(Vol. ii., p. 196.; Vol. v., p. 413.; Vol. vii., pp. 193. 288.)
I do not know whether you will permit me to occupy a small portion of
your valuable space in an attempt to suggest an origin of the custom of
throwing an old shoe after a newly married bride.
Your correspondents assume that the old shoe was thrown after the bride
_for luck_, and for luck only. I doubt whether it was so in its origin.
Among barbarous nations, all transfers of property, all assertions and
relinquishments of rights of dominion, were marked by some external
ceremony or rite; by which, in the absence of written documents, the
memory of the vulgar might be impressed. When, among Scandinavian
nations, land was bought or sold, a turf was delivered by the trader to
the purchaser: and among the Jews, and probably among other oriental
nations, a shoe answered the same purpose.
In Psalm lx., beginning with "O God, thou hast cast me off," there
occurs the phrase, "Moab is my washpot, over Edom have I cast out my
shoe." Immediately after it occurs the exclamation, "O God! who has cast
us off!" A similar passage occurs in Psalm cix.
By this passage I understand the Psalmist to mean, that God would
thoroughly cast off Edom, and cease to aid him in war or peace. This
interpretation is consistent with the whole tenor of the Psalm.
The receiving of a shoe was an evidence and symbol of asserting or
accepting dominion or ownership; the giving back a shoe, the symbol of
rejecting or resigning it.
Among the Jews, the brother of a childless man was bound to marry his
widow: or, at least, he "had the refusal of her," and the lady could not
marry again till her husband's brother had formally rejected her. The
ceremony by which this rejection was performed took place in open court,
and is mentioned in Deut. xxv. If the brother publicly refused her, "she
loosed his shoe from off his foot, and spat in his face;" or, as great
Hebraists translate it, "spat before his face." _His_ giving up the shoe
was a symbol that _he_ abandoned all dominion over her; and _her_
spitting before _him_ was a defiance, and an assertion of independence.
This construction is in accordance with the opinions of Michaelis, as
stated in his _Laws of Moses_, vol. ii. p. 31.
This practice is still further illustrated by the story of Ruth. Her
nearest kinsman refused to marry her, and to redeem her inheritance: he
was publicly called on so to do by Boaz, and as publicly refused. And
the Bible adds, "as it was the custom in Israel concerning changing,
that a man plucked off his shoe and delivered it to his neighbour," the
kinsman plucked off his shoe and delivered it to Boaz as a public
renunciation of Ruth, of all dominion over her, and of his right of
pre-marriage.
These ceremonies were evidently not unknown to the early Christians.
When the Emperor Wladimir made proposals of marriage to the daughter of
Raguald, she refused him, saying, "That she would not take off her shoe
to the son of a slave."
There is a passage in _Gregory of Tours_ (c. 20.) where, speaking of
espousals, he says, "The bridegroom having given a ring to the fiancée,
presents her with a shoe."
From Michelet's _Life of Luther_ we learn, that the great reformer was
at the wedding of Jean Luffte. After supper, he conducted the bride to
bed, and told the bridegroom that, according to common custom, he ought
to be master in his own house _when_ his wife was not there: and for a
symbol, he took off the husband's shoe, and put it upon the head of the
bed--"afin qu'il prit ainsi la domination et gouvernement."
{412}
I would suggest for the consideration of your correspondents that the
throwing a shoe after a bride was a symbol of renunciation of dominion
and authority over her by her father or guardian; and the receipt of the
shoe by the bridegroom, even if accidental, was an omen that that
authority was transferred to him.