"Nevertheless, most medieval marriages were at least partially arranged, with the choice of spouse being more of a joint decision between parents and children, and with financial or political calculations also coming into play." Such a statement indirectly speaks about two absolutely opposed types of "love:" (the Medieval, i.e. true Catholic) one who was wisely oriented by the intellects (enlightened by the Supernatural Faith) of those involved in a matrimonial decision, and one - "passional," "carnal" love - based on the ephemeral impulses of the flesh without any implication of the intellect (i.e., reason).
Like most things in life marriage depends on the application of effort to make it fruitful. The best part of that is that the effort itself produces benefits to all three parts: each of the two spouses and the entity of the marriage itself.
I like this series. I especially also like the illustrations showing how God (Adam and Eve) or the priest (Mary and Joseph) joins the hands of each couple. Really thought-provoking.
Loved reading this thanks! I had assumed that simply cohabiting would be a dominant option given cost of weddings. This piece shed much more light on it for me….
You're welcome, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article! In medieval culture, generally speaking, cohabitation before marriage was not socially acceptable and would have been ruinous for the woman's reputation. And actually, weddings did not need to be expensive, especially since a private exchange of vows (no priest, no witnesses) was considered adequate for a valid and licit marriage (though clandestine marriage was not permitted). Later in the Middle Ages, banns and witnesses were required for a licit marriage, but private exchange of vows was still adequate for a valid marriage.
The valid vs licit issue is an interesting distinction I hadn’t thought about in terms of marriage, but makes sense. Similar to Catholics marrying each other in areas where priests only rolled through infrequently, and would thus later bless/legitimize their valid marriage?
Yes, it's really quite astonishing to think of the Church's willingness to entrust the Sacrament of Matrimony to the private actions of the spouses. As you pointed out, there are practical benefits to this, and it also makes sense given that Christian marriage transitioned gradually from a primarily secular, civil institution to an experience that was more thoroughly interwoven with the Church's laws and liturgies.
The idea of marriage between two people of the same sex would have been utterly unimaginable and utterly incomprehensible to the minds of medieval Europeans.
"Nevertheless, most medieval marriages were at least partially arranged, with the choice of spouse being more of a joint decision between parents and children, and with financial or political calculations also coming into play." Such a statement indirectly speaks about two absolutely opposed types of "love:" (the Medieval, i.e. true Catholic) one who was wisely oriented by the intellects (enlightened by the Supernatural Faith) of those involved in a matrimonial decision, and one - "passional," "carnal" love - based on the ephemeral impulses of the flesh without any implication of the intellect (i.e., reason).
Well said!
Thank you for both your excellent essay and encouraging words! Related to the mentioned two types of "love", look what I have found in some ancient pagan authors: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/7568-the-number-of-the-beast-and-ancient-wisdom-can-pagan-sages-help-us-decipher-the-mystery
Like most things in life marriage depends on the application of effort to make it fruitful. The best part of that is that the effort itself produces benefits to all three parts: each of the two spouses and the entity of the marriage itself.
This is well said. Thank you for commenting.
Great post, I found it very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
These are the kinds of things I wish I had been taught in school, rather than the awful caricature of the "dark ages."
You're welcome, thanks for commenting! The caricatures are truly awful, but fortunately there is also a lot of good medieval scholarship out there.
Very interesting.
Fascinating article, as ever we can learn a great deal from the medieval times. 😊
I like this series. I especially also like the illustrations showing how God (Adam and Eve) or the priest (Mary and Joseph) joins the hands of each couple. Really thought-provoking.
Yes, the images in this post show how central the joining of the hands was in medieval (or at least later-medieval) wedding ceremonies.
Loved reading this thanks! I had assumed that simply cohabiting would be a dominant option given cost of weddings. This piece shed much more light on it for me….
You're welcome, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article! In medieval culture, generally speaking, cohabitation before marriage was not socially acceptable and would have been ruinous for the woman's reputation. And actually, weddings did not need to be expensive, especially since a private exchange of vows (no priest, no witnesses) was considered adequate for a valid and licit marriage (though clandestine marriage was not permitted). Later in the Middle Ages, banns and witnesses were required for a licit marriage, but private exchange of vows was still adequate for a valid marriage.
The valid vs licit issue is an interesting distinction I hadn’t thought about in terms of marriage, but makes sense. Similar to Catholics marrying each other in areas where priests only rolled through infrequently, and would thus later bless/legitimize their valid marriage?
Yes, it's really quite astonishing to think of the Church's willingness to entrust the Sacrament of Matrimony to the private actions of the spouses. As you pointed out, there are practical benefits to this, and it also makes sense given that Christian marriage transitioned gradually from a primarily secular, civil institution to an experience that was more thoroughly interwoven with the Church's laws and liturgies.
thank you for the extra info! out of interest any ideas about same sex marriage back then?
The idea of marriage between two people of the same sex would have been utterly unimaginable and utterly incomprehensible to the minds of medieval Europeans.