Refs

Frille (ODS) Frende osv. (ODS) Nordbø, Børge: «frille» i Store norske leksikon på snl.no. Hentet 11. februar 2022 fra [1] Jón Vidar Sigurdsson: Den vennlige vikingen (s. 31), forlaget Pax, Oslo 2010, ISBN 978-82-530-3359-4 Erik Gunnes: «Rikssamling og kristning», Norges historie bind 2 (s. 299), forlaget Cappelen, ISBN 82-574-0435-7 Den nordiske verden 2 (s. 190), Gyldendal 1992, ISBN 87-01-79040-4 Emblem, Libæk, Stenersen: Norge 1 (s. 36), forlaget Cappelen, ISBN 82-02-14174-5 Njåls saga, avsnitt 25 Maiko Yasuda: Mellom saga og historieverk (s. 43), UiS 2015 Den nordiske verden 2 (s. 190), Gyldendal 1992, ISBN 87-01-79040-4 Arnvid Nedkvitne: Ære, lov og religion i Norge gjennom tusen år (s. 120), forlaget Spartacus, 2011, ISBN 978-82-304-0070-8 Stephan Tschudi-Madsen m.fl.: Norges kulturhistorie: Kaupang og katedral (s. 221), Aschehoug, Oslo 1984, ISBN 82-03-11208-0 Sandvik, Gudmund: «retterbot» i Store norske leksikon på snl.no. Hentet 10. februar 2022 fra [2] Stephan Tschudi-Madsen m.fl.: Norges kulturhistorie: Kaupang og katedral (s. 205-08) Arnvid Nedkvitne: Ære, lov og religion i Norge gjennom tusen år (s. 117) Sverre Bagge: Mennesket i middelalderens Norge (s. 124-5), forlaget Aschehoug, Oslo 2005, ISBN 82-03-23282-5

T 2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:68B2:3BD7:B626:6563 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)