People lived: Why "traditional" marriage is a myth
we hear all the time that traditional marriage collapsing, and homosexual and polyamorous relationships break down the family institution and its centuries-old tradition. The problem is that there is no “traditional marriage”: marriage at different times and for different nations depended on cultural attitudes and living conditions, and included a rather wide range of possibilities.
What can I say, if somewhere for the marriage did not have to stay alive. For example, in China, there is still a tradition of a posthumous marriage: before the ceremony was carried out for two dead people, so that people would not be alone in the afterlife, and over time the practice of marrying a living person and a dead man appeared. Even the usual heterosexual marriage in reality was far from the way we imagine it. We understand the myths that surround family relationships, marital standard and the rules of good marital tone.
Love has nothing to do with it
We are accustomed to consider love as the only (or at least the only socially approved) reason for marriage, but this was not always the case. Of course, romantic love existed at all times, but it was often considered that it was incompatible with marriage: too many meanings and functions were put into the marriage itself so that two lovers could make decisions on their own.
“The more I study marriage, the more I am convinced that he had nothing to do with the relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage was invented to be able to get new relatives,” says Stephanie Kunz, a researcher and author of several books on family history and marriage Marriages really pursued a variety of goals: they were needed to conclude strategic alliances and truces, to maintain the well-being of the family, to receive land and other property — love could arise in marriage, but it was not a cause, but rather a consequence. Remember Anthony and Cleopatra, who are considered one of the greatest love stories of the past - their marriage was also important from a strategic point of view. For prosaic reasons, representatives of the poorer segments of the population often also got married, for example, so that there were more hands in the family. In Russia, in the pre-Peter the Great, marriages were mostly contractual: relatives agreed on marriage — most often the parents of the couple, sometimes the parents of the bride and the groom. According to researcher Natalia Pushkareva, even in the seventeenth century, girls were not allowed to independently get acquainted and negotiate marriage. Not the last role was played by economic reasons - they were negatively related to mesallians.
Relatives agreed on marriage in Russia - most often the parents of the couple, sometimes the parents of the bride and the groom
The marriage of love, as we used to perceive it, began to appear only towards the end of the eighteenth century. For example, in Britain, love became the basis for marriage in the time of Queen Victoria - with the growing influence of the middle class, traditional socio-economic reasons for marriage began to fade.
At the same time, a married woman was in a more vulnerable position, since she was economically and legally dependent on her husband: and if a man could just marry for love, the woman had to not only love the chosen one, but also find someone who could provide it. For example, until the middle of the nineteenth century, American women could not own property: even if a woman worked, her income belonged entirely to her husband, who, in turn, was obliged to contain it.
According to the same Stephanie Kunz, love made marriage more enjoyable and comfortable - but at the same time it made the institution of marriage less stable, because human feelings were implicated in it.
Monogamy is not the only option.
One of the principles of marriage, which we consider to be indestructible, is monogamy. In reality, everything is more complicated. Polygamy, for example, is the most frequently mentioned form of marriage in the Pentateuch — the first five books of the Bible. Polygynya was found in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, India and more. True, it is important to bear in mind that far from everyone could afford to have several wives with children. In other countries there could be more complex models. For example, in Greece, only monogamous marriage was allowed, since only a child born in marriage was considered legal born - however, this did not prevent men from having sex and joining in bondage with slaves. Similarly, things were in ancient Rome.
There are notions of levirate (the custom by which a widow after her husband's death should marry his closest relatives) and sororat (the more rare custom by which a widower marries the sisters of the deceased wife).
In the Himalayas, several brothers traditionally married one bride in order to retain their land.
Historical and cultural explanations can be found for these traditions: for example, the tradition of marrying widows meant that children without a father would be taken care of; a situation where a widower marries his wife’s sister could help if the man is the last in his family and has no offspring.
Polyandry, or polyandry, less common, but also met. For example, in the Hindu and Buddhist communities in the Himalayas, several brothers traditionally married one bride in order to retain their land - this custom even survived until the twentieth century, but gradually faded away.
The fact that polygamy occurs today, everyone already knows - it is common, for example, in Muslim societies and among Mormons, as well as legally in South Africa under certain conditions - the current president of the country, Jacob Zuma, has four wives, and he was married. six times. Somewhere, like in Chechnya or Myanmar, polygamy is not allowed, but law enforcement is not strictly enforced.
Same-sex marriage existed before
One of the most frequent arguments of opponents of same-sex marriages is that they are supposedly “unnatural”. In fact, same-sex unions have existed throughout history in different cultures. Most often in these cases Ancient Greece and Rome are remembered - it is known that the Roman emperor Nero publicly married a man twice (though it’s worth mentioning here: he tried to make his second husband, a young man by the name of Dispute, his “wife” and even castrated him). In addition, homosexual relationships were not condemned in ancient China, Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Native Americans had the concept of “people with two souls,” or Berdashey, in modern terms, they can be called transgender people. Berdashi entered into relationships with people of both sexes - although it is difficult to apply modern ideas about sexuality and gender identity to them.
Another example that people like to give when they talk about same-sex marriages is the rite of adelpopoiesis (literally “brother-creating”, that is, sisterhood) that existed when two men were united in a spiritual platonic union — and this despite the fact that the Christian church Traditionally condemned same-sex unions.
Relations could not be registered
It is believed that in the modern world, marriage helps primarily in resolving legal issues: if the relationship does not matter whether a couple is married or not, then only official registration can help with legal issues like simplified citizenship. Nevertheless, marriage was not a legal construction for a long time: although the state and the church in different countries tried to take control of family life, people did not formalize their relationship for a long time. Even in the twelfth century in the UK, in order to get married, the couple did not need a ceremony, a priest or witnesses - the bridegroom and the bride had enough to exchange vows. The official ceremony and the priest appeared a few centuries later.
Researcher Natalya Pushkareva notes that marriage in Russia was primarily a civil deal, which the church simply blesses. Hence another hierarchy of ceremonies: a wedding without a wedding was not considered socially recognized, but a wedding feast without a wedding was a sure sign of the start of family life.
In the United States, an informal attitude towards marriage persisted even in the nineteenth century: state authorities respected the right to privacy for couples - it was believed that if a man and a woman live together, then they are probably married. So the popularity of an unregistered, or civil (as it is called in everyday life) marriage in our time is in a sense a return to tradition.
Not once and not forever
We used to think of divorce as a modern invention, but this is not so: the desire of people to part with each other exists as long as love itself. And even where divorces were banned or harshly denounced, people who did not want to stay in a relationship found a loophole. The most vivid example is Henry VIII, whose personal life is described with the phrase-mnemonic "divorced - executed - died, divorced - executed - survived." Heinrich twice managed to get the marriage annulled, and his actions are considered one of the reasons for the transition of England from Catholicism to Protestantism.
Both in Great Britain and in the USA, divorces became available in the nineteenth century. True, in order to get a divorce, we needed compelling reasons such as ill-treatment or treason, which still needed to be proved; In addition, not everyone in England could afford a divorce.
The rite of adelpopoiesis, literally “fraternization,” that is, twinning, suggested that the two men united in a spiritual platonic union.
It is difficult to judge how widespread divorces were in Russia in the pre-Peter the Great, but they certainly existed. The church did not approve remarriages, but many women married several times - and made decisions about it on their own. The laws of some lands, for example, allowed remarriage if the couple had no children. Both husband and wife in Russia could dissolve the marriage; The main reason for this was considered adultery. True, there was an inequality between men and women: if for a man, long-term relationships on the side or children from another woman were considered adultery, then a one-off relationship outside of marriage became a woman’s adultery.
By the eighteenth century, divorces became more common, although they remained quite rare, especially in the privileged class. Sometimes the spouses from the peasant class did not even apply for a divorce letter to the priest, but simply agreed among themselves and exchanged letters that they did not have any claims to each other, but the church did not approve of these actions.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Library of Congress / Montana Folklife Survey Collection, Library of Congress / Montana Folklife Survey Collection
