Western Wedlock:
The Changing Roles of, and Attitudes
Toward Marriage In Modern Western History
English 112
Trevor Barry
Hilary Turner
November 17, 2001
“Marriage was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence.” (Gen
2:18-24) And ever since there has been
a struggle for humanity to return to ‘Paradise,’ or to determine the route
required to get there. Over the vast
span of human history, man and woman have come together for the pleasures of
love, the procreation of the species, and sometimes more importantly, for the
social, political and economical advantages of their families. Many factors have attributed to the changing
structures and procedures of the family unit.
The past 500 years in particular can illustrate a dynamic shift in
marriage practices and formalities. It
is my intent to show how the last five centuries in western society, especially
British and Canadian societies as examples, have included a wide range of
attitudes towards marriage and family life, how these changes were induced, and
to make comparisons between their effects on the roles of family members and
the family unit as a whole. Some of the
factors include: the general changes in western culture and society since the
Renaissance, the rise of Protestantism, the governmental and economical shifts
from feudal (aristocratic) to capitalist (democratic) systems, the decline in
the church’s authority, the changing roles women in society, and the advent of
multiculturalism. From these changes I
will attempt to compare how the concept of love has changed, the practice of
marriage and courting has evolved, and the pros and cons between these
systems. Throughout my analysis I will
draw on the works of educated scholars, literary documentation, and personal
observation.
In the 16th
Century, Europe was in the midst of a cultural and social restructuring known
as the Renaissance. This widespread
revival of sorts would leave the map of the western world greatly affected and
often disorganised for some time to come.
From this time was born a new era in cultural practices and intellectual
freedoms. However, one aspect that
would become tangled in a mess of confusion and misunderstanding was the human
condition of love, and the conception of marriage.
Before the movements that
threatened the powers of the aristocracy, most peoples would marry for
love. A man and a woman would meet one
another and form an affectionate bond between them. So long as there were no immediate qualms between their
respective camps, such as a clash of classes for example, the two lovers would
exchange oral private vows between each other and God above, and, with the
witness of two bystanders, be married.
In England, this system was passed on by Anglo-Saxon traditions, and was
known as Affective Matching (Nadler 41). By this means of marriage in early canonical law, the couple were
either ‘engaged,’ per verba de futuro, and could separate only if they
hadn’t already had sex, or they were formally wed, per verba de praesenti, and
were unable to detach. This system was
based on the belief that mutual love and attraction were the true assets needed
for successful marriage. This belief
was generally accepted and also shared later on by the Protestant philosophy of
“marital union as a blessing and benefit for the husband and wife.” (Nadler
36) It is ironic to note however, that
this practice was commonplace in the devoutly Catholic and church controlled
lives of Europe at the time, yet the advent of Protestantism actually coincided
with the rise in practice of Church Vows and Arranged Marriages, more
indicative of a Catholic system, which I will comment on later. However, this seemingly ideal standard based
on mutual attraction, when compared to the often-criticized practice of “The
Forced Marriage” (a play by Behn), was not as different to the undesirable
practice as it seems, as we shall soon find out. Indeed, the practice of Affective Matches did have many economic and
social parallels to the formalities of the Arranged Marriage that would replace
it for many years to come. For
instance, the family of the love-stuck groom would offer the bride’s family
monies called weds in order to attain her with approval. This practice inevitably lead to the
practice of Jointure in Arranged Marriages, where the groom’s family would be
responsible for taking care of the bride if ever she became widowed. This trend, as pointed out by Nadler (42),
and the other parallel of spousal witnesses can be shown to draw the
connection between the two systems that dominated the third quarter of the last
millennium. By Catholic ideology, the
more witnesses that were in attendance at the Affective Matches’ exchange of
personal vows, the more serious and legal this marriage was considered; this
immediately lends itself to the practice of Church Vows that became mandatory
in England in 1604 (Nadler 36). From
the information presented here, one can infer that the former practice was in
accordance to the human condition of romantic love. Women were able to avoid unwanted mates, as were men. Although a woman’s role in this marriage
would still be considered submissive by today’s standards, the mutual respect given
to one another in the bond would ensure dedication from both parties, and less
probable chance for marital problems to occur.
In Shakespeare’s Much Ado
About Nothing, which we assume to be written around the turn of the 16th
Century, we see two young lovers, namely Claudio and Hero, drawn toward each
other by means of simple, romantic love.
Claudio speaks to his friend Benedick about his affections, “Benedick,
didst thou note the daughter of Signior Leonato?” and later exclaims, “In mine
eye, she is the sweetest lady that ever I looked upon.” (I. i.) Yet, as innocent and unselfish as this young
man seems to be, he cannot be ignorant of the politics of marriage, and thus
seeks advice from his mentor Don Pedro: “My liege, your highness now may do me
good…. Hath Leonato any son, my lord?”
(I. i.) Despite his affectionate love he
feels toward his lady Hero, Claudio is no doubt relieved when Don Pedro replies
“No child but Hero, she’s his only heir.” (I. i.) These quotes indicate that even the most passionate of love,
cannot be blind to the results attained by marriage, even in a young lover’s
eyes. The play goes on to address other
factors of courtship and marriage, specifically marriageability when the
antagonist of the play deceives our protagonists into suspecting Hero’s
innocence and chastity. Such factors
will be addressed later on, after the discussion of Arranged Marriages.
The results of the previous
marriage procedure differ greatly from those of the Arranged Marriage,
made commonplace in the new economic regime of the 17th
Century. As Miriam Slater comments in Family
Life in the Seventeenth Century:
Its primary purpose was
therefore quite unlike that of the romantic marriage in which the psychological
and physiological needs of the partners are considered to be of paramount
importance. Arranged marriages provided
a solution to the problem of the preservation of property, but the emotional
and physical needs of the couple were peripheral considerations. In so far as the needs of the individuals
involved were considered secondary to the rational objectives of preserving
property and securing legitimate heirs….
Moreover, if the arranged marriage sometimes failed to offer very much
in the way of personal satisfaction, it was an excellent vehicle for the
attainment of certain social advantages. (61)
Since the Renaissance, many peoples under the
thumbs of the aristocracy during feudal times rose to become slightly less
powerful members of the Upper Class; below these arose the increasingly
strengthening Middle Class of merchants and small property owners. This caste-system declined more and more as
the effects of Industrialisation began to come into affect. During these times, marriage was really
nothing more than a necessary business venture between two families, each
trying to get ahead in the competitive changing economy. Thus, marriage went from being a courtly
affair to a market for young brides.
A girl’s most important attribute was her marriageability, not
her personal qualities. This changed
everything: the roles of family members, their lifestyles, and their relationships. As Lawrence Stone indicates in his work
entitled The Family, Sex And Marriage In England 1500-1800, “The three
objectives [from marriages] were the continuity of the male line, the
preservation intact of the inherited property, and the acquisition through
marriage of further property or useful political alliances.” (37). Families with young women would spend much
of their time trying to marry-off their daughters. Since women during this time were not a very important part of
the economy or workforce, this act of marrying off one’s daughters became of
greatest importance. An unmarried
daughter was nothing more than a costly burden on the family. Families with an eldest son would ‘shop’
around for the best deal on a bride for their heir. When the two families decided on the match (for mutual monetary
gain), neither bride nor groom had much (if any) say in the matter. The father of the bride would give the
groom’s father a Dowry or Portion, and in
return, the Groom’s family became responsible for the bride: should anything
happen to her husband and she be left a widow, a Jointure was to be
given to her to keep her cared for.
After agreements were sealed, Church Vows would join the couple in
matrimony, and nothing could be done to change it. Under this system there was more economic security, but at the
expense of love and affection. As
Nadler makes mention of Behn’s play, The Town Fop, young lovers Bellmour
and Celinda are torn apart by the times.
Although they have sworn their hearts to each other in an Affective
Match, each has been directed by their family to marry another in an Arranged
Marriage. From this insight from
theatre at the time, we see that there was much animosity to such arrangements.
As mentioned earlier with
respect to dramatic insight on marital issues, Shakespeare’s Claudio becomes
concerned with the state and condition of his bride’s marriageability. And rather than talk to her about it, he
dishonours her at their wedding.(IV. i.)
Claudio’s actions would not seem unjust to Shakespeare’s immediate
audiences. Such virtues in women, and
especially one’s bride, were all too important to be dealt with kindly. Again, I will draw on the knowledge of
Miriam Slater:
Since a high
premium was placed on female virginity as a factor in determining a lady’s
marriageability, it was very important that her reputation should be above
suspicion. Obviously, if she were
actually deflowered before a marriage settlement was concluded she made… ‘[a] shipwreck
of her honour and conscience, both which must be preserved before and above all
other things.’ The latter calamity also
meant that she was ‘fit for no other.’… The condition of a woman’s chastity was
necessarily extrapolated from other indications.” (78-79)
From these sources, it is evident that during
this time, women had a much more difficult life to lead than men, especially
when you consider that a “husband who found himself tied to an incompatible
partner could seek relief by recourse to the accepted, if not applauded,
alternative of extra-marital affairs” (Slater 61), which are condemned, even in
today’s western views -- views known for their very liberal attitude toward
sex.
Likewise,
as it was difficult for women and lovers in the times of arranged marriages, so
too was it difficult for younger sons.
Since the tradition of primogeniture (Stone, 38) meant that all
inheritances should be passed down to one heir (being the eldest son), younger
boys in the family had a difficult time attaining a gentleman’s lifestyle – one
capable of providing monies enough to attract a bride (or perhaps more
appropriately, a bride’s family). This
often meant that there were far too many bachelors, even though there were
sufficient maidens who could fill some needed positions. In general, this era in western history was
very difficult for the lovers of the world.
Many of these practices stayed intact throughout the 18th and
19th Centuries. In fact,
some may argue that (relative to that of a man) the importance of a lady’s
reputation has stayed considerably high even into our own 21st
Century.
However,
with the populating of the Americas, and the changes brought about by the
French, American, and Industrial Revolutions, came considerable changes in the
ways of marriage. These factors, along
with the social, economic, and governmental changes that accompanied them,
brought rise to what Stone refers to as The Companionate Marriage (Chapter
8). Yet despite these dynamics that
occurred in our most recent history, literature from and about these times
still show that a heavy emphasis was still attached to a person’s
reputation. In her notable work, Pride
and Prejudice, Jane Austen shows us that to most women’s consciences during
the early 19th Century, reputation was a main concern. Her main character, Elizabeth, after having
just received word from her missing sister, Lydia, is outraged at how her
sister could have been so foolish to have basically stolen away to elope with a
man without leaving any indication as to her whereabouts: “Oh! Thoughtless,
thoughtless Lydia! … But at least it shews, that she was serious in the
object of her journey…” (189) The
latter half of this quote shows how Elizabeth’s main concern was that her
sister’s letter could be used as a means to prove to others that, despite her
sister’s ignorance of proper conduct, Lydia felt justified in her own mind to
be with this man before any formal arrangements. Taking another example out of literature, we will examine the
Salem, Mass. Witchcraft trials of 1692 as presented by Arthur Miller in The
Crucible. In the extreme puritan
villages of early America, even a man’s reputation was up for scrutiny. Miller’s tragic hero John Procter falls
victim to the unjust procedures of puritan villages. He refutes accusations of witchcraft by confessing to
adultery. This ultimately leads to his
reputation being lost and he is sentenced to death unless he admits to the
witchcraft he did not commit. In the
final scene of the play, Proctor refuses to sign a written statement of his
witchcraft, saying that if repentance to God alone is not sufficient, then it
is better to die than to have his name ruined in paper:
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my
life! Because I lie and sign myself to
lies! Because I am not worth the dust
on the feet of them that hang! How may
I live without my name? I have given
you my soul; leave me my name!” (Miller 143)
The point to get across here is that even men,
given certain social conditions, fall subject to the accusing eyes of
reputation.
Nevertheless,
despite these examples of continued difficulty in love, the recent centuries
have brought with them changes to the system of marriage. In fact, even in Pride and Prejudice,
Elizabeth is able to refuse her cousin, Mr Collins’, marriage proposal, though
her mother would have it so:
“You are too hasty,
Sir…. You forgot that I have made no
answer. Let me do it now without any
farther loss of time. Accept my thanks
for the compliment you are paying me. I
am very sensible of the honour of your proposals, but it is impossible for me
to do otherwise than decline them.” (Austen 73).
It
may be important to mention, however, that we can note that her discourse in
her refusal is quite polite and civil.
Also important to realise is that Elizabeth’s father, Mr Bennet, could
probably have persuaded her if he had agreed with her mother’s desires to have
them married. The fact that Mr Bennet
himself did not have any interest in seeing his daughter married to his foolish
kinsman was probably most fortunate for Elizabeth.
Indeed,
the last few centuries in particular have seen revolutions and advancements in
the marriage circle. Finally, we do see
Stone’s The Companionate Marriage taking effect. So long as there be a father’s blessing, a
young man, despite birth or class (to a certain extent), is entitled to any
bride who may take him. Likewise, women
have become much more able to attract those men whom they are interested
in. However, tradition was still a
strong force in this time, and elaborate church weddings and family involvement
in the new family’s affairs were commonplace.
It is now my intent to look
at the effect of globalization, and in particular, how the diversity of a young
nation like Canada has changed the way society conducts the act of courtship
and marriage. With colonial expansion
came increased diversity in culture, religion, and capitalist-style ability for
anybody to become wealthy. This advent
gave rise to a lower distinction of class, nationality, and faith in
marriages. In early Canadian history,
voyageurs began to take on native wives, and landed peasants’ sons and
daughters from different home countries and religious backgrounds began to
marry one-another. Later, too, came
multiculturalism (especially in Canada) and the introduction (eventually) of
inter-racial marriages. Also, with the
social movements of the last century, feminism in the post-war world etc., have
come a number of changes in the attitude towards marriage as a necessity at
all.
When early settlers began populating
North America, a fair bit of social standards were dissolved in favour of new
ones. For instance, since areas were
being filled with peoples of different backgrounds, and as these peoples’
children became peers of one another in classrooms, etc., relationships between
people of different backgrounds developed.
Along with this trend came changes in social systems, due to a
collaboration of different systems into new ones. With time came more and more diversity. The eventual effect is a modern society where many traditional
value systems and social standards have either been dissolved, or totally
recreated.
In his research Courtship,
Marriage, and the Family in Canada, G. N. Ramu discusses some of the trends
of modern society towards a more liberal view on sex, premarital sex, and
sexual ‘petting’. (Ramu 7-10). Ramu
finds that in general, among devout religious groups, especially Catholics and
Jews, the tendency is to lean more conservatively, and be less inclined to
practice or accept premarital sex or sexual petting. Another (equally unsurprising) tendency found was that in
general, men are more inclined to be acceptive towards the notions brought
forth in the surveys conducted in the study.
Yet another fact that was shared across the board, was that there was
less acceptance toward woman being involved in these acts, than toward
men. In his account, The Family and
Marriage in Britain, Ronald Fletcher comments, “In modern marriage, both
partners choose each other freely as persons.
Both are of equal status and expect to have an equal share in taking
decisions, and in pursuing their…tastes and interests.” (Fletcher 130) He also comments later, “The changed
position of women is of particular importance…. With the improvement in
education and in the occupational opportunities of women, with their equal
right to pursue their interests and develop their talents, with the practice if
birth control, and also with the extended expectation of life, the position of
the woman in the family has been changed more fundamentally than many realise.”
(Fletcher 131) This information lends
itself to the fact that nowadays, women have more social potential after they
are finished mothering than they have had in times past. For modern women, after the age of forty and
after their children have left the home, they can still be an active member of
the workforce for twenty or so years, and lead productive lives with their
husbands after that. From my own
observations, I can validate things trends.
I also notice that such acceptances as inter-racial marriages are
commonplace more and more. Along with
them (unfortunately perhaps), are the acceptances of premarital sex, common law
relationships, and even sex without affection.
For the lovers of the world,
it has come full circle, ie. 360 degrees, rather than 180 degrees. Let me explain. Over the last 500 years, the main oscillation has been between
marriage by free choice, and marriage by family arrangement. Although in today’s western society, we are
once again able to marry for love by mutual affection, and live independently
from the eyes of public scrutiny, it is this writer’s opinion that our gains
are met by equal losses. Although I may
marry a member of another race, although I may marry a member of another class,
political circle, or cultural or religious background – I have lost many
opportunities for innocent love, romantic love, or true love altogether. With the paradigm shift towards greater
acceptance of sex and the increasing absence of marriage, along with greater
divorce, the lovers of the world have less and less to strive towards. As our desires become easier and easier to
attain, thus dwindles the joy or the appreciation – the love – in
attaining them. A marriage is no longer
as romantic as it once was. Nor with
the declining spirituality of people in general does love have as powerful an
emotional euphoria as it used to. If
marriage is no longer required to have sex, why marry? If marriage need not exist, why love? If love does not exist, why live? It may be important to consider how the
western views and attitudes toward marriage evolved over the last 500 years,
not so we may be appreciative for what we have, but rather perhaps, so we may
determine the good points of love’s past struggles, and incorporate these into
our own changing practices. If not,
humanity may suffer from the worst conclusion all together: “Shape without
form, shade without colour, / Paralysed force, gesture without motion.” (T S Eliot,
“The Hollow Men”)
Indeed, it is important – as it is important with all things – to consider the past when interpreting the present, and when designing the future. Sometimes, the journey overshadows the destination. Let us learn from our mistakes; and in the end, like in all journeys – after struggling to get back on the path – humanity may, can, and will return to ‘Paradise.’
Austen,
Jane. Pride and Prejudice. London: W. W. Norton and Company Ltd., 2001.
Behn, Aphra. The Town Fop.
Eloit, T. S. The Hollow Men.
Fletcher,
Ronald. The Family and Marriage
in Britain: An Analysis and Moral Assessment. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1966
Miller,
Arthur. The Crucible. New York:
The Viking Press, Inc, 1971
Nadler,
Sheryl. “Aphra Behn’s Conflicted View
of Marriage in The Town Fop.”
Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Theatre Research (2nd
series) 1.1 (1994): 34-50
Ramu, G. N. Courtship, Marriage, and the Family in
Canada. Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited,
1979
Shakespeare,
William. Much Ado About Nothing.
Slater,
Miriam. Family Life in the
Seventeenth Century: The Verneys of Claydon House. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, 1984
Stone,
Lawrence. The Family, Sex and
Marriage In England 1500-1800.
Markham, ON: Penguin Books Ltd,
1979