CHAPTER XIX

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]