2. Causes of ‘jactitation of matrimony’, although less common, were often directly associated with the more familiar type of spousal suits which were contested; Ingram, Martin, Church Courts, Sex amd Marriage in England, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 191.Google Scholar Matrimonial litigation was at times further complicated by the interests and claims of other relevant parties; in this case, Jerman Seliborne. See Canterbury Cathedral Archives and Library, Canterbury (hereafter C.C.A.L.), MS. X.11.3, ff. 18–20. The following account of the case of Divers v. Williams has been pieced together from the depositions, loose cause papers, and act books: C.C.A.L., MSS. X. 11. 5, ff. 223–5, 233v.–4, 248v.–9, 258 and v.; J/J 3, 37 and 38; Y.3.15, f. 271v., Y.3.2, f. 42.

3. It has been shown that the prime concern in most matrimonial causes lay in enforcing an alleged contract. It was inevitably the ‘clandestine’, unsolemnised marriages which were most vulnerable and disposed to contention; a phenomenon accounted for by the survival of traditional, secular practices, and ‘difficulties of proof and interpretation’. Such characteristic suits apparently experienced a long–term decline between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the trend more rapidly manifested in N. France: Helmholz, Richard H., Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 25–6, 30–4, 166–8Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, Ralph A., Church Courts and the People During the English Reformation, 1520–1570 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 55–6, 66Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, R., ‘The making of marriage in mid-Tudor England: evidence from the records of matrimonial contract litigation’, Journal of Family History 10 (1985), 339–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ingram, , Church Courts, pp. 189, 192–6, 206Google Scholar; Donahue, C. Jr, ‘The policy of Alexander the Third's consent theory of marriage’, in Kuttner, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Rome, 1976), pp. 260–1Google Scholar; Donahue, C. Jr., ‘The canon law on the formation of marriage and social practice in the later middle ages’, Journal of Family History 8 (1983), 144–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The early sixteenth century may, however, have been exceptional. Matrimonial suits tended to increase again after 1500 in the diocese of Canterbury. See Woodcock, Brian L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (London, 1952), pp. 82–5, 109–10.Google Scholar

4. Donahue, , ‘Policy of Alexander III’, p. 261Google Scholar, considers the problem of historical interpretation where the records are incomplete, assuming a possible disparity between legal principles and social conditions. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 128–9Google Scholar, concluded however that court procedure was such that the medieval judge was probably no more enlightened than the modern historian.

5. It should be stressed that the survival of an exceptional document does not necessarily imply that the social circumstances themselves were unique. Indeed the argument of this paper will be to suggest the contrary. Furthermore, if depositions are regarded as incomplete summaries of social facts and conditions, it is equally possible to infer that the accounts in the fourth article of gifts exchanged, were likewise incomplete.

6. Comaroff, J.L., The Meaning of Marriage Payments (1980), introduction and pp. 161–95Google Scholar; Mair, Lucy, Marriage (London, 1977), chapter 4Google Scholar; Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. and Forde, C. D. (eds.), African Systems of Kinship and Marriage (Oxford, 1975), pp. 44–54.Google Scholar For a discussion of the historical development of marriage gifts with its associated bundle of rights obligations, see Hughes, D.O., ‘From brideprice to dowry in Mediterranean Europe’, Journal of Family History 3 (1978), 262–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Mauss, Marcell, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, translated by Cunnison, Ian (first published London, 1954, reprinted 1966, 1970, 1974, 1980)Google Scholar; Van Gennep, Arnold, The Rites of Passage, translated by Vizedom, M. B. and Caffee, G. L. (first published London, 1960, reprinted 1965, 1977)Google Scholar; Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by Nice, R. (first published Switzerland, 1972; first English translation Cambridge, 1977) pp. 5–8, 12–15, 191–5.Google Scholar

8. Aspects of Folk Life in Europe: Love and Marriage (International European Exhibition organised by the Ministry of French Culture and the Ministry of Flemish Culture, Vie Wallonne, Musee de la, Liege, , 07 4 – 10 5 1975).Google Scholar I am grateful to Richard Wall for bringing this book to my attention.

9. Brand, John, Observations on Popular Antiquities: Chiefly Illustrating the Origin of our Vulgar Customs, Ceremonies, and Superstitions (London, 1813, 2 vols.), ii. 19–121Google Scholar; Strutt, Joseph, A Compleat View of the Manners. Customs, Arms, Habits and of the Inhabitants of England from the Arrival of the Saxons till the Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1775, 3 vols.), i. 74–8Google Scholar, ii. 23–4, iii. 151–8; Baker, Margaret, Discovering the Folklore and Customs of Love and Marriage (Aylesbury, 1974), pp. 15–18Google Scholar; Bloxham, Christine and Picken, Mollie, Love and Marriage (Devon, 1990)Google Scholar; Bury, Shirley, An Introduction to Sentimental Jewellery (London, 1985), pp. 15–32Google Scholar; Porter, Enid, Cambridgeshire Customs and Folklore (London, 1969), pp. 37, 48Google Scholar; Bradford, Emma (ed.), Roses are Red. Love and Scoren in Victorian Valentines (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Love Spoons from Wales, (Cardiff, 1973)Google Scholar; The Story of the Love Spoon, (Cardiff, 1973)Google Scholar; Victorian Valentine Cards (Temporory Exhibition at the Heritage Centre, Canterbury, 02 1988).Google Scholar

10. Evans, Joan, English Posies and Posy Rings (London, 1931)Google Scholar; Kunz, George Frederick, Rings for the Finger (Philadelphia, 1917, republished New York, 1973), pp. 193–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newman, Harold, An Illustrated Dictionary of Jewelry (London, 1981)Google Scholar; Bury, Shirley, An Introduction to Rings (London, 1984), pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

11. Ariès, P. and Duby, G. (general eds.), A History of Private Life, vol. iii. Chartier, Roger (ed.), Passions of the Renaissance (translated by Goldhammer, A., Masachusetts, 1989), pp. 246–8, 258Google Scholar; Chaytor, M., ‘Household and kinship: Ryton in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries’, History Workshop Journal 10 (1980), 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gillis, John R., ‘Peasant, plebeian, and proletarian marriage in Britain, 1600–1900’, in Levine, D. (ed.), Proletarianization and Family History (Orlando, 1984), p. 132Google Scholar; Gillis, John R., For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present (New York, 1985), pp. 31–4, 38, 51Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 60–2Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, pp. 344–6, 350Google Scholar; Ingram, M., ‘Spousals litigation in the English ecclesiastical courts, c. 1350–1640’, in Outhwaite, R. B. (ed.), Marriage and Society: Studies in the Social History of Marriage (London, 1981), pp. 46–7Google Scholar; Ingram, , Church Courts, pp. 196–8Google Scholar; Macfarlane, Alan, Marriage and Love in England: Modes of Production, 1300–1840 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 300–3Google Scholar; Sheehan, M.M., ‘The formation and stability of marriage in fourteenth-century England: evidence from an Ely register’, Medieval Studies 33 (1971), 228–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woodward, D. (ed.), The Farming and Memorandum Books of Henry Best of Elmswell. 1642, Records of Social and Economic History n.s. 8 (London, 1984), pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

12. Rushton, P., ‘The testament of gifts: marriage tokens and disputed contracts in north-east England, 1560–1630’, Folklife 24 (1985–1986), pp. 25–31Google Scholar; Rushton, P., ‘Property, power and family networks. The problem of disputed marriage in early modern England’, Journal of Family History 11 (1986), p. 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Segalen, Martine, Love and Power in the Peasant Family: Rural France in the Nineteenth Century, translated by Matthews, S. (Paris, 1980, Oxford, 1983), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

14. Gottlieb, B., ‘The meaning of clandestine marriage’ in Wheaton, R. and Hareven, T. K. (eds.), Family and Sexuality in French History (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 49–53, 70.Google Scholar

15. Roper, L., ‘“Going to the church and street”: Weddings in Reformation Augsburg’, Past and Present 106 (1985), pp. 81–3, 89, 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Berkowitz, D.S. and Thorne, S.E. (eds.), Classics of English Legal History in the Modern Era: Garland Series (New York and London, 1978):Google ScholarSwinburne, Henry, Treatise of Spousals or Matrimonial Contracts (London, 1686), pp. 1, 21, 27, 31–3, 39–43, 203–12, 229–30.Google Scholar

17. In addition to those cited above, deposition material has been used by others examining such topics as popular religion, illicit sex, defamation, migration and service: e.g. Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England (1971: Harmondsworth, Middx, 1973)Google Scholar; Quaife, G.R., Wanton Wenches and Wayward Wives: Peasants and Illicit Sex in Early Seventeenth-Century England (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Sharpe, J.A., ‘Defamation and sexual slander in early modern England: the church courts at York’, Borthwick Papers 58 (1980)Google Scholar; Goldberg, P.J.P., ‘Marriage, migration, servanthood and life-cycle in Yorkshire towns of the later Middle Ages: some York cause paper evidence’, Continuity and Change 1(2) (1986), 141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar More recently, the value of the source in the construction of historical biography and community has been explored in: Butcher, A.F. (ed.), William Urry, Christopher Marlowe and Canterbury (London, 1988).Google Scholar The following 26 vols. of deposition material form the basis of this paper: C.C.A.L., MSS. X.10.2 – X.10.21, X.ll.l –X.11.6.

18. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 130–1, 181–2Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 340.Google Scholar

19. It was theoretically considered desirable to limit the use of umpteen witnesses, and this was usually implemented in practice: Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, p. 128.Google Scholar The latter is an extreme example of the complex ramifications of what was, ostensibly, a typical contract suit. The matrimonial cause of Edmund Coppyn of Canterbury v. Katherine Richard of Biddenden, escalated into a tortuous investigation into the reputation and, therefore, the credibility of the witness Agnes Butterwick who died during the course of the proceedings. See C.C.A.L. MSS. X.10.7 – X.10.8, passim, X.10.9, ff. 3–4; Butcher, A.F., ‘The honest and the lewd in sixteenth-century Canterbury: the case of Mrs. Butterwick’, paper delivered at the graduate research seminar, dept. of history, University of Kent (19 10 1983)Google Scholar, and forthcoming as The Reputation of Old Mother Butterwick.

20. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 29Google Scholar, and ‘Property, power and family networks’, pp. 206–7Google Scholar; Gottlieb, , ‘Clandestine marriage’, p. 54Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 350Google Scholar; Donahue, , ‘Policy of Alexander III’, p. 267Google Scholar; Sheehan, , ‘Formation and stability’, p. 231.Google Scholar

21. Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, p. 45Google Scholar, and Church Courts, pp. 194–5Google Scholar; Rushton, , ‘Property, power and family networks’, pp. 215–16Google Scholar; Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 160–1Google Scholar; Sheehan, , ‘Formation and stability’, p. 234Google Scholar; Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 104–6.Google Scholar

22. The procedure for producing and examining witnesses is given in: Conset, H., The Practice of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts (First edn. 1681: 3rd edn.London, 1708), pp. 140–6.Google Scholar See also, Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 17–20, 112–13, 127–34Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 40–2Google Scholar; Ingram, , Church Courts, pp. 20, 48–9, 198–9Google Scholar; Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 55–8.Google Scholar

23. Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts, p. 4.Google Scholar

24. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 6–24Google Scholar, provides an excellent discussion of the sources, and pp. 112–40, of the general rules of procedure. Also, Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 38–54Google Scholar; Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 50–62Google Scholar; Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, p. 36.Google Scholar

25. Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 4, 139–40.Google Scholar

26. Donahue, , ‘Policy of Alexander III’, p. 261Google Scholar; Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation‘, p. 36.Google Scholar

27. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp 20–2Google Scholar; Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, pp. 40–2.Google Scholar

28. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 135–8Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, p. 67Google Scholar; Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, p. 51Google Scholar; and Church Courts, pp. 207–8.Google Scholar

29. C.C.A.L., MSS. Y.3.15, f. 270v., X.11.5, f. 186, J/J2 139.

30. Houlbrook, , ‘The making of marriage’, pp. 348–9Google Scholar, and Church Courts, pp. 83–4Google Scholar; Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, pp. 52Google Scholar, and Church Courts, pp. 208–9Google Scholar; Woodcock, , Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar

31. See also Ingram, , Church Courts, p. 183.Google Scholar

32. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 154–9.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., p. 162.

34. The question of when a gift is a bribe is discussed by Noonan, John T. Jr., Bribes (New York, 1984)Google Scholar, passim. He isolates the importance of intention, form, the context of reciprocity, and the ‘relational aspects’, in identifying the moral difference.

35. One example of expected reward was the promise of a gown which was made to the infamous Agnes Butterwick for her efforts in securing the marriage between William Witherden and widow Starkey. In the event, she was denied the reward and told, instead, to ‘walk like a bawd’: C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.8, ff. 134–5v. Cf. the custom in Luxembourg, of rewarding the female matchmaker with a scarf or apron: Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, p. 221.Google Scholar

36. Conset, The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 140, 268.Google Scholar

37. Donahue, C. Jr., ‘Proof by witnesses in the church courts of medieval England: an imperfect reception of the learned law’, in Arnold, M. S., Green, T. A., Scully, S. A., and White, S. D. (eds.), On the Laws and Customs of England (North Carolina, 1981), pp. 227–58.Google Scholar

38. Conset, The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 146–51.Google Scholar

39. Burn, Richard, The Ecclesiastical Law (London, 1824, 8th edn.), ii. 487.Google Scholar

40. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 131–3.Google Scholar

41. Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, p. 61.Google Scholar His own conclusion, is that circumstantial details probably did not affect the verdict, but he admits the impossibility of demonstrating the matter either way with any certainty.

42. Brundage, J.A., ‘Concubinage and marriage in medieval cannon law’, Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. For a full discussion of marriage theory, see Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 26–7Google Scholar; Sheehan, , ‘Formation and stability, pp. 229–30Google Scholar; Sheehan, M.M., ‘Choice of marriage partner in the middle ages: the development and mode of application of a theory of practice’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History n.s.l (1978), 3–33Google Scholar; Sheehan, M.M., ‘Marriage theory and practice in the conciliar legislation and diocesan statutes of medieval England’, Medieval Studies 40 (1978), 408–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noonan, J. Jr., ‘Power to choose’, Viator 4 (1973), 419–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donahue, , ‘Policy of Alexander III’, pp. 251–6Google Scholar; Donahue, , ‘The canon law’, pp. 144–58Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 56–60.Google ScholarIngram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, pp. 37–42Google Scholar; The most complete digest of types of contract is, of course, found in Swinburne, Treatise of Spousals.

44. Swinburne's account demonstrates the internal contradictions. See also Gottlieb, , ‘The meaning of clandestine marriage’, pp. 49–53Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 351.Google Scholar

45. Donahue, , ‘Policy of Alexander III’, pp. 252–3Google Scholar cites F.W. Maitland: that lovers were the least likely to distinguish between past and future tense.

46. Sheehan, , ‘Marriage theory and practice’, pp. 422–6, 459Google Scholar; Brundage, , ‘Concubinage and marriage’, p. 8Google Scholar; Gottlieb, , ‘The meaning of clandestine marriage’, pp. 49–53.Google Scholar

47. Brundage, , ‘Concubinage and marriage’, p. 6Google Scholar, describes the functions of the dotal gift as a ‘legal mechanism’ to ‘exteriorise feelings’. Also, Sheehan, M.M., ‘The influence of canon law on the property rights of married women in England’, Medieval Studies 25 (1963), p. 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Sheehan, , ‘The influence of canon law’, p. 114Google Scholar; Burn, , The Ecclesiastical Law, p. 479.Google Scholar

49. Sheehan, , ‘Choice of marriage partner’, pp. 31–2.Google Scholar

50. Swinburne, , Treatise of Spousals, pp. 207–9Google Scholar; Roper, , ‘“Going to church and street”’, p. 81Google Scholar. Posies also alluded to the ring as ‘round and hath no end’. See Evans, English Posies, pp. xxi, 98.Google Scholar

51. The discussion of ring-giving can be found in Swinburne, Treatise of Spousals, pp. 10, 39–43, 71, 209–10Google Scholar; Derrett, J.D.M., ‘Henry Swinburne (?1551–1624) civil lawyer of York’, Borthwick Papers 44 (1973), 25.Google Scholar

52. See also Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 60–2Google Scholar, and ‘The making of marriage’, pp. 344–6Google Scholar, who finds only one Norwich case of its conclusive effect.

53. Swinburne, , Treatise of Spousals, pp. 6–7, 21, 31–3, 41, 209Google Scholar; Conset, The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, p. 255.Google Scholar

54. Swinburne, , Treatise of Spousals, pp. 203–5Google Scholar; Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

55. Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 60–2.Google Scholar

56. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 28.Google Scholar

57. Ibid., p. 31, n. 23, citing Ingram.

58. Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 60–2Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, pp. 344–6Google Scholar; also Conset, The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, p. 271.Google Scholar

59. Helmholz, , Marriage Litigation, pp. 45–7.Google Scholar

60. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 28.Google Scholar

61. Ingram, , Church Courts, pp. 196–8.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, pp. 46–7Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, pp. 60–2Google Scholar; Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 346.Google Scholar

63. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 25Google Scholar; Love and Courtship in Renaissance Prints (Temporary Exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 03 – 06 1989).Google Scholar For love posies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries see Bullen, A.H. (ed.), Some Shorter Elizabethan Poems. An English Garner (Westminster, 1903), pp. 269–310Google Scholar; Thompson, R. (ed.), Samuel Pepys' Penny Merriments (London, 1976), pp. 114–15Google Scholar; and for courtship gifts in small merry books, see Spufford, Margaret, Small Books and Pleasant Histories (London, 1981), pp. 168–9.Google Scholar Numerous examples of gifts and tokens span the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, George Herbert and John Donne, and later writers such as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and Thomas Hardy, to name a few.

64. The figure is approximate because of circumstances of multi-contract, and because matrimony can only be inferred in certain cases. Cf. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 25Google Scholar, where 29 out of 81 actual or inferred matrimony cases provided such testimonies, and Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, pp. 344–6Google Scholar, where references to gifts were found in 25% of the cases. The early omissions of Canterbury cases at the time of writing should also be noted, but this is unlikely to affect the arguments of the paper. The proportion of male:female plaintiffs, and the varied circumstances of cases, have not been considered.

65. Ibid.

66. Gillis, , For Better, For Worse, pp. 6–7, 17.Google Scholar

67. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.9, f. 64, Aunsell v. Courte, (1563?).

68. Also Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 344Google Scholar; Rushton, ,.‘The testament of gifts’, p.26.Google Scholar

69. Bullen, (ed.), Some Shorter Elizabethan Poems, pp. 279–306.Google Scholar

70. Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 344.Google Scholar

71. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.6, ff. 115v.– 16, Lambard v. Harewood, (1556).Google Scholar

72. Ibid. MS. X.10.7, f. 102v., Lyon v. Cole, (1560).Google Scholar

73. Also Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, p. 344.Google Scholar

74. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.12, ff. 280v. – 1, Longley v. Marchant, (1566).Google Scholar

75. Ibid. MS. X.11.5, f. 121, Stringer v. Sturman, (1596)Google Scholar; but in this case, Thomas Sturman delivered the gift himself.

76. E.g. Evans, , English Posies, p. 85Google Scholar; ‘Not the guift, but the giver’ (1596).

77. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.7, f. 74 and v., Bonham v. Ellet, (1560).Google Scholar

78. Ibid. MS. X.10.18, ff. 154v. – 5, More v. Stupple, (1579).Google Scholar

79. Also Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, p. 60Google Scholar, and ‘The making of marriage’, p. 344Google Scholar; Macfarlane, , Marriage and Love, pp. 300–1.Google Scholar

80. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.16, f. 277 and v., 283, Essex v. Culling, (1577)Google Scholar; also e.g. MS. X.10.18, ff. 213v.–14v., Balden v. Brokwell, (1580).Google Scholar

81. Ibid. MS. X.10.21, f. 81v., Marketman v. Berry, (1581).Google Scholar

82. Ibid. MS. X.10.12, f. 287v., Longley v. Marchant, (1566).Google Scholar

83. Ibid. MS. X.10.11, f. 183v., Kennet v. Dunnye, (1570).Google Scholar

84. Ibid. MS. X.10.9, f. 59, Barrow v. Thomlyns, (1563?).Google Scholar

85. Ibid. MS. X.10.15, f. 161 and v., Ottringham v. Grigge, (1567)Google Scholar; cf. Evans, English Posies, p. 30, ‘Take hand take heart take body and all’.

86. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.11, f. 126, Hennikrev, . Sellar, (1569).Google Scholar

87. Above, Divers v. Williams.

88. C.C.A.L., MS. X.I 1.1, f. 2 and v., Terry v. Overie, (1585).Google Scholar

89. For sixteenth- and seventeenth-century usages, see O.E.D.

90. C.C.A.L., MS., X.10.19, f. 264, King v. Otway and Wood, (1584).Google Scholar

91. Ibid. MS. X.10.8, ff. 68v. - 9, Frances v. Marshe, (1561?).Google Scholar

92. Houlbrooke, , Church Courts, p. 60Google Scholar; Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

93. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 26Google Scholar, concludes that there were no fixed rules regarding type, although rings were often given, and Houlbrooke, , ‘The making of marriage’, pp. 344–6Google Scholar, similarly cites the frequency of rings associated with pledge, but also the popularity of coins, ornaments, and trinkets.

94. Cf. the ‘orange’ cited from eighteenth-century Belgium in the form of a heart, being a sweet-dish in orange peel covered with paper mache: Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, p. 121.Google Scholar

95. Bullen, (ed.), Some Shorter Elizabethan Poems, pp. 291–306Google Scholar; Bloxham, and Picken, , Love and Marriage, pp. 76–82Google Scholar: Brand, Observations in Popular Antiquities, pp. 54–61.Google Scholar

96. Wherever discrepancy exists, conservative estimates have been used throughout the analysis.

97. Gifts of ten shillings in this analysis have included angels and royals, except where otherwise stated.

98. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.6, f. 213v., Short v. Essex, and e.g. MS. X. 10. 8, f. 205v., Marshe v. Gaunt, (1562?).Google Scholar

99. Ibid. MS. X.10.3, f. 25, Singer v. Smith, (1546).Google Scholar

100. Ibid. MS. X.10.18, f. 24 and v., Mantle v. Mereweath, (1577).Google Scholar

101. Conset, The Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, pp. 146–51.Google Scholar

102. Swinburne, , A Treatise of Spousals, pp. 178–89.Google Scholar

103. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.14, f. 99 and v., Pynnocke v. Beeching, (1572).Google Scholar

104. Ibid. MS. X.10.7, ff. 299v.–300, Tusten v. Allen, (1568).Google Scholar

105. Macfarlane, , Marriage and Love in England, pp. 301–3.Google Scholar

106. Thompson, (ed.), Samuel Pepys' Penny Merriments, pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

107. Aries, and Duby, (general eds.), A History of Private Life III, pp. 246–8Google Scholar; Meyjes, Nelly P., Character and Beauty of Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth Century (Netherlands, 1957, Eng. – Dutch edn.), no. 36/37Google Scholar; J. Vermeer's ‘The Message’ or ‘The Love Letter’.

108. Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, pp. 172, 177, 210.Google Scholar

109. Ibid. pp. 149–50; Bloxham, and Picken, , Love and Marriage, pp. 22–3Google Scholar; Bradford, Roses are Red.

110. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.2, f. 33, Savye v. Philpott, (1542).Google Scholar

111. Ibid. MS. X.10.15, f. 209 and v., Smyth v. Grey, (1567).Google Scholar

112. E.g. ibid. MS. X.10.7, ff. 85v. 7ndash; 6, Lyon v. Cole, (1560)Google Scholar; MS. X. 10. 16, f. 300, Hannyng v. Knowler, (1577).Google Scholar

113. Ibid. MS. X.10.12, f. 44v., Smyth v. Godfrey (1564).Google Scholar

114. Gillis, For Better, For Worse, p. 31.Google Scholar

115. Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, p. 185.Google Scholar

116. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.12, f. 286v., Joyce v. Marchaunt, (1566).Google Scholar

117. Ibid. MS. X.10.12, ff. 151–2, Launsfeld v. Austen, (1565).Google Scholar

118. Gillis, , For Better, For Worse, p. 33Google Scholar; albeit unsubstantiated.

119. Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

120. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.11, ff. 255v. 6, (1569?).

121. Woodward, (ed.), Henry Best, pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

122. E.g. Aspects of Folklife in Europe, p. 158Google Scholar; Bradford, (ed.), Roses are Red.Google Scholar

123. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.18, ff. 276v.– 8, Ryeley v. Pitcher, (1580).Google Scholar

124. Ibid. MS. X.10.20, f. 176, Wanderton v. Wyld, (1583).Google Scholar

125. Ibid. MS. X.ll.l, f. 215 and v., Fookes v. Lowes, (1588).Google Scholar

126. Ibid. MS. X.10.17, f. 152v, Baxter v. Cotton, (1574).Google Scholar

127. Ibid. MS. X.10.12, f. 297, (1566).

128. Ibid. MS. X.10.12, f. 182 and v., Tusnothe v. Marden, (1565).Google Scholar

129. Ibid. MS. X.10.12, ff. 103v.–4, (1564).

130. See also Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 28Google Scholar; Gillis, , For Better, For Worse, pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

131. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.9, f. 28, Rolf v. Fryer, (1563).Google Scholar

132. Ibid. MS. X.10.6, ff. 200v.–l, Symons v. Bedford, (1558).Google Scholar

133. Houlbrook, , Church Chourts, p. 60.Google Scholar

134. Swinburne, , Treatise of Spousals, pp. 229–31.Google Scholar

135. Bourdieu, , Outline of a Theory of Practice, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar

136. C.C.A.L., MS., X.10.16, ff. 56–8, Wood v. Swift, (1575).Google Scholar

137. For the goodwill of friends, see also D. O'Hara, ‘”Ruled by my friends”: aspects of marriage in the diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540–1570’, Continuity and Change 6, (1991), 9–41.Google Scholar

138. Ibid. MS. Y.3.14, f. 47v.; X. 11. 6, ff. 198v.–201, 215–17, 220v.–lv., 223–4, 227v.–8, 229v.–30, Tresse v. Tresse, (1593–1594).Google Scholar

139. Ibid. MS. X.10.15, ff. 161v.–2v.

140. For earnest money in the North Riding, see Gillis, , For Better, For Worse, p. 29.Google Scholar

141. C.C.A.L., MS. X.I 1.2, ff. 160v.–l, Small v. Newenden and Terenden, (1586–1587).Google Scholar

142. Ibid. MS. X.11.6, ff. 167–9v., (1593).

143. Gillis, , For Better, For Worse, p. 51Google Scholar; Strutt, A.Compleat View of the Manners, Customs, Arms, Habits and of the Inhabitants of England, iii. 151–8.Google Scholar

144. Swinburne, , Treatise of Spousals, pp. 229–31.Google Scholar

145. Thomas, , Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 277–9Google Scholar; Thompson, (ed.), Samuel Pepys' Penny Merriments, pp. 130–1Google Scholar; Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, pp. 19–23, 245, and passim.Google Scholar

146. E.g. Baker, , Folklore and Customs of Love and Marriage, pp. 15–18Google Scholar; Gillis, , For Better, For Worse, p. 33.Google Scholar

147. Swinburne, , Treatise of Spousals, pp. 207–8Google Scholar; Burn, , The Ecclesiastical Law, ii. 479Google Scholar; Van Gennep, , Rites of Passage, p. 134Google Scholar; Roper, , ‘“Going to church and street’”, p. 81.Google Scholar For sexual symbolism in the rite of bestowing the ring, see Segalen, , Love and Power in the Peasant Family, p. 27.Google Scholar

148. Bloxham, and Picken, , Love and Marriage, pp. 60–5Google Scholar; Evans, , English Posies and Posy Rings, passimGoogle Scholar; Bruy, , An Introduction to Rings, pp. 16, 33.Google Scholar

149. C.C.A.L., MS. J/J2 18, Colyer v. Porredge, (1596–1597).Google Scholar

150. Evans, , English Posies and Posy Rings pp. 2–3, 106Google Scholar; Bury, , An Introduction to Rings, p. 25.Google Scholar

151. See also e.g. Bloxham, and Picken, , Love and Marriage, pp. 32–41, 44–9Google Scholar; Bury, , An Introduction to Sentimental Jewellery, pp. 15–16, 28Google Scholar; Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, pp. 149–50Google Scholar, for a later vogue.

152. Aspects of Folk Life in Europe, e.g. pp. 172, 177, 185.Google Scholar

153. C.C.A.L., MS., X.10.3, f. 19, Monday v. Parker, (1546).Google Scholar

154. Also Macfarlane, , Marriage and Love in England, p. 301.Google Scholar

155. Bloxham, and Picken, , Love and Marriage, pp. 43, 76–82.Google Scholar

156. Ibid., pp. 18–19.

157. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.18, ff. 144 and v., Nightingall v. Bridger, (1579).Google Scholar

158. Ibid. MS. X.10.11, ff. 183 and v., Kennet v. Dunnye, (1570).Google Scholar

159. See also Rushton, , ‘The testament of gifts’, p. 26Google Scholar which suggests that the custom of bending was optional.

160. Seen. 58.

161. C.C.A.L., MS. X.10.7, ff. 187 and v., (1567).

162. See n. 85.

163. C.C.A.L., MS. X.I 1.3, f. 5v., Alcocke v. Hordes, (1598)Google Scholar; Ibid., MS. Y.3.2, f. 66.

164. Ibid. MS. X.11.5, f. 255, Symons v. Spayne, (1598).Google Scholar

165. Ibid. MS. X.10.7, ff. 165v.–6v., (1560–1).