With our recent thread on the meanings of 'band' (wedding band, brass band, band of brothers), I did a double-take when seeing a headline that read as one of the following:
Group Banned from Campus Group Barred from Campus
What difference is there, if any, between the two?
Come to think of it, is there any connection between 'ban' in this sense, and 'wedding banns' (not 'wedding bands' )?
I would have said they were synonymous. However, when I look them up, I see that "ban" seems to have a more official or legal definition to keeping people out, whereas "bar" seems a more informal way word for excluding excluding people. In other words, women may be "barred" from mens' clubs, but someone who loses his driver's license is "banned" from driving.
Ban and bann are indeed related: the basic original sense is 'proclamation'. The Proto-Indo-European root bha- 'speak' appears as pha-/phe- in Greek (in emphasis), as fa- in Latin (in fable, fate, fairy, infant), and as ba- in Germanic.
The Bard, being barred from the band, Wrote his poetry, as he had planned. But Willie Shakespeare As you probably fear Said, "In Boston I'll never be banned."
Posts: 6708 | Location: Kehena Beach, Hawaii, U.S.A.
In looking at Jerry's post, it says that "bans" or "banns" (not a spelling error, CW) are an announcement in church for an intended marriage. I just have never heard of them. Are they particularly seen with Protestant churches?
Are they particularly seen with Protestant churches?
It's a medieval practice that originated in the Roman Catholic Church. The English word, banns, has an origin in Middle English which also places it before Henry VIII followed Luther's example. The practice of publishing the banns in the parish church (to discover any impediments to that proposed marriage) seems to have originated in France towards the end of the 12th century. It was made canon law at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215. (This was the same council at which Moslems and Jews were fourced to wear clothing that distinguished them from Christians.) The Latin banna is borrowed from Old English verb bannan 'to summon'.
Publishing the marriage banns dates back to an order by Charlemagne in the early 800s, according to Charles Panati in his excellent book The Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things. Here is his text:
. . .Charlemagne, king of the Franks, on Christmas Day in AD 800 was crowned Emperor of the Romans, marking the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. . . .Charlemagne, with a vast region to rule, had a practical medical reason for instituting marriage banns. Among rich and poor alike, a child's parentage was not always clear; an extramarital indiscretion could lead to a half-brother and half-sister marrying, and frequently did. Charlemagne, alarmed by the high rate of sibling marriages, and the subsequent genetic damage to the offspring, issued an edict throughout his unified kingdom: All marriages were to be publicly proclaimed at least seven days prior to the ceremony. To avoid consanguinity between the prospective bride and groom, any person with information that the man and woman were related as brother or sister, or as half-siblings, was ordered to come forth. The practice proved so successful that it was widely endorsed by all faiths.
Publishing the marriage banns dates back to an order by Charlemagne in the early 800s
I think that the Carolingian law simply puts the onus on the parish priest to consult with his parishioners to determine if a proposed marriage could legally take place. The publishing of banns in the parish church seems to date from the 13th century in France. But I guess I'll have to try and dig up the actually text of the law in the Monumenta Germaniæ Historia.
As for "a practical medical reason for instituting marriage banns" I doubt that anybody worried about medical reasons until the 18th century or so. The prohibition (say Roman or Greek) or sanctioning (say Ptolemaic Egyptian) of incestuous marriage is usually based on religious considerations pure and simple.
Of course, it could well be that Charlemagne's civil law, and the church's canonical law, separately and at different times promulgated a requirement of banns to help identify impediments to a contemplated marriage.
Apparently the church had been concerned with marriages between relatives for several centuries before Charlemagne. According to the on-line Britannica, "The few and definite prohibitions of the Roman and of the Jewish law in the matter of marriage between kindred, were indefinitely extended; until in 506 the council of Agde laid it down that any consanguinity or affinity whatever constituted an impediment. [Later,] Pope Gregory I limited the impediment to the 7th degree of relationship inclusive (civil computation) which was afterwards made the law of the empire by Charlemagne."
As to banns, the article continues, "Charlemagne, in a capitulary of 802, forbade the celebration of a marriage until the bishops, priests and elders of the people had made diligent inquiry into the question of the consanguinity of the parties. This was the origin of the publication of banns which, long customary in France, was made obligatory on the whole Church by Pope Innocent III."
Was the avoidance of incest the only reason for the publishing of the banns? A possible objection to a marriage that comes comes to mind is that one of the parties might have "forgotten" an earlier marriage and his/her partner is still alive. Remember that divorce was impossible for all except kings (and difficult for them), and bigamy was not uncommon.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Well, of course there are various things that would bar a proposed marriage: an close family relationship, existing prior marraige, underage party. And the bann would provide time and notice so that someone to object if any of these applied.
But per shufitz's Britanica site, there clearly was a concern about consanguinty, regardless of whether that concern stemmed from medical views or from religious views.
)?
