MARRIAGE CEREMONIES AND RITES
Among primitive men marriage was, of course, contracted without any
ceremony whatever; and this is still the case with many uncivilized
peoples. Among the Eskimo, visited by Captain Hall, “there is no
wedding ceremony at all, nor are there any rejoicings or festivities.
The parties simply come together, and live in their own tupic or
igloo.”[2528] The Bonaks of California, according to Mr. Johnston,
have no marriage ceremony. The man simply speaks to the girl’s
parents, and to the girl herself; and, if the couple live together for
some time harmoniously, they are considered husband and wife.[2529]
Among the Comanches, too, “there is no marriage ceremony of any
description;”[2530] and the same is said of several other aboriginal
tribes of America,[2531] as also of the Outanatas of New Guinea,[2532]
the Solomon Islanders,[2533] and the Tasmanians.[2534] In Australia,
wedding ceremonies are unknown in most tribes, but it is said that
in some there are a few unimportant ones.[2535] In the Hill Tribes
of North Aracan, marriage “is a simple contract unaccompanied
by ceremony.”[2536] So also among the Khasias,[2537] Chalikata
Mishmis,[2538] Aino,[2539] Negroes of Bondo,[2540] &c.
Marriage ceremonies arose by degrees and in various ways. When the
mode of contracting a marriage altered, the earlier mode, from having
been a reality, survived as a ceremony. Thus, as we have seen, the
custom of capture was transformed into a mere symbol, after purchase
was introduced as the legal form of contracting a marriage. In other
instances the custom of purchase has survived as a ceremony, after it
has ceased to be a reality.
According as marriage was recognized as a matter of some importance,
the entering into it came, like many other significant events in human
life, to be celebrated with certain ceremonies. Very commonly it is
accompanied by a wedding feast. Among the Nufi people, for example,
the nuptials consist of the payment of the bride-price followed
by eating and drinking.[2541] Among the Wanyoro, the wedding is
celebrated by a great deal of feasting, and the bride is taken by a
procession of friends to her new lord.[2542] Often the feast continues
for several days, a week, or even longer.[2543] In Mykonos, of the
Cyclades, according to Mr. Bent, ten or fifteen days of festivity
usually accompany a marriage.[2544] Among some peoples, the expenses
are defrayed by the bridegroom,[2545] in others by the father of the
bride.[2546] Probably, in the former cases, the feast is considered
almost a part of the purchase sum, whilst in the latter it is, perhaps,
occasionally regarded as a compensation for the bride-price.
The marriage ceremony often indicates in some way the new relation
into which the man and woman enter to each other. Sometimes it
symbolizes sexual intercourse,[2547] but far more frequently the living
together, or the wife’s subjection to her husband. Among the Navajos,
the ceremony merely consisted in eating maize pudding from the same
platter;[2548] and among the Santals, says Colonel Dalton, “the social
meal that the boy and girl eat together is the most important part of
the ceremony, as by the act the girl ceases to belong to her father’s
tribe, and becomes a member of her husband’s family.”[2549] Eating
together is, in the Malay Archipelago, the chief and most wide-spread
marriage ceremony.[2550] The same custom occurs among the Hovas,
Hindus, Esthonians, in Ermland in Prussia, and in Sardinia.[2551] Again
in some Brazilian tribes, marriage is contracted by the husband and
wife drinking brandy together.[2552]
In Japan, where the ceremony seems to be regarded as the least
important part of the whole proceeding, it consists in the drinking by
both parties, after a prescribed fashion, of a fixed number of cups of
wine.[2553] In Scandinavia, the couple used to drink the contents of a
single beaker—a custom which also occurs in Russia.[2554] The joining
of hands, or the bridegroom’s taking the bride by the hand, is, as Dr.
Winternitz remarks, one of the most important marriage ceremonies
among all Indo-European peoples.[2555] The same custom occurs among
the Orang-Banûwa of Malacca;[2556] whilst, among the Orang-Sakai,
“the little finger of the right hand of the man is joined to that of
the left hand of the woman.”[2557] At Khasia weddings, “the couple
about to be married merely sit together in one seat, and receive their
friends, to whom they give a dinner or feast.”[2558] Among the Veddahs
of Ceylon, the bride ties a thin cord of her own twisting round the
bridegroom’s waist, and they are then husband and wife. This string is
emblematic of the marriage tie, and, “as he never parts with it, so he
clings to his wife through life.”[2559] The Hindu bride and bridegroom,
again, have their hands bound together with grass.[2560] Among the
Gonds and Korkús, the actual marriage ceremonies consist, in part,
of “eating together, tying the garments together, dancing together
round a pole, being half drowned together by a douche of water, and
the interchange of rings,—all of which may be supposed to symbolize
the union of the parties.”[2561] In many parts of India, bride and
bridegroom are, for the same reason, marked with one another’s
blood,[2562] and Colonel Dalton believes this to be the origin of the
custom, now so common, of marking with red-lead. Thus, the Parkheyas
use a red powder called “sindúr,” the bridegroom sealing the compact
by touching and marking with it the forehead of his bride.[2563]
Among the Australian Narrinyeri, on the other hand, a woman is
supposed to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to
her husband’s hut, and making his fire for him.[2564] The Negroes of
Loango contract their marriages by the bridegroom’s eating from two
dishes, which the bride has cooked for him in his own hut.[2565] In
Dahomey, according to Mr. Forbes, there is no ceremony in marriage,
except where the king confers the wife, “in which instance the maiden
presents her future lord with a glass of rum.”[2566] In Croatia, the
bridegroom boxes the bride’s ears in order to indicate that henceforth
he is her master.[2567] And in ancient Russia, as part of the marriage
ceremony, the father took a new whip, and after striking his daughter
gently with it, told her that he did so for the last time, and then
presented the whip to the bridegroom.[2568]
Many of the ceremonies observed at our own weddings belong to the
classes here noticed. The “best man” seems originally to have been the
chief abettor of the bridegroom in the act of capture; the nuptials are
generally celebrated with a feast in the house of the bride’s father,
and the wedding-ring is a symbol of the close union which exists
between husband and wife.[2569] Even the religious part of the ceremony
has its counterpart among many Pagan nations.
It was natural that a religious character should be given to nuptials,
as well as to other events of importance, by the invoking of divine
help for the future union. In Hudson’s Island, says Turner, “hardly
anything could be done without first making it known to the gods
and begging a blessing, protection, or whatever the case might
require.”[2570] Among the Dyaks, one of the eldest male members of
the assembled party smears at the wedding the hands of the bridegroom
and bride with the blood of a pig and a fowl, implores the protection
of the male spirit, Baak, and the female spirit, Hiroeh Bakak, and
recommends the married couple to their care, wishing them all sorts
of earthly blessings.[2571] Among the Gonds, sacrifice to the gods,
and unlimited gorging and spirit drinking are usually the wind-up of
the wedding.[2572] In Patagonia, the husband, after having brought
the bride into his hut, makes a sacrifice to the foul spirit; and the
Macatecas, a tribe subject to the Mexican empire “fasted, prayed,
and sacrificed to their gods for the space of twenty days after their
marriage.”[2573]
Most commonly a priest is called to perform the religious rite. “The
marriages of the Fijians,” Wilkes says, “are sanctioned by religious
ceremonies.... The Ambati, or priest, takes a seat, having the
bridegroom on his right and the bride on the left hand. He then invokes
the protection of the god or spirit upon the bride, after which he
leads her to the bridegroom, and joins their hands with injunctions to
love, honour, and obey, to be faithful and die with each other.”[2574]
This, however, happens principally among the chiefs; among the common
people, the marriage rites are less ceremonious, the priest of the
tribe only coming to the house and invoking happiness upon the
union.[2575] The Tahitians, too, considered the sanction of the gods
essential to the marriage contract. The preliminaries being adjusted,
the parties repaired to the temple, where the priest addressed the
bridegroom usually in the following terms:—“Will you not cast away
your wife?” to which the bridegroom answered, “No.” Turning to the
bride, he proposed to her a like question, and received a similar
answer. The priest then addressed them both, saying, “Happy will it be
if thus with you two.” He then offered a prayer to the gods on their
behalf, imploring that they might live in affection, and realize the
happiness marriage was designed to secure.[2576] In the Kingsmill
Islands, the priest presses the foreheads of the young couple together,
and pours on their heads a little cocoa-nut oil; then he takes a branch
of a tree, dips it in water, and sprinkles their faces, at the same
time praying for their future happiness and prosperity.[2577] Among the
Kukis, the young couple are led before the Thémpoo, or priest, “who
presents them with a stoup of liquor out of which they both drink,
while he continues muttering some words in his unknown language;”[2578]
and, among the Khyoungtha[2579] and Garos,[2580] a priest beseeches the
gods to bless the union. Among the Igorrotes of Luzon it is a priestess
that performs the marriage ceremony, praying to the spirits of the
deceased in the presence of all the kinsfolk of the couple.[2581] The
Jakuts require the shaman’s assistance for their nuptials,[2582] and so
did formerly the Kalmucks.[2583]
The religious ceremonies connected with marriage are not limited to
prayers, sacrifices, and other means of pleasing the gods; efforts are
also made to ascertain their will beforehand. In Siam, the parents of
the parties solicit the opinion of some fortune-teller on the point
whether the year, month, and day of the week when the couple were born,
will allow of their living happily together as husband and wife.[2584]
Among the Chukmas, “omens are carefully observed, and many a promising
match has been put a stop to by unfavourable auguries.”[2585] The same
is the case with other peoples of India,[2586] the Mongols,[2587]
some Turkish nations,[2588] &c. In several countries it is considered
a thing of the utmost importance to find out the right day for the
wedding, by consulting the stars or otherwise.[2589]
Among civilized nations marriage is almost universally contracted
with religious ceremonies either with or without the assistance of a
priest. The ancient Mexicans were married by their priests,[2590] and
so were the Chibchas[2591] and Mayas.[2592] In Nicaragua, the priest,
in performing the ceremony of marriage, took the parties by the little
finger, and led them to a fire which was kindled for the occasion. He
instructed them in their duty, and, when the fire became extinguished,
the parties were looked upon as husband and wife.[2593]
By Buddhist monks marriage is regarded only as a concession to human
frailty, and, in Buddhistic countries, it is therefore a simple civil
contract;[2594] nevertheless, it is commonly contracted with some
religious ceremony, and often with the assistance of a lama.[2595] In
China, the bridal pair are conducted to the ancestral hall, where they
prostrate themselves before the altar, on which the ancestral tablets
are arranged.[2596] Among the Hebrews, marriage was no religious
contract, and there is no trace of a priestly consecration of it either
in the Scriptures or in the Talmud. Yet, according to Ewald, it may
be taken for granted that a consecration took place on the day of
betrothal or wedding, though the particulars have not been preserved in
any ancient description.[2597] Among the Mohammedans also, marriage,
though a mere civil contract, is concluded with a prayer to Allah.[2598]
“Les lois des peuples de l’antiquité,” M. Glasson says, “avaient un
caractère à la fois religieux et civil; il n’est donc pas étonnant
qu’elles aient le plus souvent fait du mariage un acte à la fois
religieux et civil.”[2599] In Egypt, at least during the Ptolemaic
period, the wedding is supposed to have been accompanied by a religious
ceremony.[2600] Among the ancient Persians, the betrothal was performed
by a priest, who joined the hands of the couple whilst reading some
prayers.[2601] The Hindus used by prayers and sacrifices to invoke
the help of the gods at their weddings.[2602] According to Sir W. H.
Macnaghten, marriage is among them “not merely a civil contract, but a
sacrament, forming the last of the ceremonies prescribed to the three
regenerate classes, and the only one for Śudras; and an unmarried
man has been declared to be incapacitated from the performance of
religious duties.”[2603] In Greece, marriages were generally, though
not always, contracted at the divine altars and confirmed by oaths,
the assistance of a priest, however, not being requisite. Before the
marriage was solemnized, the gods were consulted and their assistance
implored by prayers and sacrifices, which were usually offered to
some of the deities that superintended the union of the sexes, by the
parents or other relations of the persons to be married. For marriage,
as Musonius says, “stands under the protection of great and powerful
gods;” and Plato teaches us that a man shall cohabit only with a woman
who has come into his house with holy ceremonies.[2604] From the
Homeric age we have no instances of marriages being contracted with
sacrifices and religious rites, but we must not therefore take for
granted that they were entirely wanting.[2605] The Teutons, according
to Weinhold, looked upon marriage as an important and holy undertaking,
about which it was necessary that the gods should be consulted; and
offerings were probably in use among all peoples of this branch of the
Aryan race.[2606] The Romans, at their nuptials, made a sacrifice,
named _libum farreum_, to the gods, and the couple were united with
prayer.[2607] In the mode of marriage called _confarreatio_, the
Pontifex Maximus seems to have instructed them in the formulas, and
some modern authorities even believe that he performed the marriage
ceremony. But Rossbach thinks that this was scarcely the case in early
times, when every house-father himself was a priest.[2608] Besides
sacrifices and prayers, auspices formed a very important part of a
Roman wedding; and, if the gods were found to be opposed to the match,
the nuptials were put off or the match was abandoned. Even Cicero
considered it wicked to marry without auspices.[2609]
It has been suggested that, among primitive Aryans, religious
ceremonies were requisite for the validity of marriage.[2610] This was
certainly not the case in historical times either among the Greeks
or among the Teutons; and at Rome such ceremonies were obligatory
only in _confarreatio_.[2611] But this form of marriage peculiar
to the patricians, derived its origin from a very early period,
and Rossbach remarks that the farther back we go in antiquity, the
more strictly we find the religious ceremonies attended to.[2612]
In _confarreatio_ they were essential even in the eye of the law,
whilst in _coemptio_ and _usus_ sacrifices and auspices were merely
of secondary importance.[2613] Later on, when indifference to the old
faith increased, they became more and more uncommon, till at the end of
the period of the Pagan Emperors, they were almost exceptional, being
regarded as a matter of no significance.[2614]
Christianity gave back to marriage its religious character. The
founder of the Christian Church had not prescribed any ceremonies
in connection with it, but in the earliest times the Christians, of
their own accord, asked for their pastors’ benediction. This was not,
indeed, a necessity, and for widows sacerdotal nuptials were not
even allowed.[2615] Yet from St. Paul’s words, “Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο
μέγα ἐστίν”[2616]—in the Vulgate translated, “Sacramentum hoc magnum
est,”—the dogma that marriage is a sacrament was gradually developed.
Though this dogma was fully recognized in the twelfth century,[2617]
marriage was, nevertheless, considered valid without ecclesiastical
benediction till the year 1563, when the Council of Trent made it an
essentially religious ceremony.
Luther’s opinion that all matrimonial affairs belong not to the
Church, but to the jurists, was not accepted by the legislators of the
Protestant countries. Marriage certainly ceased to be thought of as a
sacrament, but continued to be regarded by the Protestants as a Divine
institution; hence sacerdotal nuptials remained as indispensable as
ever.
It was the French Revolution that first gave rise to an alteration in
this respect. The constitution of the 3rd September, 1791, declares
in its seventh article, title ii., “La loi ne considère le mariage
que comme contrat civil. Le pouvoir législatif établira pour tous
les habitants, sans distinction, le mode par lequel les naissances,
mariages et décès seront constatés et il désignera les officiers
publics qui en recevront les actes.”[2618] To this obligatory civil act
a sacerdotal benediction may be added, if the parties think proper.
Since then civil marriage has gradually obtained a footing in the
legislation of most European countries, in proportion as liberty of
conscience has been recognized. The French system has lately been
adopted in Germany and Switzerland; whilst other nations have been
less radical. “Tantôt,” says M. Glasson, “on a le choix entre le
mariage civil ou le mariage religieux, en ce sens que l’union bénie à
l’église vaut en même temps, d’après la loi, comme mariage civil: c’est
ce qui a lieu en Angleterre et en Espagne. Tantôt le mariage religieux
est une condition de la validité du mariage civil, comme en Roumanie.
En Italie, on peut indifféremment célébrer l’une ou l’autre des deux
unions la première. Enfin, il y a des pays où le mariage civil joue
un rôle purement secondaire: en Autriche, en Portugal, en Suède, en
Norwége, il est subsidiaire; en Russie il n’a été établi que pour les
sectaires.”[2619]
Civil marriage, implying the necessity of the union being sanctioned
by secular authority, is not a merely European institution. Among the
ancient Peruvians, the king convoked annually, or every two years, at
Cuzco all the marriageable young men and maidens of his family. After
calling them by name, he joined their hands, and delivered them to
their parents. Such marriages among that class were alone denominated
lawful; and the governors and chiefs were, by their offices, obliged
to marry, after the same formalities, the young men and women of the
provinces over which they presided.[2620] In Nicaragua also, marriage
was “a civil rite, performed by the cacique.”[2621] And among the
savage Pomo of California, who have two chiefs, a “war-chief” and a
“peace-chief,” the latter, as being a kind of _censor morum_, has to
perform the marriage ceremonies, so far as they extend, _i.e._, he
causes the parties to enter into a simple covenant in presence of their
parents and friends.[2622] Again, among certain tribes no marriage
is permitted without the chief’s approval. But such cases seem to be
exceptions among non-European peoples, especially those of a lower
culture, marriage being generally considered a private matter, with
which the authorities or the community have nothing to do, if only it
takes place between persons who, by law or custom, are permitted to
intermarry.
In this chapter reference has often been made to the validity of
marriage. A lawful marriage is, indeed, quite a different thing from
a marriage in the natural history sense of the term. The former,
which is contracted under the formalities and in accordance with
the stipulations prescribed by the written or unwritten laws of the
country, implies the recognition by society both of the validity of the
union and the legitimacy of the children. Every people is not so happy
as the Nukahivans, among whom, according to Lisiansky, no such thing as
illegitimacy is known.[2623] The Greeks regarded a union into which the
woman entered without dowry as concubinage, rather than as marriage.
Among other peoples purchase is the only way of contracting a valid
marriage. So it was with the ancient Germans and Scandinavians.[2624]
So it is with the Californian Karok, among whom the children of a
woman who is not purchased are accounted no better than bastards and
constitute a class of social outcasts who can intermarry only among
themselves.[2625] Often certain ceremonies are required for a marriage
to be legal. Thus the Romans considered an alliance made without
_sponsalia_, _nuptiæ_, and _dos_, concubinage.[2626] Among the Nez
Percés in Oregon, the consent of the parents is all that is necessary
for a marriage to be valid; sometimes, when the parents refuse their
consent, a run-away match occurs, “but it is not regarded as a legal
marriage, and the woman thereafter is considered a prostitute, and is
treated accordingly.”[2627]