The Marital Economy in Scandinavia and Britain 1400–1900

Maria Ågren, Amy Louise Erickson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9780754637813
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351885973
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: British History
• Index: History

Marriage today is our prime social and legal institution. Historically, it was also the principal economic institution. This collection of essays offers a wealth of original research into the economic, social and legal history of the marital partnership in northern Europe over a 500-year period. Erickson's introduction explores the concept of the marital economy and sketches the legal and economic background across the region. Chapters by Ågren, Gudrun Andersson, Agnes Arnórsdóttir, Inger Dübeck, Elizabeth Ewan, Rosemarie Fiebranz, Catherine Frances, Hanne Johansen, Ann-Catrin Östman, Anu Pylkkänen, Hilde Sandvik and Jane Whittle, are organized according to the three economic stages of the marital life-cycle: forming the partnership; managing the partnership; and dissolving the partnership. In conclusion, Michael Roberts explores how the historical development of modern economic theory has removed marriage from its central position at the heart of the economy.

PART I
FORMING THE PARTNERSHIP

CHAPTER 2
Marriage or money? Legal actions for enforcement of marriage contracts in Norway

Hanne Marie Johansen

Despite the fact that private promises of marriage had no legal validity in Protestant marriage law, studies of marriage contract cases in early modern Norway have found that private marriage agreements retained their legal and social meaning after the Reformation of 1536/7. A promise of marriage or even just sexual intercourse made women expect marriage and take legal proceedings if marriage did not ensue. Researchers have argued that the main motive was to restore honour.¹ In this article I will argue that the question of honour was central, but also that women had strong economic motives to sue their partners, and for a long period of time they had surprisingly much to gain.

On 3 September 1612, Mette Lauritzdatter appeared at the Bergen Consistory Court complaining she had been seduced ‘under the promise of marriage’ and demanding ‘compensation’. At the time of the trial Mette was single with two illegitimate children. The man who had betrayed her was Niels Rasmussøn, former servant at the estate of Halsenøy. The judges decided they needed more information, and postponed the case for three months. At the second court meeting Niels presented a written statement that he had never promised to marry Mette and that there was no proof of or witnesses to such a promise. The judges ignored Niels’ defence, and Mette won the case without any evidence of a formal proposal. Her lover and the father of her children was sentenced to pay her the considerable compensation of 25 riksdaler.²

The Bergen Consistory Court was a mixed secular and ecclesiastical court, whose judges included the king’s regional representative, the bishop and other prominent clergy. Similar courts were established in each cathedral city in Denmark-Norway after the Reformation. Norway had four cathedral cities: Bergen, Christiania,³ Trondheim and Stavanger/Kristiansand. (The southwestern Bishops’s see moved from Stavanger to Kristiansand in 1690.) Consistory courts had authority in marriage cases, functioning both as courts of first instance and as appeal courts from secular local jurisdictions, until secular courts took over in 1797. There were two main categories of marriage cases: spousal cases and divorces. This chapter concentrates on the spousal cases, which involved actions for the enforcement of marriage contracts. Similar legal actions took place in many European countries in the early modern period, and in most places the church courts or consistoriums decided what was a valid marriage and how a breach of promise should be compensated.⁴

Generally at issue in Norwegian spousal cases, as in such cases elsewhere, was not simply a breach of promise, but the actual existence of a binding marriage contract. Norwegian judges spent a lot of energy on these cases. Judgement often came after a series of court meetings. The couple, together with families and witnesses on both sides, were asked to show up in court over and over again and explain about the conflict, the guilt and so forth. Records do not detail the amount of goods and money expected to change hands upon marriage. But they do give some information about economic arrangements and gifts in connection to courting or betrothal, and, as seen from the case of Mette and Niels, about the use of economic compensation for breaking a marriage contract. It was typical that Mette brought the case. The proportion of women to men bringing spousal cases was almost nine to one through the early seventeenth century. Thereafter, women brought virtually all spousal cases.

It was peculiar that these kinds of cases went to court at all, since private promises of marriage had no legal validity. Protestant marriage law in Norway, Fredrik II’s Marriage Ordinance of 1582, stated that a church wedding should be preceded by a formal betrothal ceremony with a clergyman and five witnesses present. This rule was repeated in Christian V’s Norwegian Law of 1687. Not until 1799 was betrothal formally abolished, leaving the wedding in church as the only means of entrance to married life.⁵

Disputed marriage contracts brought to early modern courts indicate that the Catholic marital tradition remained strong after the Reformation. Catholic canon law had held that marriage was a private matter, based on an agreement between the parties. The agreement became a valid marriage as soon as the couple either celebrated a wedding in church or had intercourse. Even a secret promise of marriage, so-called clandestine marriage, was legally binding before the Reformation. Consecration was a voluntary ceremony, and had no real legal function before the Reformation.⁶ New Protestant rules for entering into marriage were not fully respected either by the courts or by people in early modern Norway. Spousal cases can be seen as a sign of uncertainty over what constituted a marriage.

The present study examines conflicting attitudes to what kind of promises and agreements on marriage were considered binding. There probably existed a double level of conflict, one between popular practice and the authorities, and a second gender conflict. I have mentioned that in a majority of cases it was the woman who brought the case. What could women hope to obtain when suing their partners for false promise of marriage? Under what circumstances did a promise of marriage lead to legal and economic consequences? How did legal changes alter women’s position in marriage conflicts over time? These are the main questions addressed here.

Sources and number of cases

There is no complete survey of the number of spousal cases that came before the Norwegian consistory courts. Some records have disappeared or been destroyed over the centuries. Altogether, relevant source material covers a period of more than 200 years, from 1571 to 1797.⁷ I have examined the following records: Stavanger 1571–1630 and Kristiansand 1735–40; Bergen 1604–1708; and Christiania 1604–18, 1710–40 and 1780–97.⁸

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, spousal cases were relatively infrequent. Stavanger heard 70 in the period 1571–1630, or only slightly more than one per year. The other courts had even fewer, less than one every two years: Bergen 47 in 1604–1708; and Christiania five in 1606–18. Around 1700, the number of cases increased dramatically, but then abruptly disappeared. The Christiania court heard five to ten cases every year between 1710 and 1734, but none after this time. The Kristiansand records, which begin in 1690, show an annual average of four to six cases until 1734, after which only a handful of cases appear. Previous studies based on local courts conclude that spousal cases were quite numerous or at least appeared regularly until 1734, when an ordinance was passed to stop people suing their partner for breaking informal marriage contracts or promises. From then on such matters were considered to be of no concern to the legal system. Later I shall explain why this legal change was carried out and what the change implied. But first we need to know more about the consistory court and its people and also the institution of marriage in early modern Norway.

Consistory courts and people

Norway had a small population at the time of the Reformation, estimated at about 500 000–600 000. By 1801 the population had increased to c. 880 000. The vast majority of the population lived in rural districts. The Diocese of Bergen held Norway’s biggest and most important town, the old Hansa town of Bergen. At the time of the Reformation the population there is estimated at 6000 or 7000, in 1735 about 12 000. Christiania and other towns had only small populations and were less important. Social structure in early modern Norway, especially in western Norway, is often described as relatively egalitarian. In rural districts land ownership was widespread. The majority of households were peasant farmers (gardbrukere). During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries an increasing number of people in the countryside became crofters (husmenn), small householders who rented a cottage and often some land from farmers.

Because of low population density and great distances, many people in the countryside lived in isolated settlements rather than in villages. At the coast, fishing and sailing was very important as a way of surviving in combination with farming. Work in the mining industry and in forestry also provided extra earnings. Economic and social structures were complex. The small urban upper classes led their own social life. But the middling rank, such as craftsmen and ordinary seamen, mixed regularly with the poor, such as the old, the sick and single women with children.⁹

The majority of people in western Norway, who lived in rural districts, had difficulty reaching consistory courts on account of the terrain, the climate and the lack of roads. People from cathedral towns were over-represented in marriage cases. Urban dominance is especially evident in records from Bergen, where half of all spousal cases involved an urban couple or individual. In all districts of Norway rural people living close to cathedral towns were more likely to have a conflict settled in court than those who lived far away.

The precise social status of individuals involved in marriage cases is often difficult to tell. But people from all strata of society were represented. A bishop’s daughter, young people from rich merchant families and also well-educated families of the bureaucracy showed up in court. But the vast majority came from simple and relatively poor conditions.¹⁰ The woman involved often had a less fortunate background than her male counterpart, as in the case Sille Tagesdatter vs. Bertram Meyer. Sille came to the Bergen Consistory Court on 13 September 1686, accusing Bertram of seduction ‘under the promise of marriage’. Bertram must have been rather prosperous. He was sentenced to pay Sille a considerable amount of money – 50 riksdaler. The compensation was meant to be appropriate to economic ability. Information in the records indicates t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures/map
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Forming the Partnership
• Part II Managing the Partnership
• Part III Dissolving the Partnership
• Afterword
• Bibliography of secondary literature
• Glossary
• Index