Marriage did not exist only between mortal men and women. Within the framework of the so-called sacred marriage, the high priest of Nemi (symbolically, taking the place of the ‘real’ mythological husband, Viribus) ‘married’ Diana of Nemi (Lat. Diana Nemorensis), or Diana of the Wood, the goddess of the hunt (whose name with this adjective structure also refers to living trees) on a certain day of the year, thus becoming the King of the Forest and the Queen of the Forest. This mythological view later lived on in the European tradition of the May King/Queen. (At the same time, a separate topic – referring to Diana – is the hunters’ propitiatory ceremony for wild animals as an early sustainability tradition).4

The custom was also known among the Chaldean priesthood in Babylonia and the Egyptian priesthood in Thebes, according to which only a single woman, a ‘divine spouse,’ chosen by the god, could stay in the temples of the gods Bel (Baal) and Amon at night.5 According to the findings of cultural-historical ethnology, monogamy is the most ancient form of gendered bonding. Family and marriage are as old as humanity. There are also opposing views, according to which humanity has only slowly moved from a state of female community (Lat. promiscuitas, heterismus), a state of relationship-level (Lat. agamicus) to a kinship family, group marriage (so-called punalua marriage), female domination (matriarchy), polyandry, polygyny, and has struggled its way up to monogamy. This principle has also been used by many to explain the origin of the state. However, many have justified the monogamous nature of marriage.6 Max Weber (1864-1920) understood sexual relations as part of common domestic life. Polyandry, in his formulation, is a communist distribution of sexual power.7

The demon-belief of the Chaldeans and the Chaldean priesthood also influenced wedding ceremonies. They believed that the time of demons comes in moments of great transition in life. At such times, these evil beings take out their malice on people, bringing them ill fortune. Marriage was also such an occasion. The Chaldean groom was led to the bride by his male friends, and the groom made his marriage vows to his wife. We know nothing about the Jewish marriage and wedding ceremonies of the period before the Babylonian captivity based on the Old Testament. The fate of the girl was probably controlled by the paternal family, the father, or the closest male relative. The future groom’s gifts formed the basis of the arrangement. During the Babylonian captivity, Jewish law emphasised procreation as the purpose of marriage. Marriage was understood primarily in terms of the sexual act (concubinage, Lat. concubitus), nothing else. (Marrying of the a raped woman was also assumed to be an obligation). In addition, the bride became a wife (not a concubine or servant) on the basis of the ketubah document certifying the gift given for the purpose of the upcoming wedding. In the rabbinic period, the betrothal and the wedding were combined. In addition to concubitus or ketubah, the wedding could also be sealed by a gift (giving a coin or a ring). In the New Testament, marriage was already a compromise between the satisfaction and denial of sexual passion. The apostle Saint Paul refers to celibacy as preferable to marriage because of its higher order. In early Christianity, less attention was paid to the issue of marriage between Christians. The emphasis on marriage as a sexual act, known in Jewish law, was stronger, as opposed to the legal relationship-based concept of marriage in Roman law. The Digesta emphasises a lifelong partnership (Lat. consortium) and a mutual exchange of rights (Lat. communicatio), while the Institutiones emphasise that in marriage, man and woman form a single life path (Lat. individuum vitae consuetudinem).8

After the disappearance of the manus concept (i.e. the father, the head of the family, exercised full, husbandly power over his wife, and was the owner of his children due to paternal power), from the 4th century AD onwards the previous understanding of the significance of dowry (Lat. dos) and wedding gifts (lat. donatio propter nuptias) was rejected, and agreement (lat. consensus) was declared to be the essence of marriage. This concept is known as ‘free marriage.’ Literature speaks of ‘double Roman marriage law’ in the sense that Etruscan and Italic traditions were mixed in this matter, partly also in the fact that children inherited both their father’s and mother’s surnames.9

Later, there was a transition from Roman marriage to Christian marriage, with some symbols being transferred from the Roman period. Initially, ancient Germanic marriages took place in a circle of friends, within which the couple to be married took their place. The woman’s father or guardian asked them (first the woman) whether they intended to become husband and wife. Ancient Germanic marriages were based on agreement, no documents were needed other than a credible oral declaration. Later, Germanic custom recognised marriage with legal consequences and marriage without legal consequences. Both were considered marriages. The legal version included the engagement, the betrothal, and the solemn wedding ceremony. This had property law implications. The version without legal implications was informal, did not contain the three elements, and thus had property law implications. The latter met the needs of the poor. Church wedding probably did not exist in early Christian church customs. The wedding ceremony took place independently of the church, possibly in the presence of a priest. This was followed by the young woman being taken home, then communion and the offering of gifts at the mass. Later, a separate prayer was said for the newlyweds at the mass. From the 9th century, there was a separate mass for marriages. Around AD 700, according to the French ritual, they were married at the church gate (they declared their intention to marry, the wedding gifts, received a blessing, and then attended mass in the church). In German territory, according to Bavarian, Frankish, Swabian, and Westphalian law, the woman was entitled to her dowry ‘as soon as she put her feet in bed.’ According to the Decretum Gratiani, which was in force between 1234 and 1917, the wedding began with a public ceremony and ended with the night prayer. From the 13th century, the behavioral norms of the time became more ecclesiastical and religious. The previous advocates were replaced by priests, who transformed marriage into a church function. The idea of marriage was exalted. The sacramental nature of marriage was emphasised. There was resistance to church efforts, especially in the German-speaking area, motivated by (?) customs of Germanic origin. The Council of Trent (1563) raised the sacramental nature of church marriage to the force of law.10

Marriage as a natural legal institution (natural marriage) was therefore defined as follows in the 1917 CIC: “The lawful (in accordance with the laws of nature) undivided, permanent union of a man with a woman for the purpose of procreation and the realisation of the other purposes of marriage.”11

Regarding marriage, Lucio (Lucius) Ferraris (1687-1773) and Jacques-Paul Migne (1800-1875) state in their Latin encyclopedia of theological and canon law, among the etymological questions (Lat. matrimonium unde dictum), that marriage, or in Latin matrimonium, comes from the words mater, i.e. mother, and munium, or otherwise munus, i.e. obligation. They wittily raise the question of why marriage is called marriage (i.e. a maternal obligation (from the mother’s side) instead of inheritance (Lat. patrimonium, properly: paternal care; Lat. Quare dicatur potius matrimonium quam patrimonium). Namely, the (future) mother is solely responsible12 for giving birth,13 in addition, the obligation to provide for the child is also stronger than that of the father. (Furthermore, the mother’s family is burdened by marriage [Lat. matrum onus], referring to the fact that the mother brings the dowry into the family, provided by the maternal side). Marriage is precisely defined in both canon law and secular civil law as the union of a man as an individual/individuum and a woman as an individual/individuum (Lat. Matrimonium in jure, tum canonico, tum civilii, precise definitur, quod sit maris et feminiae conjunctio individuam). In addition, the word nuptiae comes from the term connubium, or rather from its base, the word nubere, which means to cover, since in the Roman Empire the bride’s face was covered with a flame-coloured veil. Marriage is also called coniugium in Latin, because it unites a man and a woman, driving them into a yoke (Lat. iugium). The 1917 CIC basically used the word matrimonium, rarely nuptiae, and omitted the term coniugium. The German Ehe, originally Ewe, or ea meant eternity (Lat. aevum), then later law, bond, and finally the marriage bond between a man and a woman.14 It is also known from the canon law of this early era that the pope cannot annul a marriage (Lat. Quod matrimonium irritare non potest papa),15 and that there were also several administrative tasks, for example, among the tasks of the episcopal administrator (deputy bishop).16

The old Catholic canon law also knew the perhaps most fundamental Roman legal rule (Lat. regula) concerning marriage law, originating from Ulpian (Lat. Domitius Ulpianus).17 According to this: “Not concubinage [coitus/sharing bed], but agreement makes marriage” (Lat. Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit, (cf.: D. 50.17.30.).18 The Habsburg imperial and royal marriage decree of 1783 encountered rejection and obstacles when it was adopted. In the literature, an unknown author summarised the opposition between the decree (i.e. secular law) and the sacraments (i.e. Catholic canon law) in 157 points, indicating the discrepancy between secular marriage law and Catholic canon sacramental marriage law.19

Lenin also dealt with the issue of marriage and the specific type of legal protection during the Russian Revolution of 1917.20

The issue of civil marriage is also significant. Civil marriage was first introduced in 1580 in the Netherlands. In 1792, France adopted it, and it was also included in the French Code civil of 1804, and in Great Britain in 1836. The idea of a wider spread of civil marriage began with the movements of 1848. The example of France affected Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, the German states of the Rhineland, Romania (1864) and Switzerland (1875). By 1876, civil marriage had been introduced throughout Germany. Hungary followed in 1895, Turkey in 1917, and Russia in 1920.21

The issue of divorce also stirred up emotions.22 The current 1983 CIC, in contrast to the 1917 CIC, considers not only the procreation and upbringing of children as the primary function of marriage, but also the good of the spouses, i.e. the ‘alleviation of desire’ (Lat. remedium concupiscentiae) and mutual assistance.23 The current regulation of canonical matrimonial litigation is multifaceted.24