(I posted a response to this a week ago but for some reason I’m not seeing it showing up in my posts so I’m going to try to re-write it to the best of my memory! Sorry to backtrack!!)

Going a little further along in the passage you quoted, I thought there was some interesting language on what happens if someone presents an impediment: “then the Solemnization must be deferred unto such time as the truth to be tried”

My instinct is to read “tried” in the sense of a trial, which is to say that they’re going to adjudicate the “truth”. It’s such a weird turn of phrase to me because it seems as though the truth is linked to the person declaring the impediment — which enough to stop the Solemnization — but then the truth needs to be judged. If it’s the truth, isn’t it just … the truth? Wouldn’t the truth theoretically be the result of the judgment? I’m probably leaning too heavily on the legal-ness at work here (which I know nothing about w/r/t modern day, and so obviously even less w/r/t Renaissance England). It’s also likely that I’m conflating “truth” too much with the impediment, and perhaps they mean it in the broader, more expected sense of the truth of the matter. But still, the “truth” seems to be put into this liminal position of being enough to stop the proceedings, but not enough to be impervious to judgment, which is to say (very weirdly) the true truth.

I think Sarah brought up an interesting point about relating the marriage ceremony to the public/private discussion we were having in class. While reading I also noticed the line, “I require and charge you (as you will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed) that if either of you do know any impediment why ye may not be lawfully joined together in matrimony, that ye confess it.” Although not said word for word, this is something that is still said in weddings today. It shows that marriage is not a private event, and that the joining of two people includes the opinions of their communities or families. I think this also reminds me of why people choose to have a ceremony and invite guests in the first place. Many book religions state the importance of having “legal witnesses” in weddings to legitimize the union of two people, and whether or not it is religious, ceremonies are a huge part of wedding culture today, thus making it more public than private.

I was curious about the line:”in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his church.” It seems that “innocence” is often a gendered term, referring to chastity and virginity, so I was curious about the choice to refer to “man’s” innocency” here, and what that could signify. I also wonder about the phrase, “mystical union,” which seems to refer both a religious and metaphysical unification.

I was surprised, in all of the readings, how separate the ideas of “matrimony” and the “spouse” were. This is perhaps most clear in Katherine Philips’s “A Married State.” She writes, “Thus you are freed from all the cares that do Attend on matrimony and a husband too” (Line 11). Both the marriage and the spouse each carry different challenges, and all of the authors are very clear to make this distinction. This is reinforced by all of the different purposes of marriage that are listed in “The Book of Common Prayer.” Marriage is not simply for the purpose of being with the one you love, and this is probably what leads to this great separation.

In the Book of Common Prayer, the speaker asks,  “if either of you do know any impediment why ye may be lawfully joined together in matrimony, that ye confess it.” In doing so, the marriage/relationship is not a choice between two people, but open to the community for scrutiny. To me it seems like this could relate to our discussion of public/private life/acts and how marriage is regulate…if anyone else has any ideas on the subject!

It was interesting to me the emphasis on obedience in these different texts, requiring obedience of both wives and subjects. The Book of Homilies made rebellion into a sacrilege, I assume because Cranmer was significantly worried about the threat of it. It seems then that the reason obedience was emphasized for wives may have also been for similar reasons–perhaps obedience for women was such a focus in part because men were worried what would happen if they were to rebel?

I am intrigued by Katherine Philips’ “A Married State.” Philips gives women an option outside heterosexual love, it seems: “Therefore Madam, be advised by me/ Turn, turn apostate to love’s levity,/ Suppress wild nature if she dare rebel./ There’s no such thing as leading apes in hell.” She subverts the language of the Book of Homilies by invoking “rebel” and “hell,” which is an especially interesting tactic in a poem with this title. This poem reads like a whisper to another woman about how marriage isn’t all it’s imagined to be, which makes me wonder how it was circulated.