Marriage between Christians and non-Christians

Marriages between Christians and non-Christians were not allowed in any Christian country after the second half of the last century, and indeed before the last century, not only in Orthodox or Catholic, but also in Protestant states. Difference of faith (disparitas cultus) was an obstacle to marriage in state laws everywhere without exception. This principle was abandoned for the first time in France at the beginning of the last century, when in 1804 the Civil Code (Code civil) was published, in which marriage was recognized as a civil institution regulated by civil law. The religious side of marriage was not regulated by the legislator, who recognized the legal marriages of both Christians and non-Christians, provided that there was no other rule of law regulating marriage. This principle passed from French legislation into the law of other Western countries, mainly Protestant, where the law allows and recognizes as legal the marriage of baptized and unbaptized people. But in most other Christian states such a marriage is not recognized and in the relevant civil codes of these states it is expressly prohibited, and if it was concluded, it is dissolved as invalid 1 . Among other Christian countries, this is the case today in Austria. According to § 64 of the Austrian Civil Code, marriage between Christians and non-Christians is not recognized. Difference of religion is one of the marital impediments of public law, and if this impediment appears in one already contracted marriage, the competent authority, in accordance with the provisions of § 94 of the same code, is obliged to officially dissolve such a marriage. A recent case has shown that the provisions of these clauses are not of absolute importance, and that in the Austrian State, although the Roman Catholic faith is of great importance, marriage between the baptized and the unbaptized can still be permitted and recognized as legal. This has generated a lot of press coverage, and the liberal press has taken particular notice of this, given the issue of marital reform, which is currently on the agenda in Austria and is being actively discussed. This is the case. A certain Jew, a subject of Austria, decided to marry a Roman Catholic girl. Since such a marriage is prohibited by the mentioned law, he applies to the Roman Curia for a dispensation, which he receives. The Roman Catholic priest, to whom this Jew turned, having seen the permission of the Roman Curia, marries them according to the prescribed church rite. But such a marriage does not matter to the civil authorities, since it violates the provisions of the Civil Code. In order to achieve recognition, without which the church wedding would be in vain, he turns to the appropriate political authority (the governor of Trieste) demanding recognition of his marriage, which he achieves. Thus, today an Austrian subject, being a Jew, lives in a completely legal marriage with his Roman Catholic wife 2. This development, which is of great importance for marriage law in general, regardless of whether marriage is considered a civil contract or an ecclesiastical sacrament, makes it necessary to address the question of difference of religion as an obstacle to marriage in the history of marriage law, that is, whether difference of religion constitutes an absolute reason for the dissolution of a marriage, and depending on this, whether it is legally possible for a competent higher authority to recognize such a marriage that has already been concluded (with the presence of such a marriage obstacle). 1. By its nature, marriage is an inextricable and permanent bond between husband and wife for life. Since ancient times, marriage has been considered this way by all peoples whose lives and customs were governed by ethical principles, regardless of what religion they professed. The Christian Church could not condemn such a marriage, since it contains the basic elements of Christian ethics. And today the Church demonstrates this by recognizing the marriages of Jews, Muslims and the like as completely legal from an ecclesiastical legal point of view; Moreover, she considers them as such even when a family of Jews or Muslims converts to Christianity. But while recognizing and respecting the ethical elements of a legal marriage contracted outside the Christian community, the Church still required its parishioners to enter into their marriages in accordance with the dictates of the Gospel, and that such marriages take place only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39). She wanted that in the marriage of her children, in addition to the physical unity between husband and wife, and in addition to the ethical side of marriage, which should consist in the complete and indissoluble community of all life relations between them, there would also be a unity of faith, which would serve as a visible expression of the fact that such a marriage is in the fullest sense in the Lord. The Church also demanded and should have demanded from her children that marriage (also according to the Roman concept of it) should be a complete communion of not only ethical and legal, but also religious relations between husband and wife, 3 and such communication in the full sense cannot exist if there is no religious unity in marriage, if the husband professes a Christian faith, and the wife professes some non-Christian faith. This position of the Christian Church regarding marriage between its members is understandable and clear, and needs no explanation. The Apostle Paul, emphasizing that Christians should marry only in the Lord, so that husband and wife are bound together by the unity of faith and in this unity raise their children, reminds them that it is not natural for them to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). This New Testament teaching on Christian marriage also existed in the Old Testament, in which Jews were prohibited from marrying certain peoples who did not profess true faith in God (Gen. 27:46; Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:23; 20, 14-18). The same teaching was developed by the fathers and teachers of the Church, starting from the first days of Christianity. At the beginning of the 3rd century, a sharp mention of this is heard from Tertullian: “Fideles gentilium matrimonia subeuntes, stupri reos esse constat” 4. The Carthaginian bishop Cyprian, who lived a little later than Tertullian, follows him in this, and, pointing out that the New Testament scripture condemns marriages of the baptized with the unbaptized, says: “Iungere cum infidelibus vinculum matrimonii, prostitnere membra Christi est” 5. The name infideles (infidels) was then understood first of all by Jews, then by pagans (gentiles) and subsequently by all those Christians who did not have correct baptism, that is, who were not baptized as Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19), and whom the Church called heretics (haeretici) in the strict sense 6. So baptism, and proper baptism, was the main thing that was taken into account when considering the question of difference of religion when a marriage was celebrated. In this sense, the difference of religions is also spoken of as an obstacle to Christian marriage in the canons. The Council of Laodicea (343) speaks about this in two of its canons: in canon 10, it generally prohibits Christians from marrying infidels, that is, with those who are not baptized or incorrectly baptized; and in Canon 31 he allows this only on the condition that the unbaptized spouse accepts the Christian faith. The Church position that Christians should take Christian wives, and that Christian women should marry only Christians, was also adopted by civil Greco-Roman legislation. The provisions of this legislation specifically mention Jews, with whom Christians are prohibited from marrying 7 . The first ban on marriages between Christians and non-Christians was issued by the Emperor Constantius in 339, that is, almost at the same time as the Council of Laodicea; he threatens punishment to any Christian subject who enters into such a marriage 8 . Later (388) a second law was issued declaring such a marriage to be adultery; the Christian spouse was subject to criminal prosecution 9 . This law was included at the end of the 9th century in the composition of Vasilik and thereby became a generally binding and permanent law for the Byzantine Empire in the future 10. The same law was included in the general canonical collection of the Orthodox Church (Nomocanon of XIV titles) and thus the norms of this law acquired an international character for church decisions in marriage matters 11. In accordance with the mentioned provision of Greco-Roman legislation and ecclesiastical Eastern legislation, several other provisions were issued regarding marriages between Christians and non-Christians. After the mentioned canons of the Council of Laodicea, a similar canon was issued in 393 at the Council of Hippo (known as the 21st canons of the Council of Carthage in 419). This canon establishes that the sons and daughters of priests cannot marry infidels 12. This canon speaks about the children of priests, but according to the commentator, this applies equally to the children of laymen 13. At the IV Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451, this issue was also discussed. The reason was that the decrees of both the Councils of Laodicea and Hippo were only local decrees, which in various other local churches were not considered generally binding and there marriages between Christians and non-Christians were allowed; Even those with the lower degrees of the priesthood (readers and singers) did this. This Ecumenical Council was supposed to issue a norm binding on all Christians, and with its 14th canon it prohibited the marriage of Christians with the unbaptized, unless the unbaptized promise to accept the Orthodox faith; violation of this promise is subject to canonical penalties. In 691, this norm was repeated by the Council of Trulla in its 72nd canon. This Trullian canon, together with the 14th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, is given, along with the mentioned provision of the Greco-Roman legislation of 388, in the Nomocanon of the XIV titles, and thereby the norm that difference of religion prevents Christian marriage is recognized as universally binding for the entire Orthodox Church, in other words, marriage between Christians and non-Christians is prohibited. 2. The marital impediment is based on positive law and, therefore, no dispensation from this impediment is allowed. This must be the case according to the norm, as for any other provision of positive law, especially since in this law it is nowhere mentioned that the competent authority could deviate from this and in this case allow a baptized person to take an unbaptized wife, or a baptized one to marry an unbaptized person. But there is a provision, and it is precisely from this law, that difference in religion is not an absolute ground for the divorce of a marriage concluded between baptized and unbaptized, but that such a marriage can, if necessary, be declared invalid. And this circumstance naturally suggests that perhaps the mentioned prohibition on removing this marital obstacle cannot be taken in an absolute sense. To make this clear, it is necessary first to consider what the positive law says about the difference of religions in the matter of dissolution of marriage, which has already been drawn up according to one of those various forms of marriage that have already existed and exist today. Following apostolic instruction, early Christians avoided marriage with non-Christians and made sure to marry only Christians. That this was not always easy to do is self-evident, considering how few Christians there were in the beginning, and how long it took for their numbers to increase so much that they could without much effort find companions among fellow believers. At the same time, it was taken into account that through marriages of Christians with non-Christians, these latter can easily convert to Christianity; and besides, with the laws on marriage existing in the state at that time, to which Christians had to turn to have their marriage recognized as legal by citizens, very often it was almost impossible for them to always and strictly act in matters of marriage according to the apostolic teaching. The Church had to take all this into account and therefore she condescended and recognized in such cases the marriages of its members with non-Christians. And she could do this because there were no clear provisions about this in Christian moral teaching, just as there were no provisions that would unconditionally prohibit marriage between Christians and non-Christians. On the contrary, in the New Testament it was forbidden to divorce a spouse just because one of the spouses does not profess the Christian faith: “If a brother has an unbelieving wife, and she agrees to live with him, then he should not leave her; and a wife who has an unbelieving husband, and he agrees to live with her, should not leave him. For an unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband” (1 Cor. 7:12-14). This passage from the New Testament makes it very clear that not only can a marriage be tolerated in Christianity between a Christian and an infidel, but once such a marriage has taken place, it cannot be dissolved. The reason for this provision of the New Testament Scripture about such marriages, in addition to the above, was also in the hope that with such a marriage it would be easier to incline the party that does not profess this faith to accept the Christian faith; for “why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or do you, husband, why do you know whether you will not save your wife?”, as it says in the same above-mentioned place of the New Testament (1 Cor. 7:16). This is the last word in New Testament Scripture on marriages between Christians and non-Christians, and it constitutes the dogmatic teaching of the Christian Church. Christians should marry Christians; If a marriage is concluded by a couple in which one is baptized and the other is not, but such a marriage corresponds in itself to the natural nature of marriage, such a marriage is recognized in the Christian Church and it is forbidden to destroy it. From this point of view, the fathers and teachers of the Church discussed marriage between Christians and non-Christians. Basil the Great, in his 9th canon, speaking about the reasons for the dissolution of a marriage, cites the mentioned passage from the New Testament Scripture and prohibits the dissolution of a marriage concluded between the baptized and the unbaptized, referring to the same motive that the Scripture mentions; in other words, it does not recognize difference of faith (disparitas cultus) as a reason for divorce 14. John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Basil 15, speaks similarly. Augustine, with the authority that he had in the first half of the 5th century in the West, emphasizes in his dogmatic work De fide et operibus that nowhere in Holy Scripture does he find that marriage concluded between Christians and non-Christians 16 should be destroyed, and in his work De adulterinis coniugiis he simply calls adultery the abandonment by a Christian husband of his non-Christian wife and his desire to enter into another marriage 17. It is known that many God-fearing Christians were married to non-Christians: Eugenia, mother of Timothy, a disciple of Paul, Eulalia, Nonna - mother of Gregory of Nazianzus, Monica, mother of Augustine, Anastasia, Publius, Cecilia and many others whom the Church reveres as saints 18. Church legislation sanctioned what already existed in tradition and custom in the Church. The mentioned 9th canon of St. Basil was adopted at the Trullo Ecumenical Council as a canon binding on the entire Church; this council, in its 72nd canon, established the same norm. Having forbidden marriages between Orthodox Christians and those who do not profess the pure Orthodox faith, this council unanimously commands that a marriage should not be dissolved if the spouses in that marriage are of different faiths, and cites the same passage from the New Testament mentioned by Basil the Great, according to which the dissolution of an existing marriage because of the difference of religion between the spouses is prohibited. This Trullian canon, as the last of the canons generally binding for the entire Church, operates and should be considered as a general ecclesiastical legal norm in the Orthodox Church, and therefore the prohibition to destroy an existing marriage due to differences in religion between spouses is based on positive ecclesiastical law. It is another matter if in a Christian marriage one of the spouses deviates from the Christian faith, as we have already discussed elsewhere 19. From the teaching of the Church that a marriage is prohibited from being dissolved because one of the spouses professes the Christian faith and the other does not, it follows that the Church, in principle, recognizes as legal marriage between Christians and non-Christians, if such a marriage exists and if it otherwise corresponds to the natural character of marriage. This recognition by the Church of the legality of such a marriage stems from the great desire that is expressed in the mentioned passage of New Testament Scripture, and from the general principle according to which the Church has always adhered, and today adheres to the rule that one should deviate in extreme cases from the strictness of the established general norms, when the needs of the time and the individual require it, and when thereby possible family conflict and social harm will be eliminated, and in the long term some good will be achieved; of course, if such a deviation does not interfere with the general principle of morality and law and the reputation of the Church does not suffer. This retreat of the Church from the strictness of general rules in individual cases and condescension to human weaknesses and the needs of the time is clearly visible in the life of the Church of all times, starting with the most ancient 20. What is relevant for the recognition of the validity of a marriage already contracted between Christians and non-Christians must also be relevant when some, due to their exceptional and unusual circumstances, go to the extent of being allowed to enter into such a marriage. The same motives apply to both cases. If, for these reasons, the Church considers it necessary to recognize a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian that already exists, then for the same reasons it can permit the conclusion of such a marriage when such a request is made to it. If she can, by positive law, declare such a marriage invalid, then she can also authorize the conclusion of such a marriage, if only the specified motives exist, and can, therefore, give a dispensation for the marriage impediment that arises due to the difference of religion. This is not mentioned in the positive law of the Church, but in its common law there is more than one example of this. Thus, Balsamon, in his commentary on the 72nd canon of the Council of Trullo, mentions that in his time (12th century) individual bishops gave permission for marriages between Christians and non-Christians, in large numbers (because he complains about this, and demands that such a practice be limited 21). And the fact that such marriages, especially between Christians and Muslims, existed from the 13th century onwards, and that the Church allowed this, is well known from history. From all that has been said the following can be seen: 1) Difference of religion is an obstacle to marriage and therefore marriage between Christians and non-Christians is not permitted. As such, these impediments (impedimentum) are not absolute, but conditional; This obstacle does not apply to the impermissible ones (impedientia), which make the completed marriage illegal. 2) Against this impediment, a dispensation may be granted by a competent higher authority, and therefore a marriage may be permitted between one professing the Christian faith and a non-Christian, if there are extraordinary reasons for it which are worthy of special attention and which cannot be removed, and if the natural character of the marriage is ensured, while the spouse concerned is guaranteed complete freedom to perform Christian religious duties and influence the family life. 3) Difference of religions in itself is not a reason for divorce if it has already been concluded, with the exception of cases where an unbelieving spouse prevents a Christian from practicing his faith or forces him to perform non-Christian religious rituals. 3. This is also the case in the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to marriage between Christians and non-Christians. The teaching of Tertullian and Cyprian on this issue was decisive; Beginning with the Council of Elvira in 305, over the following centuries, various Western local councils issued several decrees prohibiting marriages between Christians and non-Christians. Several such provisions are contained in Decree of Gratian 22 and in connection with the significance of this decree in the West, these same provisions could also have a generally binding significance for the entire Roman Catholic Church; but this did not happen, and until the 18th century in the West there was unequal practice in this matter. It happened that in some regional churches such marriages were prohibited, while in others they were allowed and recognized as legal from a church point of view. Then Pope Benedict XIV, by bull of 1749, finally resolved this issue 23 - a marriage concluded between the baptized and the unbaptized was declared invalid; nevertheless, the highest church authority (the pope) was left the right to authorize such a marriage in individual cases (and such permissions were issued very often). With Protestants, things are different. Luther already said that marriage is a secular matter, and therefore the difference in religion cannot have any significance in its conclusion 24 . Every Protestant is free to marry a Jew, or a woman of any other non-Christian faith. However, not all Protestants do this, since, for example, in Sweden Protestants are prohibited from marrying non-Christians. However, not all Protestant professors of church law approve of such a bold teaching of Luther 25 4. The civil legislation of the respective Christian states developed unevenly in this matter, but to a large extent depending on church law. In the West, a turning point in marriage legislation occurred in the 17th century in France, when the secularization of marriage began. How it ended in this country was stated at the beginning of this article. The movement to secularize marriage occurred in Austria in the 18th century and found expression in the 1783 marriage patent (Ehepatent) of Emperor Joseph II. At the same time, the same movement spread to Germany and manifested itself in the Prussian General Code (Landrecht) in 1791. Here this has gone to its extreme limits, and in the current Civil Code, which came into force on January 1, 1900, marriage between Christians and non-Christians is not mentioned, and therefore such marriage is not prohibited. The same is the case in some other German states 26 . Austria was about to follow the same path as Germany, but this was stopped due to the special religious circumstances in which that country found itself. In the General Austrian Civil Code, promulgated on June 1, 1811, §64 states: “Marriage cannot be legally contracted between Christians and persons not belonging to the Christian faith.” And if by chance such a marriage was concluded, it should be considered never to have taken place and “the invalidity of a marriage, which is prevented (among other things) by the obstacle specified in §64, should be officially investigated” (as defined by §94 of the same code 27). The dispensation of this marital obstacle is not allowed, as well as the dispensation of other marital obstacles of public law 28. Today this law applies to Austrian citizens 29 . This law has now been abandoned, as is shown by the incident cited at the beginning with that Jew and the Roman Catholic woman. For the marital impediment, which here consisted of a difference of religion, the competent political authority issued a dispensation, and referred to §83 of the Civil Code, which determines that “for important reasons” a dispensation for marital impediment can be issued. But in its decision this authority did not indicate what kind of obstacle this was, and how it brought this §83 into conformity with the mentioned two paragraphs of the Civil Code and with the principle of Austrian justice that it is not permissible to derogate from the obstacles to marriage of public law. And this explains all those various bulletins and articles in the public press, which call this decision unusual and contrary to existing legislative provisions. Of course, it would be a different matter if one could judge this decision independently of these decisions. The current situation in Austria with the issue of differences of faith as an obstacle to marriage indicates that the current general aspirations and actions for the reform of marriage law and, in general, for the revision of the civil code should be considered completely justified. On the canonical aspects of church marriage // Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. Fundamentals of the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on dignity, freedom and human rights. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2018. pp. 163–173. Draft document “On issues related to prayer with non-Orthodox Christians” // Official website of the Russian Orthodox Church. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://Www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/6163162.html?ysclid=m5tievpk4j72602479 (access date: 10/01/2024). Nechaev P.I. A practical guide for clergy or a systematic presentation of the full range of their duties and rights. St. Petersburg, 1884. Nicodemus (Milash), bishop. Orthodox church law: comp. according to general ecclesiastical legal sources and private laws in force in autocephalous churches / trans. from Serbian M. G. Petrovich. SPb.: Type. V. V. Komarova, 1897. Nicodemus (Milash), bishop. The marriage of a Christian and a non-Christian // Nikodim (Milash), bishop. Affairs. KNo. VII: Autobiography; studio; chlanzi. Beograd; Sibenik: Truth, 2005. pp. 783–796. The Serbian Civil Code in §79 states: “Marriage between Christians and non-Christians has no force or meaning, and is destroyed as if it did not exist.” Wed. §93, paragraph 8. See: Juristiche Blätter (Wien), No. 31 of 5 August 1906. According to the definition of Roman law, “nuptae sunt coniunctis maris et feminae, consortium omnis vitae, divini et humani iuris communication” (Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the community of all life, participation in divine and human law) // Dig. 23, 2, 1. Cf. Basilic. 28, 4, 1. Ad uxorem. II. c. 3 (“Christians who marry idolatrous wives cannot be exempt from the charge of fornication,” see Migne, Patr. lat. t 1, col. 1242–1293). Ad Ouirinem. III. c. 63 (“By concluding marital unions with infidels, the members of Christ offer to the pagans (Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Fallen”) De laps. c. 6, Migne, Patr. lat. t. IV, col. 483). On the meaning of the word “heretic” in the language of canon law, and that in this meaning a heretic is the same as a non-Christian, see the 34th canonical answer of Balsamon (Leunclavii Jus graeco-romanum. I, 380), and the comments of the same Balsamon and Zonara on the 72nd canon of the Council of Trulla (Beuregii Synodikon, I, 241–242). The prohibition of marriage between Christians and pagans (barbari, gentiles), mentioned in the 566 novella of Emperor Justinian (154th novella of Justinian), was based on the fact that these pagans were not Roman citizens and therefore could not enter into a matrimonium civile, legitimum, with them, while Jews were Roman citizens. “Ne quis Christianam mulierem in matrimonio Judaeus accipiat, neque Judaeae Christianus coniugium sortiatur; nam si quis aliquid huiusmodi admiserit, adulterii vicem commissi huius crimen obtinebit, libertate in accusandum publicis quoque vocibus relaxata" (“Let no Christian marry a Jew and no Jew marry a Christian, and if anyone commits something like this, his crime will be like adultery, and freedom of accusation will be granted to anyone" // Cod. Justin. 1, 9, 6). Similiter placuit, ut filli clericorum gentilibus vel haereticis matrimonio non coniungantur (“But the children of the laity do not enter into communication with heretics in marriage” // Revereg. Synodik. I, 546, where this canon is numbered 24). “Sed nec laicorum liberi haereticis in matrimonii communionem comiunguntur” (“Now there is no freedom for heretics in marriage matters. But neither laity nor heretics enter into marital communion” // Bever. Synod. I, 547). “...sed etiam ab infdeli viro non jussa est mulier separari, sed manere propter incertitudinem eventus; Quid enim scis mulier, an virum sis servatura?” (“But even from an unbaptized husband, the wife should not be released, but should remain due to the uncertainty of the outcome: for how do you know, wife, whether you will not save your husband? (1 Cor. 7:16)” // Bever. II. 64). Chrysost hom, 19. c 3 in I Cor. cap. 7. See about this Kutschker, Die gemichten Ehen, Wien, 1842. S. 246. fg. Milash, Crkveno law (II. edition), country 675. Wed. canons: I Sun. 12; Trul. 102; 10 Petra Alex. 10; Gregory of Nyssa 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Vasily Vel. 1; messages from Kirill Alexander. Gennady Archimandrite and Maxim the Deacon. The same was expressed later (1864) in a message from Patriarch Sophronius of Constantinople. Bevereg. Synodik. I. 242. Decretum Gratiani P. II. C. XXVIII. Ouasat. 1. c. 10, 11, 12, 16 et 17. "Singulare nobis" dated February 9, 1749 (Bullar. Bened. XIV. T. III, rad. 560 sq.) “Therefore, know that marriage is an external, bodily matter. Just as I love to talk, drink, sleep and do business with a pagan, a Jew, a Turk, a heretic, so I want to remain married to him. Don’t cling to stupid laws” (these words belong to Luther). See, for example, Ae. L. Richter, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts VIII. Auf. § 279. See Leske u's article about this. Loewenfeld, Die Rechtsverfolgung im internationalen Verkehr. Berlin. 1904, IV, I fg. The text of these paragraphs is given here according to: A. Rusnov, Obci austrijski gradjanski zakonik. Zagreb, 1885. “Ein Ehehinderniss des öffentlichen Rechtes kann durch Dispens nicht behoben warden” (“A violation of public law regarding marriage cannot be remedied by dispensation”). This was established by the Austrian Supreme Court (k.k. Oberste Gerichtshof) by decision of April 4, 1905 number 3981. In Hungary, according to the current marriage law (legislative article XXXI of 1894), the difference in religion does not constitute an obstacle to marriage. What is the attitude to this issue today among the Romance peoples (Italy and Spain) and in England, see: Holtzendorff, Encyklopädie der Rechtswissenschaft. Leipzig, 1903 I, 838, 861 Srv. also: Leske und Loewenfeld, Die Rechtsverfolgung. IV, 329, 391, 413, 489. It is very interesting to read what has been written about marriage in general from a philosophical point of view by Dr. Unger in his work: Die Ehe in ihrer welthistorischen Entwicklung. Wien, 1850.