65° - 01.09.1967, Blaðsíða 14

was a wordly affair not to be ruled over by
ecclesiastics. In Iceland one would have expected
that this new orientation would have looked favor-
ably upon the civil characteristics of the betrothal
ceremony, because here in fact was a form of
marriage very much in line with the Reformation
teaching. But actually quite the reverse happened.
In the first full scale marital legislation intro-
duced in the course of the Reformation in Ice-
land, the Articles on Marriage from 1587, there
is no mention of the betrothal ceremony. But in
its place the Articles introduce a new institution
altogether: the ceremony of engagement. There
is much at hand to suggest that this institution
was conceived not only to replace the betrothal
ceremony, but also to wipe out once and for all
the civil conception of marriage, congenial to the
ceremonial betrothal. Thus much care was taken
to make absolutely clear that engagement was
one thing and marriage another. The proclama-
tion of bans was to take place after the public
engagement, whereas the bans had preceded the
betrothal ceremony in pre-Reformation days. In
this way the two institutions were set wide apart,
the legal and moral importance of marriage being
strictly reserved for the ecclesiastical wedding.
Furthermore engaged persons were made subject
to legal sanctions if they entered a married way
of life.
Bringing in the new institution of engagement
was meant to deal the civil conception of mar-
riage, congenial to the betrothal ceremony, a
final blow. But the outcome, quite ironically,
turned out to be very different from this aim,
because the vast majority of the population, it
appears, took the detailed instructions about
engagements to be just another legislation on
civil marriage. Moreover, the only difference be-
tween this new legislation on “civil marriage”
and the old one was seen to be the fact that the
obligations of the former were not as binding as
those of the latter! What happened, in fact, was
a transference of associations between the be-
trothal ceremony of old and the new engagement
ceremony. The institution of engagement, instead
of transforming the characteristics of the be-
trothal ceremony, was itself transformed by them.
The legal consciousness of the people, according
to which betrothal carried a marriage-creating-
significance, was too deeply rooted to be eradicated
by a single piece of legislation.
Signs of the associational transference we men-
tioned between the betrothal ceremony and the
institution of engagement can clearly be seen.
In spite of the new legislation the constitution of
a legal marriage did not change significantly.
The betrothal ceremony blatantly kept its place
and its moral implications remained the same.
This was borne out by the numerous royal letters
sent to civil and ecclesiastical authorities in Ice-
land, in which these parties were reminded in no
uncertain words that engaged persons were not
to be allowed to lead a married way of life.
When a royal emissary, Ludvig Harboe, re-
ported to his superiors in Copenhagen in the
middle of the eighteenth century, he made the
comment that “as far as marriage is concerned,
there are many things that go wrong”. Two out
of three instances of misbehaviour mentioned by
Harboe referred to cohabitation of people before
marriage. And to put things right, Harboe made
an effort to restore the function of the original
engagement ceremony. But also, and this is quite
important in the present context, he gave specific
instructions that the betrothal ceremony be abo-
lished altogether.
Later in the eighteenth century a final attempt
was made to reestablish the institution of public
engagement in the original form given it by the
Articles on Marriage. The nature of this attempt
clearly indicated that those engaged were inclined
to consider themselves virtually married. When
this attempt also failed to bring home the truth
about engagements, the next logical step was
taken by simply abolishing this enigmatic institu-
tion, by a royal writ on January 4, 1799! From
then on, marriage alone could bestow upon man
and wife the privilege of making a family.
The public engagement was introduced to secure
just this status for the institution of marriage,
and its abolition was quite clearly made for this
same end.
The abolition of the engagement ceremony did
not mean the end of engagements, however. A
new form of engagement developed, much less
formal and less ceremonial than the former, but
a distinctive institution all the same. This new
Continued, on page 33.
650
12