Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Keith502 t1_j9z4jlg wrote

OK, I recently uploaded a post to r/history but the mods took it down for some reason and then referred me here. I think it's an important historical question, so I still wanted some input. The question is as follows:

In most of the Western world, the path of a man and woman to becoming married typically begins with a relatively casual, informal encounter between them. After this informal encounter, the man and woman begin engaging in dating activities and begin referring to each other as “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”. This relationship is initiated by the couple themselves and organized by the couple themselves. The interpersonal chemistry and intimacy between the man and woman gradually grows throughout the duration of the dating process. At the couple’s discretion, the man and woman may or may not include sexual intercourse as a part of their dating process. Whether or not the couple have sex while dating is usually of little concern to anyone else beside themselves. If things between them don’t work out, they informally break up; if things do work out, the man, of his own accord, will likely ask the woman to marry him. Whether and when they get engaged is entirely at the discretion of the couple themselves. The choice of the couple getting married is typically based on their mutual chemistry and love for one another.

This is more or less the custom of romantic courtship that most of the developed world is familiar with. But it’s my understanding that this custom is not the way it has always been. From ancient times, it appears that arranged marriage was the norm for how a man and woman got involved in a romantic relationship that would lead to marriage. Typically, a bachelor or his parents would go to the parents of the woman that the bachelor wanted to marry and would offer the woman’s parents a bride-price. (Or alternatively in some cultures, the parents of a woman would offer a payment of dowry to the family of a bachelor to give away their daughter in marriage to the bachelor.) The beginning of the relationship was arranged largely from outside the couple by family members of the couple, rather than the man and woman directly choosing each other. The initial encounter between the man and woman appears to be more formal and organized. After the bride-price or dowry is paid and the man and woman are now betrothed, a marriage date between them is planned upon. Often the man and woman know each other very little, if at all; thus there is often little or no real chemistry or romance between them at the time of marriage. The couple get socially acquainted with each other after their marriage instead of before. The woman is often forbidden from fornicating, and is expected to maintain her virginity while still a maiden, and only give up her virginity to her betrothed as a consummation of their marriage. This preservation of her virginity ensures that her husband’s eventual heir is genuine and will be able to carry on the husband’s bloodline. Furthermore, the woman’s virginity is of great concern to her parents, as the betrothal of a virgin daughter will fetch a higher bride-price for the family; alternatively, a non-virgin daughter may be of far less value, if she can even be married away at all. The betrothal between the man and woman is essentially a formal monetary transaction between the families of the man and woman. The couple’s relationship has less of a romantic purpose and more of a social purpose, involving the covenant between the two families in order to ensure a progeny and a family life for their respective son and daughter.

Here’s my question: At some point in history the arranged marriage system became phased out in most of the developed world and was replaced by the more informal system of men and woman getting girlfriends and boyfriends, respectively. When did this happen? Why did this happen? What social or historical forces led to this change in how people engaged in romance? How did the concept of the "boyfriend/girlfriend" develop?

4

jezreelite t1_j9zr6pt wrote

The turning point, at least among elites, began in the late 18th century. By the 19th century, the choices of the couple began to count for more and the traditional methods of arranged marriages had began dying out.

For example, Queen Victoria's mother and maternal uncle both wanted her to marry one of their Coburg nephews, but rather than outright arrange the marriage, they just invited Ernest and Albert to visit her often and hoped she would take a shine to one of them (which, as we all know she did). Victoria and Albert then used similar methods to marry off their nine children. Marriages weren't outright arranged as they had been in the 18th century and earlier, but the royal children instead were introduced to other suitable royals in hopes that they would meet someone they liked. This still isn't quite like modern dating and marriage, but it's still not traditional arranged marriage, either.

Among British nobility in the 19th century, there was also a change from more traditional arranged marriages to allowing some degree of choice with the birth of the London social season, which became the time for unmarried children of nobles and gentry to find matches. While they are fiction, Sense and Sensibility and Bridgerton both depict the London season.

It's more difficult to gauge changes among common people, but it is known that the Industrial Revolution is one main catalyst in the changing of marriage and courtship. One problem is that records of peasant marriages in the medieval and Early Modern Period are sparse, so comparing and contrasting is not as easy as it for royalty and nobility.

5

Keith502 t1_ja0kh5l wrote

Good information. Thanks for the response.

1

shantipole t1_j9zyzd6 wrote

First, ask yourself why the old system was the default and when those factors that caused the old system to be the default changed. The old system wouldn't persist across millennia and multiple cultures if it didn't, as a practical matter, work.

Second, I think your recitation of the state of affairs was overly-cynical and so you missed the point. Marrying for love is not the historical norm because romantic love doesn't indicate success in a life that was fairly precarious. Romantic feelings for your partner were certainly a good thing, but marriage was more an extremely involved with each other business partnership. It was thought of in terms of: you were joining your life to this other person, and joining your families (at least to the extent that you might call on them for help but it'd be nice if they could work together e.g. raising a barn for the couple), and probably were subsistence farming together (so you were heavily reliant on each other's abilities in order to not starve), and rearing children together (who would take care of you when you were old). You need to pick someone who will be at least a minimum level of successful in life or you suffer and maybe die. Plus, your pool of potential partners is relatively small...people didn't travel and how many people of marriageable age were within a 1-day walk?

And divorce was very frowned upon in the Christian West. It was a very high-stakes decision that was very difficult to undo. Romantic love was not a factor that would make this a success or not, plus it was common that most couples would grow to love each other at least somewhat over time (Ned and Catelyn Stark in the book of A Game of Thrones is a good example, though obviously fictional and nobility), so romantic love was basically a non-factor.

So, you see older-and-wiser people basically making the decision by arranging marriages because they were making the best decision for those children in light of the likely consequences for making a bad decision. And you see things like older men marrying younger women because the man has proven he's successful enough, removing the risk for her. While she would be young enough that her risks in childbirth were (relatively) low and her energy and ability to care for a large (remember: farming) family were high, removing risk for him. It's not about exploitation but about reducing risk (though, of course, people are terrible and so you do see examples of exploitation).

For romantic love to be a dominant factor, you need to see the consequences of a bad choice of partner somehow be lessened or disappear. Or, put another way, you need to see a system with romantic love making at least as good a choice for.the couple as the old system. When and what those factors exactly were depends on the culture, time period, etc., and are something you can research, but there's a reason it correlates with industrialization.

4

Keith502 t1_ja0kd9z wrote

Thanks for your response. Would you happen to know of any particular books or any specific fields of research that pertain to my question?

2

jezreelite t1_ja137xq wrote

For the foundations of Western ideas about marriage (most of which were formulated in the Middle Ages out of a mixture of Roman law, Christianity, and Germanic and Celtic law and customs), try:

  • How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage from its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent by Philip L. Reynolds
  • The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest: The Making of Modern Marriage in Medieval France by Georges Duby
  • Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe by James Brundage
  • Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages by Frances and Joseph Gies

The Gieses' book is the best to start with, because it's aimed at laymen rather than scholars.

For a read about the shift from arranged marriage to companionate marriage based on romantic love came about, try Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephanie Coontz.

4

GSilky t1_ja418zz wrote

Love marriages were always a thing in western society, but only when a lot of property wasn't on the line. Aristocrats continued the arranged marriage scheme, possibly even today, because of the economic and political concerns, as well as classism, that marriage and offspring create. Other societies that rely on arranged marriage almost always have a very strong class consciousness and a view of the family as the primary social organization; religious communities also tend to have matchmakers and such, Anabaptists and Jews come to mind, in order to keep the community going. You saw a greater acceptance of love marriages with the transition to a money based economy as property and real estate became less important and the position of women changed. Urbanism also increased the trend as children and wives became relegated to being biological toys and showpieces rather than equal partners in the family franchise.

1

Keith502 t1_ja5e7z1 wrote

Would you say that the rise of feminism or the women's rights movement had any influence on the shift towards dating and love marriage?

1

GSilky t1_ja5zuxa wrote

Maybe. It's also possible the reverse is the case, as a major aspect of romantic love is regard for the partner. Can you refuse something to one your in love with? I don't mean to say that men's weakness lead to women's rights, but maybe a little bit of respect was created?

1