1 Exceptions being the work of Lesthaeghe, Houdaille and Houdaille, Kussmaul. J. (‘Un indicateur de pratique religieuse: la célébration saisonniére des mariages avant, pendant et après la Révolution française (1740–1829)’, Population 33 (1978), 367–80)Google Scholar attempted to examine the effectiveness of the revolutionary campaign against the Catholic Church using data on the months of marriages in the last decade of the eighteenth century. Seasonal patterns in marriages during the period 1540–1740 in England were used by Kussmaul, A. (A general view of the rural economy of England, 1538–1840 (Cambridge, 1990))CrossRefGoogle Scholar as an indicator of the dominant working pattern and for the times at which changes in economic activities took place. Lesthaeghe, R. (‘Moral control, secularization and reproduction in Belgium (1600–1900)’, in Historiens et Populations. Liber Amicorum Etienne Hélin (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1991), 259–79)Google Scholar used a seasonality index to measure the degree of moral control and secularization in Belgium.

2 Lesthaeghe, , ‘Moral control’, 259.Google Scholar

3 Kussmaul, , A general view, 42–4.Google Scholar

4 Bourgeois-Pichat, J., ‘Le mariage coutume saisonnière. Contribution à une étude sociologique de la nuptialité en France’, Population 1 (1946) 623–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 In contrast to this, the church calendar of the Church of England discouraged marriage in the periods covering Septuagesima to Quasimodo, Rogation to Trinity and Advent Sunday to Hilary (Edwards, W. J., ‘The definition of “prohibited areas”’, Local Population Studies 38 (1987), 30).Google Scholar

6 The rules on the prohibited period were stipulated in the Rituale Romanum under Title 7, Chapter 1, line 19. They were declared applicable for the Dutch archdiocese at the Provincial Council of Utrecht in 1865 (see Acta et Decreta Synodi Provincialis Vltrajectensis, St Michielsgestel, 1866).Google Scholar Before 1865, the vicars apostolic and archpriests worked in a missionary area in which decisive action was required and room for more pragmatic behaviour was available. Departures from the religious rules thus will have been more numerous in these years than after the restoration of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in 1853.

7 Helin, E., ‘Les saisons du mariage’ in Amour et manage en Europe. Actes du colloque international (Liège, 1975), 162.Google Scholar

8 van Campen, W. J., Het huwelijk. Handboek voor christelijke echtgenooten (Amsterdam, 1866), 39.Google Scholar (The translations from this and later works cited are by the author.)

9 Vandenbroeke, Ch., Vrijen en trouwen. Van de Middeleeuwen tot heden. Seks, liefde en huwelijk in historisch perspectief (Brussels, 1986), 31–3.Google Scholar

10 Cressy, D., ‘The seasonality of marriage in Old and New England’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 16 (1985) 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Bradley, L., ‘An enquiry into seasonality in baptisms, marriages and burials. Part One: Introduction methodology and marriages’, Local Population Studies 4 (1970), 34.Google ScholarEdwards, W. has shown (‘Marriage seasonality 1761–1810: an assessment of patterns in seventeen Shropshire parishes’, Local Population Studies 19 (1977), 24)Google Scholar that the strength of observance of Lent depended very much on the size of parish.

12 Kussmaul, , A general view, 4.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 16–18.

14 Ibid., 21.

15 Ibid., 21–2.

16 Ibid., 15–17, 20–1.

17 de Groot, G., ‘“Door slapte gedaan gekregen.” Losse arbeiders en him gezinnen in Amsterdam tussen 1880 en 1920’, Tijdschrift voor sociale geschiedenis 14 (1988), 163 and 174.Google Scholar

18 Lucassen, J., Naar de kusten van de Noordzee (Gouda, 1984), 65–114.Google Scholar

19 Faber, J. A. and van Leeuwen, M. H. D., Amsterdamse katholieke bedeelden 1750–1850. Een gezinsreconstructie (Amsterdam, 1987), 35–6.Google Scholar

20 Mendels, F. F., ‘Seasons and regions in agriculture and industry during the process of industrialization’, in Pollard, S. ed., Region and industrialisation. Studies on the role of the region in the economic history of the last two centuries (Göttingen, 1980), 179–80.Google Scholar

21 Kussmaul, , A general view, 20–1.Google Scholar

22 Cressy, , ‘The seasonality’, 8–9.Google Scholar

23 Ogden, P., ‘Patterns of marriage seasonality in rural France’, Local Population Studies 10 (1973), 58–63.Google ScholarKnodel, J. E. (Demographic behavior in the past. A study of fourteen German village populations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Cambridge, 1989), 144–152)Google Scholar and Gunn, P. A. (‘Productive cycles and the season of marriage: a critical test’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 21 (1990) 217–43, 229–35)CrossRefGoogle Scholar also point out the major significance of regional differences in Germany and Tasmania, respectively.

24 Dupâquier, M., ‘Le mouvement saisonnier des manages en France (1856–1968)’ Annales de Démographie Historique (1977), 133–43.Google Scholar

25 Wattelar, C. et Wunsch, G., Etude démographique de la nuptialité en Belgique (Louvain, 1967), 33–5.Google Scholar

26 Lutinier, B., ‘La saison des mariages’, Economie et Statistique 204 (1987), 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sardon, J. P., Cycle hebdomadaire et mouvement saisonnier des mariages (unpublished manuscript (Paris n.d.), 3–4.Google Scholar

27 This is partly due to the fact that very few parish registers include the occupation of the groom at marriage (Kussmaul, , A general view, 41Google Scholar). Recently some national French data were published but these do not take into account the large regional variations in the seasonal marriage pattern (Bonneuil, N., ‘Démographie de la nuptialité au XIXe siècle’, in Dupâquier, J. and Kessler, D. eds., La société française au XIXe siècle. Tradition, transition, transformations (Paris, 1992), 83–120)).Google Scholar

28 van Poppel, F., Trouwen in Nederland. Een historisch-demografische studie van de 19e en vroeg-20e eeuw, AAG Bijdragen, 33 (Wageningen, 1992).Google Scholar

29 Woude, A. M. van der, Het Noorderkwartier. Een regionaal historisch onderzoek in de demografische en economische geschiedenis van westelijk Nederland van de late middeleeuwen tot het begin van de negentiende eeuw, AAG Bijdragen, 16 (Wageningen, 1972), 214Google Scholar, and ‘Demografische ontwikkeling van de Noordelijke Nederlanden 1500–1800’, in Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, Vol. 5 (Haarlem, 1980), 167.Google Scholar

30 Beekink, E.,‘“… de Bruydegom en Bruyt brengen 't saamen Ruym 150 jaaren…”. Een overzicht van de historisch-demografische ontwikkelingen in Voorburg in de periode 1680–1819’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, History Department, State University Leiden, 1989, 91–4).Google Scholar

31 Schuurman, A. J., ‘De bevolking van Duiven 1665–1795. Een historisch-demografische studie’, AAG Bijdragen, 22 (Wageningen, 1979), 138–89, 154–5.Google ScholarPubMed

32 Noordam, D. J., ‘De weerbare mannen van Maasland in 1747. Een historisch-demografisch onderzoek’, Holland 7 (1975), 1–61.Google Scholar

33 The relevant data and those discussed later for provinces have been taken from the Algemeene Statistiek van Nederland, Vol. II (Leiden, 1873) (for the period 1850–1864)Google Scholar, from the Statistische Bescheiden van Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (for the years 1865–1874) and from the Statistiek van den loop der bevolking (for 1875–1877). From the 1890s, the data were published in the Maandcijfers en andere periodieke opgaven betreffende Nederland en Nederlandsch Oost-Indië. For the period 1938–1967, the following were consulted: CBS, Statistiek van de loop der bevolking van Nederland, 1938–1954 (Utrecht, 1955)Google Scholar and CBS, Statistiek van de loop der bevolking van Nederland, 1946–1967 (The Hague, 1970).Google Scholar More recent information can be found in the CBS publications. Maandstatistiek van bevolking en volksgezondheid and Maandstatistiek van de bevolking.

Where there are gaps in the Figures in this article, this is because data for those years were not published.

34 Data for the years 1864–1876 have been taken from the Provinciale Verslagen. It is the only consecutive period in the nineteenth century for which the data have been published for all provinces.

35 van Zanden, J. L., De economische ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse landbouw in de negentiende eeuw, 1800–1914, AAG Bijdragen, 25 (Wageningen, 1985), 294–5.Google Scholar

36 Centraal verslag der arbeidsinspectie in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden over 1910 (The Hague, 1911), 282Google Scholar; Bouwens, J. G. T., ‘De Munstergelaense Brikkebekkesj’, in Munstergeleen. Een monografie over een Limburgse gemeente (Munstergeleen, 1963), 252Google Scholar; Dieteren, R. and Philips, J. F. R., Stein. Eenachterland werd bruggehoofd. Historisch overzicht van gemeente en bevolking (Stein, 1962), 79.Google Scholar

37 Giele, J. J. and van Oenen, G. J., ‘De sociale struktuur van de Nederlandse samenleving rond 1850’, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Sociale Geschiedenis 45 (1974), 2–32.Google Scholar The data on Arnhem have been derived from Prof. G. A. Kooy's unpublished research, in which a different classification scheme was adopted. Thus marriage seasonality in this municipality cannot be studied as fully as elsewhere.

38 Kussmaul, , A general view, 21.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., 36.

40 Edwards, W. J., ‘The definition’, 30–5.Google Scholar Edwards concluded that benefits do arise from the disaggregation of monthly records of seasonality but at the same time this disaggregation does not greatly expand or advance our understanding of the general trend exhibited by marriage seasonality.

41 Deckers, L., De landbouwers van den Noordbrabantschen zandgrond (Eindhoven, 1912), 38.Google Scholar

42 Stokvis, P. R. D., De wording van modern Den Haag. De stad en haar bevolking van de Franse Tijd tot de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Zwolle, 1987), 159.Google Scholar

43 The analysis is restricted to those groups in which 50 or more marriages took place.

44 This is in accordance with the observations of contemporaries, that weddings in May were principally chosen by the lower classes (see Sandberg, W. Th., ‘Statistische Studien. Eene statistiek van den echtelijken staat in Nederland’, De Economist, Supplement 15 (1866), 604Google Scholar). The many persons in the Hague who went to the Town Hall in May and November to marry were ‘not the distinguished and wealthy … but the lower classes, the craftsmen’, stated Gram, J. in his Haagsche schetsen (The Hague, 1893, p. 163Google Scholar; see Stokvis, , De wording, 159).Google Scholar

45 Kussmaul, , A general view, 16–17.Google Scholar

46 Veen, A. M. van der, ‘Wij visserslui: mannen, vrouwen en kinderen van de Noordzeevisserij’, Holland 16 (1984), 161.Google Scholar A comparable phenomenon occurred among the fishermen in Volendam. Many of the weddings (19%) were held in January, a period during which the ships lay in the harbour. There were also many weddings in the summer months, usually not such a good fishing period and when the anchovy catch was just over. There were very few weddings in the autumn, which was the herring period when half of the fleet was on the North Sea. The marriage patterns of other occupational groups had little in common with those of the fishermen; farmers mainly got married in the spring (Albers, J. H. J. M., ‘Volendam 1811–1890. Een economisch, sociaal en demografisch onderzoek van een vissersdorp in de negentiende eeuw’ (unpublished M.A. thesis, History Department, University of Amsterdam, 1983), 98.Google Scholar

47 During the periods 1880–1889, 1890–1899 and 1900–1909 May was not a very popular wedding month in Italy, with index values between 84 and 89. January, November and February reached values of 120, 130 and 160 respectively. Regional data for Piedmont and Apulia for the period 1880–1889 showed a less unfavourable position for May; index values here were around 100. See Chiassino, G. and di Comite, L., ‘Variations saisonnieres des marriages en Italie (1880–1969)’ (unpublished paper, Bari).Google Scholar

48 Bourgeois-Pichat, J., ‘Le mariage’, 639–40.Google Scholar

49 See Billacois, F., letter to the editor on ‘Le creux de mai’, in Annales de Démographie Historique (1968), 422–3.Google Scholar

50 Belmont, N., ‘Le joli moi de mai’, L'Histoire 1 (1978), 16–25.Google Scholar

51 Perrenoud, A., ‘Calendrierdu mariage et coutume populaire: le creux de mai en Suisse romande’, Population 38 (1983), 925–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Davis, N. Z., ‘Women on top’, in her Society and culture in early modern France (Stanford, 1975), 141 and 315.Google Scholar

53 De Cock cites examples from Germany, France, England, Scotland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and other countries in Europe (Spreekwoorden, 161–2Google Scholar). For the Netherlands see more especially Schrijnen, J., Nederlandsche volkskunde, Vol. 1 (Zutphen, 1915), 253.Google ScholarHarrebomée, P. J. (Spreekwoordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, of verzameling van Nederlandsche spreekwoorden en spreekwoordelijke uitdrukkingen van vroegeren en lateren tijd, (3 vols., Utrecht, 1856–1870; repr. Amsterdam, 1980), Part I, 270)Google Scholar comments: ‘The superstitious idea that the evil spirits came to haunt the young couple in their nuptial chamber during the month of May was passed on from the Romans to our forefathers and was the reason for this saying. Whoever wishes to turn against these ideas will have to pay for his sins.’

54 Edwards, , ‘Marriage seasonally’, 25Google Scholar; Bradley, , ‘An enquiry’, 34.Google Scholar

55 Knodel, , Demographic behavior, 144–52.Google Scholar

56 Hélin, , ‘Les saisons’, 164.Google Scholar

57 Ven, D. J. van der, ‘Een orienteering ten opzichte van scheidings- en opnemingsritueel in de boerenbruiloft, Deel 2’, Mensch en Maatschappij 3 (1927), 221–3.Google Scholar

58 For England, see the letter to the editor in Local Population Studies 2 (1969), 67.Google Scholar For Belgium, see Ch. Vandenbroeke, , Vrijen en trouwen. Van de Middeleeuwen tot heden. Seks, liefde en huwelijk in historisch perspectief (Brussels, 1986), 31–3.Google Scholar

59 de Vries, J., De wetenschap der volkskunde. Hoekstenen onzer volkscultuur, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam, 1941), 43.Google Scholar

60 Edelman, C. H., Harm Tiessing over landbouw en volksleven in Drente. Twee delen. (Assen, 1974; first published 1943), Part II, 76.Google Scholar Also see Meertens, P. J., ‘Volksgeloof en bijgeloof’, in de Haan, Tj. W. R. ed., Folklore der lage landen (Amsterdam/Brussels, 1972), 224Google Scholar, and Buter, A., ‘De Noordnederlandse levenscyclus’, in de Haan, Tj. W. B. ed., Folklore der lage landen (Amsterdam/Brussels, 1972), 311.Google Scholar Regarding the popularity of May, also see Ven, van der, ‘Een orienteering’, 226Google Scholar; however, van der Ven mentions March and April as popular wedding months in parts of the eastern Netherlands (Van vrijen en trouwen op 't boerenland (Amsterdam/Mechelen, 1929), 64 and 67).Google Scholar

61 See, for example, Onnekes, J., Zeden, gewoonten en gebruiken in de provincie Groningen (Kuilenburg, 1885), 35–6.Google Scholar

62 De Vries, , De wetenschap, 43–6.Google Scholar

63 Voorthuijsen, E. van, ‘Voorlezingen over statistiek’, Tijdschrift voor Staathuishoudkunde en statistiek 13 (1856), 214.Google Scholar

64 ‘De Vereeniging tot het bouwen van kleine woningen’, Tijdschrift voor Staathuishoudkunde en Statistiek 19 (1860), 93.Google Scholar

65 Wildenbeest, G., ‘Met de tijd meegaan. Over tijd en tijdsritmen ten plattelande’, Sociologisch Tijdschrift 14 (1988), 564–5.Google Scholar

66 Nagtglas, F., Uit het Zeeuwsche volksleven (Middelburg, 1885), 49–50.Google Scholar

67 Ibid., 59–60.

68 Edelman, , Harm Tiessing, Part II, 248–9.Google Scholar

69 Ibid., 19.

70 Ibid., 52.

71 Ibid., 244.

72 Ibid., 220.

73 Jager, J. L., De Volksgebruiken in Nederland. Een nieuwe kijk op tradities (Utrecht, 1981), 111–14.Google Scholar

74 Molen, Van der, Levend volksleven, 74–83.Google Scholar

75 Ven, Van der, Van vrijen en trouwen, 161 and 170.Google Scholar

76 Wildenbeest, , ‘Met de tijd meegaan’, 575–6.Google Scholar

77 Tiessing, H., ‘Naar aanleiding van de Meimaand’, Sociaal Weekblad 18 (1904), 338.Google Scholar

78 Brink, T. Van den, ‘Het huwen’, in De bevolking van Amsterdam, Part IV, Statistische Mededeelingen van het Bureau van Statistiek der Gemeente Amsterdam, 103 (Amsterdam, 1936), 10–12.Google Scholar

79 Brink, Van den, ‘Het huwen’, 10–12.Google Scholar

80 Boissevain, J., ‘Inleiding: identiteit en feestelijkheid’, in Koster, A., Kuiper, Y. and Verrips, J. ed., Feest en ritueel in Europa. Anthropologische Essays (Amsterdam, 1983), 9–14.Google Scholar

81 Meurkens, P., Sociale verandering in het oude Kempenland. Demogrqfie, economie en cultuur van een preïndustriële samenleving (1840–1910) (Nijmegen, 1984), 115–16.Google Scholar

82 Nagtglas, F., Wat het was en hoe het werd. Een blik op het maatschappelijk leven in de laatste zestig jaar (Utrecht, 1894), 32.Google Scholar

83 Ploegman, W. F. Sr., Net huwelijk en zijne gevolgen. Voorgesteld uit het werkelijk leven en uitgegeven ten dienste van gehuwden en ongehuwden (Nijmegen, 1871), 26–7.Google Scholar

84 See Hessels, A., Vakantie en vakantiebesteding sinds de eeuwwisseling. Een sociologische verkenning ten behoeve van de sociale en ruimtelijke planning in Nederland (Assen, 1973), particularly Chapter 6.Google Scholar

85 Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R., The population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 303.Google Scholar