As ever, both the practices and the rules for marriage formation differed considerably across Europe. We know best, of course, the sorts of marriages that later served as subjects of litigation. Marriage practice in medieval Europe, as many scholars have urged, is best understood as a process, a process that may have begun either in a haystack or with a meeting between parents and a notary and might involve several stages that sometimes involved the local church and sometimes did not. In London, couples often married in the home of the bride’s parents or in another home, in a tavern or in a public hall, and ideally but by no means necessarily in public, with witnesses.21 Marrying couples and their families in London seem to have often skipped a visit to church but nevertheless married with ritual, publicity, and in stages.22 Across England couples often promised to marry in the present tense—that is, saying “I marry you” and sometimes, if they followed through on the marriage, reiterating these promises at the church door.23 In Italy—if one dare generalize about so diverse a place—couples often married in private homes and with a marriage contract drawn up by a notary.24 Marriage in Spain at least sometimes included a blessing in or near a church, at least more often than in Italy, if not perhaps as often as ecclesiastical officials preferred.25 In Sweden, marriage might take place at the church door, but canonical insistence on the free consent of the bride came into conflict with older, secular traditions that required the consent of the bride’s “marriage guardian,” usually her father or closest living adult male relative. A priest who married a couple without the marriage guardian’s consent could face a considerable fine.26 Before the Council of Trent, or before the various Protestant churches changed the rules for marriage formation (or, in the case of England, did not), for the most part officialities became involved only when a party or parties initiated a marriage dispute in court.27
Meanwhile, records from fifteenth-century northern France and Burgundian lands reveal a difference in marriage practice and in marriage regulation. The broadly similar patterns of marriage practice and litigation found in northern France and the Burgundian lands offer many contrasts to marriage practice and litigation found in England, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany: many contrasts in the rules, in the regulatory attitude of courts, and in social practice. As alluded to already, synodal statutes detailed strikingly high requirements for entrance into marriage without risk of legal penalties, requiring not only publicity and a priest’s blessing but also documentation proving that an aspiring spouse was free of prior marriage bonds.28 Such requirements could, of course, be avoided by means of a clandestine marriage, but those who married without banns, a priest, and some paperwork might face fines and investigation into the validity of the marriage. Even so, many more couples seem to have made use of the church door and the blessing of a priest in northern France than elsewhere, for engagements as well as for marriages.29
Engagements took place in a variety of ways, described in different terms in the court registers. Common practice included an exchange of promises in the future tense made in any number of more or less formal or intimate venues, but the church door and a priest’s blessing seems to have been the intended destination for most marriages.30 Creantare, a Latinate rendering of the French word creanter, was used, at least in Champagne—and in Switzerland and the Savoy region, if evidently nowhere else—to mean a sort of engagement that took place in a home, often over a meal and with family and neighbors present, or in private. A typical informal contract of this type might involve promises to marry toasted with a drink or sealed with a gift such as a flower or a coin.31 These informal promises to marry were technically illegal but were valid and binding forms of engagement nonetheless. The Troyes officiality collected a fair number of fines from couples who had exchanged vows in this way.
Other forms of engagements were made with more formality and publicity. These engagements and marriage often involved Church participation in some form, either full in facie ecclesie vows with the announcement of banns and at a parish church or less public espousals made in a chapel or with the participation of an ordained cleric. Canon law and court registers made use of different terminology for these more formal forms of engagement and marriage, though these differences are difficult to understand. Carole Avignon has argued that the terms “affidationes” and “sponsalia” should have been used for future and present-tense engagements respectively. “Desponsatio” and “sponsalia” in late medieval practice developed different meanings. “Desponsatio” came to mean a marriage, while “sponsalia” still referred to an engagement, consistent with older, Roman usage.32 In any case, the court in Troyes does not seem to have managed always to uphold these distinctions.33
All this reveals considerable local variety. When it comes to the rules and practices of marriage formation, when it comes to the distance between law and court practice and the actual behavior of couples who married, we find with late medieval marriage a complex state of affairs indeed. Depending on when and where a Christian lived, the rules and the social norms differed considerably. Nevertheless, despite all this great variation in local practice, the canon law of marriage did not vary on the validity of clandestine marriage. Canon law, seemingly despite itself, required only an exchange of promises for a marriage to be valid, and so a great number of people who had promised one thing or another were technically married, if they liked it or not, and some people had good reason not to be sure of their marital status.
So was clandestine marriage the dominant factor in marital litigation that thrust the institution of marriage into crisis? And if so, how? It is clear that the availability of clandestine marriage created some problems. But where precisely did these problems with clandestine marriage lie? There is, after all, more than one possibility. Martin Luther and John Calvin both, along with many staunch Catholics, believed that the canon law of marriage posed a major challenge to parental authority. Many scholars have concurred, reading the later Middle Ages largely through Luther’s eyes. Yet careful modern studies of the late medieval sources have provided little support for this belief. Nor do the late medieval sources reveal any widespread problems with the exploitation of clandestine marriage as practiced to conceal a violation of one of the many incest prohibitions. Here again, recent research does not bear out the hypothesis that clandestine marriage—because of incest prohibitions—was the burning issue.
In point of fact, it was not clandestine marriage but remarriage, as this book will demonstrate, that was the great and burning problem that led to crisis. Inevitably, the canon law of marriage created immense difficulties for abandoned or confused spouses scattered throughout western Europe. In such circumstances, it could be difficult indeed to prove that an absent or reluctant spouse was indeed your spouse. Moreover, remarriage compounded the problem, as many of those men and women entered into new unions, doing so both clandestinely and also publicly. As Church officials themselves recognized, Christians married all too often, binding themselves first to one and then to another spouse and sometimes even yet another, marrying more times than legally possible.
Clandestine marriage certainly played a part. The Church’s own rules on marriage formation contrasted sharply with the rules that virtually prohibited both dissolving any valid marriage and supplementing another spouse while a first lived. The disparity between the ease with which people could marry and the absolute refusal to allow any person, once married, to take another spouse while the first spouse lived set up a stark conflict. It meant in principle that people could easily enter into marriages they might later want to escape, and also that they could easily enter into second marriages despite being already committed elsewhere. This was precisely the objection to clandestine marriage that we find in the mid-sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, which finally declared clandestine marriage invalid. Despite the belief that consent alone made a marriage,