medieval men in love @bexthebard - Tumblr Blog

Feb 9

Can't believe I didn't post it here! So game timeline according to the game!

Starting with kcd 1. This is the very first journal page so we know it started in Spring.

2. The Skalitz raid was a documented one, and by the weather and everything else, I doubt they changed the month so it's March

3. Henry stays in bed for 2 weeks after getting hurt.

4. Hans says it's only been a few weeks since they knew each other at the end of Kcd 1 so this game happens in a month at best. So take March/April as kcd 1.

5. Rattay to Trosky is 3 days ride/ 2 days if the weather is good so we're still in say April.

6. The next exact date we get is June during Via Argentam, and by then we are in Kuttenburg. So April/May/June is Trosky to Kuttenburg.

7. It matches with Sigismond attacking Kuttenburg in dec 1402 to now. (Dec-June) being 6 months

7. Next is Henry saying it's only been a few months since Martin died. So it tracks with that happening from March to June.

8. Now the siege alone takes another month. If u do the 3rd dlc, u know 30 days of summer is already gone. Now that could be when the siege was going on or after the siege. All in all, the game ends in July/August.

That's about it! Now I really wish they would start kcd 3 with Vienna since it only happens in Nov. Close enough from kcd 2

PS: There's another timeline included in game but that's an oversight from the devs. During the band of bastards, the guy Kuno goes to fight against at the end, sent a letter to Radzig with his signed name and date June, which is impossible when by 2/4 June, Henry is in Kuttenburg

#kcd #reference

bexthebard

Feb 4

croquettish

Medieval Wedding Ceremonies

So ages and ages ago, a very sweet anon came into my inbox to ask me about medieval weddings (for Hansry fic purposes of course), as they found that everything they discovered seemed to offer conflicting information. I promised to look into it, and then I fell into a research rabbit hole. Full bibliography at the bottom.

First and foremost, it doesn't surprise me that anon found that things differed as much as they did. It makes sense if you consider that there were countless regional differences. A wedding in France might look very different from a wedding in Bohemia. Case in point:

"... in the copies of Liber Extra produced in France, the illuminations related to marriage all show the joining of the right hands in the presence of a priest. In the Italian copies, the priest is often absent, and the dextrarum iunctio [the joining of the right hands] does not exist. Instead, the transfer of the ring is the central motif." (Visual Representations of Weddings in the Middle Ages)

To make matters worse, artists that depicted weddings often drew these based on their culture and not on the culture of the region.

So! What do we know?

Wedding traditions were originally taken from the Romans, including the necessity of consent from both parties, monogamy, and witnesses. (This might surprise you, but consummation was not always necessary or even wanted.) Unlike with the Romans, divorce was not allowed.

What we took from the Romans:

The handclasp in a variety of configurations (with the joining of the right hands being seen as a union of body and soul and thus translating to legitimacy, while the left hands being joined stood for spiritual union; this model for the dextrarum iunctio came directly from the Bible, where Tobias was given the right hand of Sarah by her father)

The marriage contract

Floral wreaths for couples

Originally a public ceremony or church service weren't necessary, and an agreement could be sufficient. Wording here mattered, and there was a difference between a future promise at betrothal, “I will marry you,” for instance, and the statement “I do marry you,” in the present tense. If you were just talking about a non-specified future Intent in a non-specified future, that was important and could matter, but in theory this did not permit consummation and could be rescinded.

The crowning of the couples with the floral wreaths was contentious, with some church leaders saying it was too pagan (crowning still continued to be very popular, though the crowns were generally kept within the church and meant to be symbolic of God blessing the union, though they could be "borrowed" for the day by the couple, only to be returned later), but a similar problem existed with the idea of the bride wearing a veil, which became increasingly popular as well. Though it was originally viewed as Problematic on account of Pagan associations, the early church fathers really wanted to adopt it and insisted on it being a symbol of sanctity of a Christian marriage. Wearing a veil was not generally allowed if you were getting married a second time.

Finally, we have the groom giving the bride a betrothal ring while the bride hands over a dowry or "dos." This could be a sack of money or something more specific, including things like "wedding tokens." Dowry agreements were sometimes written up by families of higher status (think medieval prenup). Some early medieval jurists tried to codify that a marriage would be invalid if not for a dowry, but that was quickly overruled.

Wedding contracts to be signed and witnessed have also been around since the 1st century, though much like today, doing so was not necessary on the wedding day. Such contracts held information about the dowry and dos/counter-dowry. By the late third century, dotal contracts were viewed as necessary for a marriage to be valid (the state was not involved in this decision and in fact pushed against this). Even so, it was established by the 5th century that even marriages without such contracts were still valid.

However: Before the 12th century, there was no accepted and codified body of marriage law. At this time, the dos/dowry were only important if there was wealth to be transferred and the public took an interest in the union. Formal marriage was a luxury. Only in the 12th century did marriage become a sacrament.

All in all, early medieval secular law required:

A clan contract or betrothal

The formal handover of the bride

Ceremonial homecoming / bridal journey (in early medieval sources, this was a rather somber euphemism for marriage)

The bedding

The "morning gift," or "Muntehe"

A few later additions included:

Groom's procession to the bride's house

Wedding beer

Drinking on the occasion of the bridal run

The transfer of the bride (for something like a dowry) also came a bit later. Though the "Muntehe" originally implied all the steps sufficient for the formal agreement of a marriage (betrothal, bridal journey, bedding, morning gift), it eventually was turned into the dowry. All of this was important as it had implications on property law and inheritance, and this importance only increased with the Late Middle Ages (especially in higher social circles), where it was often viewed as an advance payment of an inheritance. The groom was expected to counter this with his own gift, but those gifts were only legally valid after consummation. The church tried to get control of these exchanges and those involving property law as well, but thankfully did not manage.

The benedictio in thalamo (blessing for the marriage bed, originally adapted from the Normans) given after the wedding used to be common in early medieval France and Spain, but was later moved to the church. After being done away with almost entirely in the 9th century, it reappeared in the 12th century, but only in art, therein usually meant to symbolically stand for marriage.

(“Wie Raymond und Melusina zusammen wurden gelegt und sy der Bischoff gesegnet in dem pette et cetera” (How Raymond and Melusina were put to bed together and received the blessing from the bishop). Melusine, Thüring. von Ringoltingen, 1468, GNM Hs4028, 41/17r, https://dlib.gnm.de/item/Hs4028/41)

Mind you, all of this is region-dependent. Throughout the middle ages, there were differences even within cities or regions. Italian high society often had their marriages recorded by notaries while commoners were stuck with a priest. In Florence, the groom didn't even accompany his bride to the church for the blessing!

As we approach the High Middle Ages, we upgrade! (Or downgrade, depending on your perspective.)

In the 10th/11th century we briefly see feudal elements being added in. This is the time that we start seeing "vassal gestures" instead of hand-clasping, which, as you might have guessed, more so stands for loyalty and feudal allegiance. It was phased out after that, but that shouldn't stop you. Hansry writers and artists, I see you, I know you, I'm handing this to you on a silver platter to use as you see fit!!!

The family started being far more involved and showing up in many depictions. More than just a religious act, this sought to cement marriage as a social and political arrangement as well.

The late medieval period thankfully brings with it a bit more iconographic consistency and less conflation between betrothal and wedding. The role of the priest especially was cemented and the element of the family also stuck around. The right-hand clasp stuck around with a focus on legitimacy, left-hand clasps standing for irregular marriages (incestuous, illegitimate, unsanctioned, etc etc). But this is also the time we get wedding rings.

As weddings became more popular, the church naturally wanted to get involved, and we see their influence increase exponentially as we leave the High Middle Ages for the later Middle Ages. Even so, there was still something of a disparity depending on the place. Depictions in the Italian manuscripts of the Liber Extra (from the early- to mid-13th century) we still see weddings officiated not by a priest, but by a notary or another (usually elderly) master of ceremonies. In Italy, the church played hardly any role at all. A priest could bless the marriage if the couple or their families desired, but it would happen either before or after the ceremony, not during. In Scandinavian countries, marriage also remained a secular matter despite the presence of Catholicism.

Of course, we can't have a Catholic ceremony without rules!

In terms of the ceremony, there would be a few rules that would need to be followed as per Lateran IV's passing in 1215 (which turned marriage into a sacrament and tried to further institutionalize the idea of marriage). There, article 51 specifically details the requirements for a wedding to be valid.

It couldn't be done in a clandestine way but would instead have to be announced to the church at least three days in advance, usually longer (reading of the banns and all that), so that the priest could look into issues or people could object (as per article 52 hearsay not allowed, otherwise Henry would have a very easy time putting a stop to this. As it is, he'll have to play ball with article 50, proving third degree consanguinity).

As per the above, consanguinity up to the third degree is not allowed.

Both parties have to consent. (Yes, you read that right.)

Both parties have to be at least twelve (not actually indicative of the usual age of marriage which was much older).

It has to be officiated by a priest and at least two witnesses have to be present.

It also says (in Latin ofc): "we altogether forbid clandestine marriages and we forbid any priest to presume to be present at such a marriage," so we do have a tiny loophole here, for those of you who want Godwin to officiate (not a priest anymore, etc).

The reading of the banns was pretty standard, and in 1342 in the Council of London they ruled that couples who moved just to be allowed to get married could be excommunicated:

"The Council of London (1342) ruled that any couples who temporarily moved “to cities and well-populated towns in which they do not have an advance reputation,” so the banns would be read to a community who did not know them so they could marry without an impediment coming to light, should be excommunicated, along with any priest who solemnized marriages for anyone other than his own parishioners without special permission."

There were also a few other things that were officially required as part of the ceremony. According to Ivo of Chartres' Decretum, a legitimate marriage "involved a public exchange of vows, marriage gifts, a wedding ring, and blessing by a priest." Before the church got more involved in the process, these weren't all necessary at all times, but "a legitimate marriage must at least be contracted with public knowledge." (Law, Sex, and Christian Society)

It was around this time that the church fought over what really mattered to make a marriage valid, bare consent (nudus consensus) or consummation (copula carnalis). After much arguing, the Decretals declared consent to be the primary thing of import. This left the reading of the banns and the dowry as an important concept for the church as it allowed them to prevent (to a certain extent) clandestine marriages.

This consent thing is very important. Because we are not talking about the consent of the family here. While the church agreed that families could express their own wishes and desires, they likewise insisted that families had no right to impose those wishes on someone who objected to them, that the use of force in order to secure an agreement would, in fact, invalidate a marriage. Marriage could only validly be contracted with free consent. This opposition to forced marriages meant that the church oftentimes treated clandestine marriages as valid.

(The family of Berthold VI; the marriage of Saint Hedwig and Heinrich, 1353, https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103S9J)

Naturally, families fought against this, with children being disinherited if they didn't comply. Some people even put their wishes into their wills. If the child complied with the wish listed in the will, they would get their whole inheritance, but wouldn't be so lucky if they did not. If someone had felt coerced in such a way, in order to receive an inheritance or to make their family members happy, they could appeal to the church to be released from the marriage, as they didn't truly consent to it at heart. And while such instances were difficult to prove, they sometimes did actually work. Hansry writers, I see you!!!

Societies often still viewed marriage without parental consent as wrong and thus oftentimes slapped the couple with fines.

Those who didn't follow church rules were said to conceive bastards, not legitimate heirs, so bear in mind that the church asked married couples to actually abstain from sex on their wedding. (For more fun restrictions, see the chart included in this post) In fact, you had to be married more than three days before you were allowed to sleep with your spouse. Also, aphrodisiacs were not allowed.

There were even certificates to prove that the banns had been read, ones that were often seen as safeguards against legal attacks.

According to Pierre de La Palude, there were six situations where couples might marry a) without having published the banns and b) in private:

Those of great nobles, as these marriages were often discussed to no end.

Marriage between nobles and non-nobles, as this could prompt opposition and scandal.

Marriage of a rich person to a poor one, on account of the upset of the social order.

Marriages where one of the two was very old

Marriages in which parental wrath could be a problem despite the consent of the two parties.

If the couple had already been living together and just wished to legitimize the union. Mind you, loads of people ignored these rules regardless of whether they fit the criteria, seeing as some towns even penalized women who married men outside of city limits. Clandestine weddings were all right, so long as the couple legitimated their union later with a formal wedding. Some couples did this in private with just a priest and none of the other pomp and circumstance, with those priests usually getting temporarily suspended from office. If a couple didn't legitimate their union within the church, they risked excommunication.

(Interestingly, Pierre de La Palude even explained at length why the Church didn't allow for gay marriage, suggesting that legitimization of such relationship was, in fact, on the mind of at least some people.)

The bride and groom were usually not present for their betrothal and would, like Hans, only find out after the fact. Such agreements were then followed by formal betrothals, where the couple exchanged future consent. The wedding ring was often given to the bride at this point (the progenitor to the engagement ring). Some couples met at this ceremony for the first time, as there was no legal requirement for them to both be there for either betrothal or even the marriage; either one could be contracted legally through proxies, who usually ended up being parents by default. It was easy for people to get out of the original betrothal agreement, but once officially engaged, it became much harder, and people had to provide good reasons for the separation OR go get clandestinely married to someone else.

Something to keep in mind: all marriages that took place outside of a church were considered clandestine. Even a wedding conducted at the wrong church or in the wrong jurisdiction would still be deemed clandestine and could incur a fine. This does not mean that they weren't valid. If both parties consented and exchanged vows in present tense (or in future tense followed by consummation), the union was indissoluble.

Now let's talk about the actual ceremony...

Around a week before the wedding, the bridesmaid took care of the bride's needs (outfits, decorations). On the day of the wedding a bouquet would be made and the bride dressed in a fine outfit.

A middle-class bride might wear a linen chemise, a silk tunic with fur collar and cuffs, and a surcoat. It would most likely be blue to symbolize purity (not white). As of the 12th century, we also added on a veil (also indicative of purity and meant to protect the bride from the evil eye), a tradition that originally came from the Middle East. The bride would most likely pluck her eyebrows and the hair along her hairline to make her forehead look larger. Both the bride and those attending would use wheat starch, ground lily root, or blaunchet (with bonus lead!!) to paint their faces white. Add to that red rouge for the cheeks and lips (courtesy of beeswax and dried angelica leaves) and perfume.

The groom presented the bride with garters to hold up her stocking thanks to the belief that the bride would be faithful to a lover who gave her garters.

The bride and groom stood with the groomsmen, bridal party, and priest before the church doors, with most of the guests at the bottom of the church steps. The priest asked if anyone objected and then read out the bride's dowry. The groom also listed out his dower, the stuff that would pass to his wife if he died, and then gave the bride a gift that could include gold or silver coins or a ring presented on a shield.

The priest would ask the man if he took the bride for his wife, and he responded with "I do" or "I will." The bride was then asked for her consent. The bride's closest male relative gave her away to the groom, and he took her right hand in his (region-dependent). Sometimes there were vows. The ring would be blessed and put on the bride's fingers with a "with this ring I thee wed and with this gold I thee honor." In the hands of the church, it took on its role as a symbol of union and fidelity.

The priest gave his blessing and the wedding party moved inside the church, where a nuptial mass was celebrated at the altar.

At the end of the mass the couple knelt in prayer and a large cloth, or care-cloth, was placed over them, which was meant to signify that any children born to them before the marriage where thus legitimated. Finally, the groom kissed the bride (more on this later).

(Decretum Gratiani, 14th century. Ms. Arras, Médiathèque de l’Abbaye Saint-Vaast, CGM 921(263), fol. 231r. https://initiale.irht.cnrs.fr/decor/106616)

Then there was a huge feast / reception with singing, dancing, food and drink, and sometimes cake. In England they had a specially brewed drink "bride ale" sold to guests where the profits went to the bride. Spiced wine was often served from a decorative chalice called a "wedding cup."

When the newlyweds left, the guests would try to grab the bride's garters for good luck (hence the tradition of the bride throwing the garter instead; generally regarded as less destructive). There were also times that excited wedding guests would try to grab pieces of the wedding dress as souvenirs which would sometimes lead to drunk revelers ripping the dress to shreds and could easily lead to drunken fights. There were a few instances where fights like these led to people dying as guests would pull out clubs, knives, swords, etc (why did they have those on them at a wedding? what a good question!).

The newlyweds would leave the reception, go to their bedchamber, and then would be dragged back to the reception at midnight.

In the late 15th century, Erasmus complained that weddings were "tumultuous feasts" where the bride and groom "rise from the table to join in wanton dances until supper, where the tender girl cannot refuse any man, but the house is open to the whole city. Then the unhappy maiden is compelled to join hands with the drunken, the scabby, and sometimes with criminals who are more intent upon theft than upon dancing; in Britain she must even kiss with them. After an uproarious supper, dancing again, then fresh drinking; scarce can a wearied pair go to bed even after midnight." This sort of party could go on for up to three days according to Erasmus, which meant that monks and other religious officials (sometimes extending to "pious people" in general) were forbidden from attending receptions.

This mattered, as the Late Middle Ages had the church pushing weddings to become more dignified and solemnified, with the bridal couple preached to about their special responsibility before God. City councils were also meant to aid in proper, status-appropriate weddings.

With the Late Middle Ages, the importance of the dowry also increased (especially in higher social circles), often viewed as an advance payment of an inheritance. The groom was expected to counter this with his own gift, but those gifts were only legally valid after consummation. The church tried to get control of these exchanges and those involving property law as well, but thankfully did not manage.

While traditions like the Muntehe were taken from the Goths, the tradition of the ring was taken from Romano-Christian origin, with Isidore of Seville claiming that the ring given from groom to bride was a sign of faith and one that their hearts were joined together. In line with this, the ring was placed on the fourth finger because according to him, a vein from there runs directly to the heart (De ecclesiasticis officiis XX, 8). In the hands of the church, it took on its role as a symbol of union and fidelity.

One thing that is odd that comes up in a number of late medieval Tuscan art pieces is that depictions of weddings (handclasp and all) often includes the groom's compater anuli about to strike him with a "heavy blow on the shoulder" at the moment of consent.

(Niccolò di Buonaccorso, Sposalizio della Vergine, London, National Gallery, 1355-1388; Giotto, Sposalizio della Vergine: Padova, Capella Scrovegni, c. 1305)

So what was all that about the kiss?

In Ancient Rome, the betrothal was finalized by a binding ritual kiss, and the engagement lapsed if the couple wasn't married after two years following that point. According to the early church father Tertullian, the betrothals of early Christians had the kiss occur at the time of the betrothal in anticipation of the consummation. In the event that one of the two betrothed should die, specifically in Spain, Constantine ruled that the surviving party should get half of the dos/dowry, implying this to be halfway to marriage. There's been some suggestion here from scholars that the betrothal kiss happened during the wedding ceremony, and that there was no wait in between.

Then some time passes. 11th century Mozarabic liturgy had ceremonies were rings were exchanged after which the couple might have kissed. And while kisses don't generally show up in depictions of medieval weddings, but we do see them mentioned in cases of early 16th century marriage disputes, where witnesses made mention of which parts of the wedding they believed made a marriage or betrothal: a handclasp, a kiss, a gift, and a meal. Given that these things were listed repeatedly, we can conclude that weddings most likely included a kiss.

What's a bitch got to do to get divorced around here?

Valid reasons for divorce included the following:

Consanguinity up to the third degree.

One or both of the two parties was already married.

Pope Gregory decided in 726 that if a wife was terminally ill the husband could marry someone else so long as he kept financially supporting his first wife.

Aristocrats often used consanguinity in order to leave a marriage. According to Peter Damian in the 11th century, when a rich man grows weary of his wife, he "weaves a false line of consanguinity; he accumulates proofs to fabricate unheard names of ancestors, and appeals for evidence in support of this allegation to old folk whom he well knows to have long ended their life in this world. . . . Indeed, the laws are put up for sale, and money justifies the delinquents. Money sets the laws in motion, and the false interpreter bends its obscure sentences to his own meaning." (G. G. Coulton, Medieval Panorama. Collins, 1961, p. 637.)

So, to answer the original anon's questions:

How would the bride and groom (broom🧹) be dressed? Formally, the bride in blue. Her face would be done up to look whiter than normal and she'd pluck her forehead to make it bigger. More details can be found in my description of the ceremony!!

What did they do the night before the wedding? Very little beyond get ready, most likely.

Where would it be celebrated? Depends on the region. Usually it starts in front of the church door, goes inside, and then to the groom's house. Sometimes it's from the bride's house to the groom's house.

Was there a best man? Unless you were getting married clandestinely or in secret, there were witnesses!

When did the groom first kiss the bride? Either at the betrothal ceremony (Early Middle Ages) or during the ceremony (High to Late Middle Ages). More details above.

What rituals were performed during the religious ceremony and the feast afterwards? Technically the whole thing is a ritual. Beyond that, handclasp, gifts, kiss. Mass at church. That's about it, unless you count the (optional) blessing before or after.

What about the vows? No fancy vows, just "I do," or "I will."

Were they spoken in Latin? Nope!

If there was such a thing, how did the bedding ceremony take place? There used to be. But then people weren't even supposed to fuck until 3 days have passed, so...

Was the actual consummation preceded by established rituals as well? Not as far as I was able to find.

So what does all of this mean for Hansry and/or any marriages that Hans or Henry might enter into?

The takeaway here is that there was no consistency, and it's impossible to find exact details about what Jan Ptáček's rl wedding would have looked like. So you can really mix and match what you like and what you don't like. If you care about remaining historically accurate (and you certainly do not need to care even one iota!!) then you really just gotta stick to the core stuff that does remain the same. Unless you want to decide that Rattay has borrowed its traditions from Tuscany, in which case, GO NUTS!!

For the artistically minded among you, the British Library has some lovely visual representations of royal weddings. Now, these are royal weddings, so that's a good bit fancier than what Hans would experience, but it's a good thing to use as a way to gauge where on the scale between that and the Semine wedding Hans' would end up. The other places that I love to look at artistic references (always helpful) is the Princeton Index of Medieval Art. The website won't link to specific search terms, but I'd recommend searching for "wedding" or "marriage" and then limiting it to 1350-1450. Obviously you'll want to keep an eye on where all of this art came from (and remember that the artist's culture might be being depicted instead of the local culture), but it's a good start.

If you're looking for references on what his crown might look like... loads of questions there. He doesn't have his territory, but I assume he'd still count as a duke for the purposes of the marriage? Then you could look to the ducal crown that's under the crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia here.

The Getty art collection catalogue is also decent, as are the Digital Scriptorium, and the Penn Library. There's also ones for other languages, but this should technically be plenty (though do let me know if you need more!).

ETA: As @shmuel-ben-sarah-kcd2 correctly pointed out, this is all only relevant for Catholic weddings, and has graciously offered to help (in the replies) with any and all info on Jewish weddings!! :D

Sources used:

Bertram, Martin and Silvia Di Paolo. Decretales Pictae. Le Miniature Nei Manoscritti Delle Decretali Di Gregorio IX (Liber Extra) : Atti Del Colloquio Internazionale Tenuto All'Istituto Storico Germanico, Roma 3-4 Marzo 2010. 2012.

Brundage, James A. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Coulton, G. G. Medieval Panorama. Collins, 1961.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. “The History of Marriage and the Myth of Friedelehe.” Early Medieval Europe, vol. 14, no. 2, 29 Mar. 2006, pp. 119–151, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0254.2006.00177.x.

--. Unmarriages: Women, Men, and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014.

Kirshner, Julius. Marriage, Dowry, and Citizenship in Late Medieval and Renaissance Italy. University of Toronto Press, 2015. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt13x1qq1.

Livingston, Sally A. Marriage, Property, and Women’s Narratives. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

McCarthy, Conor. Marriage in Medieval England: Law, Literature and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Nieuwenhuisen, Kathleen. “The Consent in Pictures. Marriage Representations in Medieval Manuscripts of the Liber Extra (1250–1400).” Decretales Pictae. Le Miniature Nei Manoscritti Delle Decretali Di Gregorio IX (Liber Extra), edited by Martin Bertram and Silvia Di Paolo, Schriftenreihe Online-Publikationen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom/Pubblicazioni online dell’Istituto Storico Germanico di Roma, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome, 2012, pp. 132–58.

Pastrnak, Patrik. Dynasty in Motion: Wedding Journeys in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Routledge, 2023.

Pavón Ramírez, Marta. “Marriage Symbolism in Illuminated Manuscripts of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries.” The Symbolism of Marriage in Early Christianity and the Latin Middle Ages: Images, Impact, Cognition, edited by Line Cecile Engh, 1st ed., Routledge, London, UK, 2020, pp. 37–90.

Reynolds, Philip Lyndon. “Conjugal and Nuptial Symbolism in Medieval Christian Thought .” The Symbolism of Marriage in Early Christianity and the Latin Middle Ages: Images, Impact, Cognition, edited by Line Cecile Engh, 1st ed., Routledge, London, UK, 2020, pp. 37–90.

--. How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage from Its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

--. Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage during the Patristic and Early Medieval Periods. Brill, 2001.

Schott, Clausdieter. Trauung Und Jawort: Von Der Brautübergabe Zur Ziviltrauung. Verlag Für Standesamtswesen, 1992.

Sheehan, Michael M. The Bishop of Rome to a Barbarian King on the Rituals of Marriage. University of Cincinnati, College of Law, 1991, pp. 187–99.

Sonne de Torrens, Harriet M. “Representations of Marriage: Iconographical Origins and Trends.” A Cultural History of Marriage in the Age of Enlightenment, edited by Joanne Marie Ferraro and Edward J. Behrend-Martínez, Bloomsbury Academic, London, UK, 2020.

Southon, Emma. Marriage, Sex and Death: The Family and the Fall of the Roman West. Amsterdam: University Press, 2017.

Wettlaufer, Jörg. “Visual Representations of Weddings in the Middle Ages: Reflections of Legal, Religious, and Cultural Aspects.” Religions, vol. 15, no. 8, 19 Aug. 2024, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15081011.

#medieval studies

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

medieval men in love