[899] Pollock and Maitland, II, 368. Cf. Dargun, Mutterrecht und Raubehe, 23 ff.

Besides the normal or full marriage of free men and women, just described, the law-books recognize concubinage, so-called "marriages" between the unfree, and unions between the free and the unfree. The church, by giving them a sacramental sanction, constantly strove to raise these irregular connections to the rank of genuine wedlock. See especially Koehne, "Die Geschlechtsverbindungen der Unfreien," in Gierke's Untersuchungen, XXII, 1-23; and the literature on the subject mentioned in the Bibliographical Note at the head of this chapter.

[900] That free marriage sometimes occurred is, of course, a conjecture. But see Dargun, Mutterrecht und Raubehe, 24 ff.; and Kohler, in ZVR., VI, 321, for the alleged survival of marriage ohne Mundium, which they assume to be a survival of Mutterrecht. This assumption, of course, is doubtful. Cf. Unger, Die Ehe, 105, 106. See chap. iv, above.

[901] "So long as marriage was a strictly civil [lay] ceremony, as well as a purely civil engagement, the bride's father or guardian performed the rite. It was he who took her by the neck and shoulders, and gave her to the bridegroom. He gave the symbolic shoe. In the Danish matrimonial rite of a subsequent period the father's part was even more impressive. In language, never in later times permitted to our English clergy, he declared himself the actual maker of the marriage, when, on hand-fasting the bride and groom, he said to the latter, 'I join this woman to you in honour to be your wife, with a right to half of your bed and keys, and to a third of your goods acquired or to be acquired, according to the law of the land and St. Eric. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'"—Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, I, 53. Cf. on the Danish "hand-fasting" Brand, Popular Antiquities, II, 87, 88; Bullinger, Christen State of Matrimonye, 43.

[902] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 50; cf. Lehmann, 13.

[903] "Processvormundschaft": Sohm, op. cit., 52.

[904] Tacitus, Germania, cc. 18, 19.

[905] These codes sometimes fixed a term within which a widow may not marry, but a second marriage is treated as entirely legal: Lex salica, c. 44: Behrend, 57-59; Lex saxonum, tit. vii, 3, 6: Walter, Corp. juris germ., I, 387; Lex wisigothorum, lib. iii, tit. 2, c. 1, tit. 4, c. 2, 7: Walter, I, 470, 471, 477, 478; Lex burgund., tit. 24, c. 1, tit. 52: Walter, I, 316, 330; Edictum Rotharis, cc. 178, 182, 188: Walter, I, 710, 711, 714; Æthelberht, 76; Æthelred, V, 21; Canute, 73, 74: Schmid, Gesetze, 8, 224, 310, 312. Cf. Habicht, Altd. Verlobung, 16 ff.; Sohm, Eheschliessung, 63, who differ as to the interpretation of the much-disputed c. 44, lex sal. de reipus; Grimm, Rechtsalt., 452; Schroeder, Güterrecht, I, 56, 57.

[906] Habicht, Altdeutsche Verlobung, 26, 27. The Saxon and Lombard laws allow the widow to appeal to her own family in case her legal tutor—that is, her deceased husband's family—will not consent: Habicht, 17, 18. On the freedom of the English widow see Roeder, Die Familie bei den Angelsachsen, 26 ff.

[907] Canute, II, 75: "and let no one compel either woman or maiden to him whom she herself mislikes, nor for money sell her; unless he is willing to give anything voluntarily."—Thorpe, I, 417. For the similar provisions of Gothic and Lombard law see Habicht, 23 ff.

[908] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 54. Sohm's theory of self-betrothal and self-Trauung is criticised by Friedberg, Verlobung und Trauung, 9, 11 ff. In general see Spirgatis, Verlobung und Vermählung, 6 ff.; Heusler, Institutionen, II, 286; and with Sohm's Eheschliessung, as below cited, compare his Zur Trauungsfrage, 12 ff.

[909] The ring is mentioned as arrha in Dig., xiv, tit. iii, 5, § 15; xix, tit. i, 11, § 6: Corpus juris civ., I, 189, 244. Arra appears in connection with sponsalia, Dig., xxiii, tit. ii, 38: Corpus juris civ., I, 297. Cf. Smith, Dict. Greek and Roman Ant., I, 193; Ludlow, in Dict. Christ. Ant., I, 142 ff.; Babington, ibid., II, 1807-9; Meyrick, ibid., 1105. Originally, we are told, the Roman lover presented his betrothed a plain ring of iron, in later days of gold, but did not receive one in exchange: Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, I, 456; Kulischer, in ZFE., X, 210. On the annulus pronubus and its acceptance by the Germans see Junius, De annulo romanorum; Müller, De annulo pronubo; Hofmann, Verlobungs- und Trauring, 829 ff.; Siegel, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 451; Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, I, 343; Bingham, Orig. Ecc., VII, 311, 313-16, 337, 339; Howlett, in Andrews's Curious Church Customs, 105, 107-9; Friedberg, Eheschliessung, 26 n. 3; Sohm, Eheschliessung, 54, 55.

In the marriage ceremony of the Greek church two rings are used, one of silver and one of gold; see ritual for espousals in the eastern church in Burn, Parish Registers, 141, 142; and in Bingham, The Christian Marriage Ceremony, 214 ff., 219; and cf. Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirche, 691; and Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 1105. The betrothal ring appears among the Slavs: Post, Familienrecht, 236. In mediæval England "a rush ring was supposed to possess some peculiar charm. Richard Poore, bishop of Salisbury, in his Constitutions, anni 1217, forbids the putting of rush rings, or any the like matter, on women's fingers, in order to the debauching them more readily," and he insists that some people thought that "what was thus done in jest was a real marriage": Burn, op. cit., 143. Cf. Douce, Illustrations of Shakespeare, I, 315-19; Wood, The Wedding Day, 232, 233, 241. On the various uses and symbolism of the ring among the Teutonic peoples read the lecture of Hodgetts, Older England, 125-57; and a valuable general treatise on the ring is Jones's Finger Ring Lore (London, 1890). Tegg, The Knot Tied, 309-37, has two chapters on the marriage ring; throughout Wood's The Wedding Day in all Ages and Countries much information on the subject will be found; and there is an interesting passage in Swinburne, Of Spousals, 207-9, quoted below, with other references, chap. vii, sec. 1.

The kiss at betrothal appears to have been borrowed by the Christians from older pagan custom, and it was first given legal importance by Constantine. If the kiss were given, he provided that, in case one of the parties died before the nuptials, the other party was entitled to inherit half the espousal donations: Cod. Theod., lib. iii, tit. 5, leg. 5; Cod. Just., lib. v, tit. 3, leg. 16: Corpus juris civ., II, 194. Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. 11: Ante-Nicene Faths., IV, 34, mentions the betrothal kiss as a heathen custom. Cf. Venables, in Dict. Christ. Ant., II, 905, 906; Bingham, Orig. Ecc., VII, 316; V, 75; Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, I, 343, 344. In England the priest joined in the ceremony of kissing at the nuptials. "In the Articles of Visitation in the diocese of London in 1554 is the following, 'Item, whether there be any that refuseth to kysse the Prieste at the solempnization of matrimony, or use any such lyke ceremonies heretofore used & observed in the Churche'": Burn, op. cit., 143; cf. Douce, Illustrations of Shakespeare, I, 112, 403; Wood, The Wedding Day, Index.

[910] See especially the careful monograph of Hofmann, Ueber den Verlobungs- und Trauring (Vienna, 1870); and compare Friedberg, "Zur Geschichte der Eheschliessung," ZKR., I, 370 n. 34, 372 n. 41; Spirgatis, Verlobung und Vermählung, 16, 17; Thrupp, The Anglo-Saxon Home, 48 n. 50. Dogmatic writers, of course, see in the ring an alleged Christian symbolism: cf. Brissonius, De ritu nuptiarum, 3 ff.; Klee, Die Ehe, 127-29; Göschl, Darstellung der kirchlich-christlichen Ehegesetze, 183 ff.; Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 28, 29.

[911] Adams, "Primitive Rights of Women," Hist. Essays, 35.

[912] Kulischer, "Intercommunale Ehe durch Raub und Kauf," ZFE., X, 208-10.

[913] The proof consists in the interpretation of the supposed symbolism. Thus the German lover, in early times, placed upon the bride's finger a ring made of a twig plucked from a tree upon his own land, the bride thus being "symbolically bound to the new locality": Unger, Die Ehe, 106. The thread or band is interpreted as the bond of the captive; and Kulischer gives the following illustration from northern custom:

runs a Swedish rhyme. In an Upland dance, the maiden sings:

To which the young man replies:

Sometimes these symbols are brought into connection with the sword—also, it is assumed, a survival of violence. Thus in an Anglo-Saxon picture of the eighth century the bridegroom reaches to the bride the ring upon a sword or staff: Kulischer, 209; cf. Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, I, 241, 242.

[914] Weinhold, op. cit., 343; Schroeder, Rechtsgeschichte, 700, note; Siegel, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 453, who ascribes the practice to the imitation of the court manners. Even now in the English ceremonial only the bride receives a ring, consistently with its origin in the arrha. Cf. Friedberg, op. cit., 38, notes.

[915] Friedberg, op. cit., 42, 43; Sohm, Eheschliessung, 54; cf. Roeder, Die Familie bei den Angelsachsen, 30 ff.

[916] That is, forms of the arrha.

[917] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 56; cf. Max Müller, Essays, II, 251.

[918] Friedberg, op. cit., 25.

[919] Sohm, op. cit., 67 ff.

[920] Ibid., 67, and the Italian ritual of the eleventh century in Anhang, II, 318, 319.

[921] Friedberg, op. cit., 25 ff., 93 ff., 62.

[922] Sohm, op. cit., 71 ff., 166 n. 31. The Fürsprecher or orator here mentioned, in accordance with the view of Sohm, must not be confused with the forespreca of the old English formulary above quoted; the latter was the guardian himself or a representative—a Processvormund: Sohm, 72.

[923] Sohm, op. cit., 67.

[924] Sohm, ibid., 166 n. 31, concedes this.

[925] A Zusammensprechen: Sohm, op. cit., 73.

[926] Ibid.

[927] A Zusammengeben: ibid.

[928] Ibid., 100 ff.

[929] See the ritual in Bingham, The Christian Marriage Ceremony, 163, 164; Tegg, The Knot Tied, 10 ff.; Moore, How to Be Married, 27 ff.

"This first part of the office was anciently termed the espousals, which took place some time before the actual celebration of marriage. The espousals consisted in a mutual promise of marriage which was made by the man and woman before the bishop or presbyter and several witnesses; after which articles of agreement of marriage (called tabulae matrimoniales), which are mentioned by Augustine, were signed by both persons. After this the man delivered to the woman the ring and other gifts, an action which was called subarrhation. In the later ages the espousals have always been performed at the same time as the office of matrimony, both in the western and eastern churches; and it has long been customary for the ring to be delivered to the woman after the contract has been made, which has always been in the actual office of matrimony."—Palmer, Origines liturgicae (1839); quoted also by Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, I, 68, who in his chapter on "Espousals" (op. cit., I, 60-87) gives much information relating to ancient betrothal customs. Cf. Brand, Popular Antiquities, II, 87-98 (betrothal customs).

[930] Liturgies of Edward VI., 128, 129; Liturgies of Elizabeth, 218, 219.

[931] See the "Ordo ad facienda sponsalia," in the Manuale et processionale ad usum insignis ecclesiae eboracensis: Surtees Society Publications, LXIII, 26, 27. The double ceremony also appears in the Sarum or Salisbury manual: Maskell, Monumenta ritualia, I, 56, 57: Surtees Society Publications, LXIII, Appendix, 18, 19; in the ritual of Hereford; that of the twelfth century contained in a Pontifical of the library of Magdalen College, Oxford; in that of the missal of Hanley Castle, Worcestershire, dating from the thirteenth century; and in that of the fifteenth century in the Harleian MS., No. 2860, British Museum; that of a Welsh manual of the same century, in the library of the dean and chapter of Hereford; while it is plainly discernible in the ritual of the twelfth century contained in the Ely Pontifical of Cambridge University library; and that of the Pontifical of Anianus, bishop of Bangor, 1268-1304: all printed in Surtees Society Publications, LXIII, Appendix, 116, 155-69. Cf. the rituals printed by Dieckhoff, Kirchliche Trauung, 73, 77, 89 ff.; and the Roman marriage service in Bingham, 177, 178, where the dualism appears; but in the ritual of Paul V. it is not retained, unless the subsequent giving of the ring may be regarded as the second part. The priest says: "M. vis accipere N. hic praesentem in tuam legitimam uxorem?" or "tuum legitimum maritum?" and on receiving the answer, "Volo," proceeds: "Ego conjungo vos in matrimonio": Rituali romanum Pauli Quinti (Rome, 1816), 199 f. See the discussion of the contents of the early rituals in chap, vii, below.

[932] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 101 ff. The text of this extremely interesting marriage ritual is printed in Friedberg, Eheschliessung, 26, 27; and in Sohm, Anhang, III, 319, 320. For a description of these early rituals see Weinhold, Deutsche Frauen, I, 340-48.

[933] Sohm, op. cit., 105 n. 70. On the ring in English rituals see Friedberg, op. cit., 38, note, 46, 47.

[934] Ibid., 30.

[935] Tacitus, Germania, 18: "intersunt parentes ac propinque." It was customary in the Middle Ages for the assembled friends to form a circle—Ring—about the betrothed couple during the ceremony. Publicity was made a legal requirement by Pippin: Walter, Corpus juris, II, 42. Friedberg, op. cit., 24 n. 4, gives also references to mediæval poems. He regards the practice of inviting a large number of friends as originating in the desire to secure publicity. Particular cities passed laws requiring the presence of witnesses; for example, Prague.

[936] Except the publication of banns hereafter mentioned.

[937] Lingard, Hist. of Anglo-Saxon Church, II, 5-7; Friedberg, Eheschliessung, 7; Sohm, Eheschliessung, 107, and chap. iv; Scheurl, Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 14, 15.

[938] Sohm, op. cit., 108 ff. That the church adopted the Roman marriage forms is the generally accepted view: see Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 24 ff.; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 4 ff.; Scheurl, Entwicklung des kirch. Eheschliessungsrechts, 8 ff.; idem, "Consensus facit nuptias," ZKR., XXII, 269 ff.; Biener, "Beiträge," ibid., XX, 119, 120; Richter-Dove-Kahl, Lehrbuch, 1029, 1030; Loening, Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 569 ff.; Dieckhoff, Kirchliche Trauung, 12 ff.; Moy, Eherecht der Christen, 94 ff., 215 ff., 372 ff.

On the other hand, Freisen, in Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht, LIII, 369 ff., holds that the early Christians followed mainly Jewish custom. Cf. idem, Geschichte des canon. Eherechts, 120 ff.

[939] Dig., xxiii, tit. i, 1: "Sponsalia sunt mentio et repromissio nuptiarum futurarum."—Corpus juris civ., I, 294. Cf. Sohm, Eheschliessung, 109, 110; Klein, Das Eheverlöbniss, 122 ff.

[940] By the older Roman law the betrothal was in form a contract by stipulatio, and there was an action for damage in case of nonfulfilment: Gellius, Noctes atticae, iv, 4; Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, II, 139, 140. The later law gave no such action: Dig., xxiii, tit. i, 10: Corpus juris civ., I, 291; Codex, V, 5; though to enter into two betrothals at once was held to constitute infamia, the same as two marriages: Dig., iii, tit. ii, 1: Corpus juris civ., I, 36. Cf. Ludlow, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 203; Klein, Das Eheverlöbniss, 22 ff., 125, 126; Riedler, Bedingte Eheschliessung, 11, 12; Scheurl, Entwicklung, 9-11; Loening, Geschichte des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 569, 570, who shows that after the third century the betrothal became more important in Roman law; Sehling, Unterscheidung, 20, 21, notes; Rein, Das röm. Privatrecht, 188, 189; Brissonius, De ritu nuptiarum (Paris, 1654), 1 ff.; Beauchet, Étude, 11 ff.; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 11, notes.

[941] But Sohm, Eheschliessung, 110, who was preceded by Glück, Güterrecht, 1, 97 ff., contends, against the common interpretation of the maxim consensus facit nuptias, that a merely "formless" consensus not followed by actual wedded life is not sufficient to constitute a Roman marriage. That would be practically a consensus sponsalitius or Roman betrothal. On the other hand, Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 7 ff., 138 ff., 157 ff., insists that by the Roman law a formless nuptial contract, whether followed by cohabitation or not, constitutes a binding marriage. Such also is the view of Dieckhoff, Kirch. Trauung, 15; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 4 ff., 11; and Scheurl, Entwicklung, 11. But Scheurl, "Consensus facit nuptias," ZKR., XXII, 269 ff., agrees with Sohm, in effect, though not avowedly. For, while he says that marriage by confarreatio, for example, would be a valid marriage, even if the parties never lived together, yet the Roman law, he points out, does not reveal the evils of clandestine unions, because the formless nuptial promise implied the common wedded life. Cf. also Bierling, "Kleine Beiträge," ZKR., XVI, 288 ff., who criticises Scheurl; Freisen, Geschichte des can. Eherechts, 101 ff.; and Rein, Das röm. Privatrecht (1836), 188, 189.

[942] "For even on earth children do not rightfully and lawfully wed without their father's consent."—Tertullian, To His Wife, Book II, c. viii: Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 48. According to Ulpian, in Dig., 1, tit. xvii, 1. 30, "Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit." But Paulus, ibid., xxiii, tit. ii, 1. 2, shows that the consensus "must be at once that of the parties themselves, and of those in whose potestas they are." See the excellent article of Ludlow, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 433-36.

[943] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 107-52; idem, Trauung und Verlobung, 58-109. In opposition to Sohm's view, Sehling, Unterscheidung der Verlöbnisse, 138 ff., 165 ff., contends that the sponsalia (betrothal and nuptial promises) of the mediæval canon law are derived from the law of Rome. Such also is the position of Zoepfl, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte (4th ed.), III, §§ 81 ff.; Schulte, Handbuch des kath. Eherechts (1855), 37, 278; Walter, Kirchenrecht (14th ed.), § 298; and Loening, Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 601, following Sohm in the main. Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 37, takes a medial position: "die Kirche bildete ihr eigenes Recht in Anlehnung an das deutsche Recht aus." Scheurl, Entwicklung, 93, 94, 95 ff., passim; idem, Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht, 14, 15, reviews and criticises Sohm on various points. Friedberg, Verlobung und Trauung, 25, contrary to the position taken in Eheschliessung, 6, 202, accepts Sohm's view, but with reservations. See also his Lehrbuch, 339 ff.

[944] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 107, 108. Cf. idem, Ob. Civilehe, 25; and Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 5 ff., who agrees with Sohm. The conservative view of the religious character of early Christian marriage is represented by Klein, Eheverlöbniss, 95 ff.; Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 20 ff., passim.

[945] The custom of benediction may have been influenced by Jewish practice. The Hebrew benediction was given "not necessarily by a priest, but by the eldest friend or relative present": Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1107, who gives the benediction in abridged form. Cf. Selden, Uxor ebraica, II, 12.

On the teachings of the Christian fathers as to the form of marriage see Martene, De ritibus, II, lib. I, c. ix, 120-44; Selden, Uxor ebraica, 179-84, 665-69, passim; Schubert, Die evangel. Trauung, 4 ff.; Loening, Gesch. des deutsch. Kirchenrechts, II, 573 ff.; Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 20 ff.; Friedberg, Lehrbuch, 337 ff.; Phillips, Lehrbuch, 612 ff.; Biener, "Beiträge," ZKR., XX, 119-27.

[946] Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp, IV: Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, 95.

[947] Tertullian, On Monogamy, xi: Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 67.

[948] Tertullian, On Modesty, v: Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 77. Cf. Meyrick, art. "Marriage," in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1106, who thinks, aside from the religious motive, members might thus avoid the violation of laws of the state with which they were unacquainted.

[949] Ludlow, on "Benediction," in Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 193; cf. the reading in Ante-Nicene Fathers, IV, 48.

[950] Ludlow, loc. cit.

[951] Ambrose, Book IX, ep. 70; Ludlow, loc. cit.

[952] Ludlow, ibid.; Selden, Uxor ebraica, Lib. II, cc. xxiv, xxv.

[953] Ludlow, op. cit., I, 194.

[954] In both East and West, between the sixth and seventh centuries: Ludlow, ibid.

[955] Tertullian, On Idolatry, xvi: Ante-Nicene Fathers, III, 71. Cf. Ludlow, on "Betrothal," op. cit., I, 203.

[956] Tertullian, loc. cit.; idem, On the Veiling of Virgins, xi: Ante-Nicene Fathers, III, 71; IV, 34. On the ring see Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 248, 249, 202; II, 1105, 1807, 1808; for the kiss see ibid., II, 905, 906. By the Theodosian Code, lib. v, tit. 3, leg. 16, one-half of the bridegroom's gifts, after his death, were delivered to his betrothed in case the betrothal were sealed by a kiss; otherwise all was given to his relatives: ibid., II, 1110. In England, and elsewhere, the kiss was a characteristic of public spousals; and when these were recognized by the church the kiss was sanctified by the priest: Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, I, 65-67; Brand, Pop. Antiq., II, 139-41. Cf. also Méril, Des formes et des usages, 37, 38; Spirgatis, Verlobung und Vermählung, 16, 17. The veil was originally used at the betrothal, from the time of which ceremony onward in early days it was worn habitually by the betrothed as well as by the married woman: Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1108, 1109.

[957] Ludlow, on "Arrhae," in Dict. Christ. Antiq., I, 142-44: Meyrick, ibid., II, 1105.

[958] For the crowning in the eastern church see Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 135, 156, 692 ff.; cf. Martene, De ritibus, I, 125. The crown was made of flowers, often of olive or myrtle, and sometimes of silver or gold. The custom appears in the West, but it became at length so important in the East that the "whole marriage was called the crowning, as in the West it was called the veiling": Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1108, 1109; cf. ibid., I, 511. The pomp is, of course, the Greek pompa: Fustel de Coulanges, Ancient City (Boston, 1896), 55 ff., corresponding to the Roman traductio and the German Brautlauf.

[959] Pope Nicholas (A. D. 860), in his replies to the Bulgarians, who had asked his counsel concerning marriage rites, says concerning the nuptials: "First of all they are placed in the church with oblations, which they have to make to God by the hands of the priest, and so at last they receive the benediction and the heavenly veil." On this letter see Selden, Uxor ebraica, Lib. II, c. xxv, 179; Martene, De ritibus, I, 124, 125; Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 47 ff.; Beauchet, Étude, 34. From this letter and the statements of the Fathers concerning the benediction, already mentioned, Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1106, 1107, concludes, "There is no reasonable doubt that the place in which Christians were ordinarily married was a church, so soon as it became safe and customary for them to meet in churches for religious purposes, and that the way in which they were ordinarily married was by a religious ceremony," though especially in the East (Chrysostom, Hom. xlviii, in Gen., c. 24) the religious ceremony often took place in houses. But so far as western Christendom is concerned, the sources show that marriage in church was of slow growth. Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals, I, 48, 49, doubts whether the Anglo-Saxons always celebrated marriage in their homes.

[960] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 153 ff., insists that the priestly benediction, unless here and there by local custom, was connected with the nuptials (Trauung) and not with the betrothal, which he regards as the essential element in marriage. But Dieckhoff, Die kirch. Trauung, 20 ff., 30 ff., 47 ff., 65 ff., claims that from the earliest period among the Christians it was customary for the priest to bless the betrothal; and that at least from the fourth century the same is true of the nuptials. In his Zur Trauungsfrage, 17, note, Sohm seems to accept Dieckhoff's view, while denying anything but religious meaning to the benediction in either case.

Siricius, Epist. ad Himer., § 4, mentions a "benediction of the priest at betrothal, of so solemn a nature as to make it sacrilege in the betrothed woman to marry another man;" but this epistle may be spurious: Meyrick, in Dict. Christ. Antiq., II, 1106. Cf. Scheurl, Entwicklung, 24, 25; Sehling, Unterscheidung, 25, notes, 110; Loening, op. cit., II, 573; and, for the eastern church, Zhishman, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche, 126, 135, 156, 672, 289 ff., passim.

[961] Sohm, Eheschliessung, 157. This stage of the bride-mass is disclosed by the oldest sacramentaria, of about the fifth century; and the same ritual was in use in the Frankish church in the ninth century.

[962] Friedberg, Eheschliessung, 78-93, where numerous proofs from the mediæval poets and other sources are given; but sometimes marriage in church appears. Cf. Sohm, op. cit., 159 n. 16.