《抱朴子外篇》Vol. 23

The Outer Chapters of the Master Who Embraces Simplicity records a discussion between Ge Hong and Liu Shiyou regarding marital disputes. Liu Shiyou argued that marriage forms the foundation of human relationships, and that the ancients placed great importance on wedding rituals. The groom would personally welcome the bride, solemn ceremonies were conducted in ancestral temples, and dark and light crimson betrothal gifts symbolized sincerity. According to ancient rites, if the groom was in a three-year mourning period, he had to inform the bride’s family and obtain their consent before proceeding with the marriage. Likewise, if the bride’s family was in mourning, they needed the groom’s permission for the marriage to take place. These customs were meant to demonstrate the virtue of mutual respect.

Liu criticized the moral decline of his time, where engagements were broken and disputes even brought to court. He proposed that for any betrothal dispute before marriage, the engagement should be dissolved, with the groom’s family returning double the betrothal gifts. For those who had already divorced once, compensation should be doubled again, and for those divorced three times, even heavier penalties should apply. He believed this would curb the trend of coveting betrothal gifts.

Ge Hong responded that although Liu’s intentions to uphold morality were commendable, such measures might backfire. Marriage should be based on mutual willingness. While it was wrong for the bride’s family to break promises lightly, imposing double compensation would place a heavy burden on the poor while allowing the wealthy to exploit the system. Some affluent suitors might even welcome paying higher betrothal gifts—but would this be fair to poorer families who had already made agreements? It might only breed greater resentment. Some, driven by wounded pride, might escalate conflicts to the point of violence.

This exchange reflects the real dilemmas of marital disputes in their society. Ge Hong pointed out that relying solely on financial penalties could not fundamentally resolve the issue—a more balanced approach, considering the circumstances of all parties, was needed.

Some people today, seeking to avoid minor marital disputes, end up sowing the seeds of unbearable calamities. This is like obsessing over the trivialities of ledger-keeping while neglecting the grave consequences of a family's ruin.

Consider this analogy: When shopping at the market, if someone outbids you and snatches away the goods you’ve chosen, few can resist feeling angry. How much more infuriating would it be if an already betrothed wife were taken away? If such bride-snatching practices are left unchecked, even after a groom has paid the betrothal gifts and held the wedding ceremony, the bride could still be stolen. Liu Jun (referring to Liu Biao) proposed using the "shared meal ritual" (an ancient wedding custom where the couple eats together) as the defining moment of marriage, which is reasonable in principle. However, this would allow a woman’s family—even after years of accepting betrothal gifts—to rely on powerful connections to break the engagement and marry her off to someone else at any time. This would lead to women’s families failing to carefully select suitable husbands, breaking engagements over minor grievances and breeding enmity—nothing invites disaster faster than this.

The ancients established rituals precisely to ensure the longevity of marital bonds, addressing problems while they were still small. They meticulously designed institutions yet deliberately left a loophole for bride-snatching, preserving the "marriage registration" system—likely with profound intent. Imagine a woman of extraordinary beauty catching the eye of a powerful figure. These tyrants, intoxicated by desire and indifferent to propriety, wouldn’t hesitate to repay tenfold the betrothal gifts, let alone the original amount. History offers examples like Hua Fu Du, who murdered Kong Fu Jia to seize his wife, or King Ping of Chu, who took his son’s bride for himself upon seeing her beauty. How, then, would such men balk at bankrupting themselves to help the woman’s family repay the jilted groom?

Petty-minded men are quick to nurse grudges over trivial slights and eager to curry favor with the powerful. Permitting such practices would inevitably lead to the poor and humble losing their betrothed while the rich and powerful profit. How might those in authority prevent this abuse? Some suggest requiring the woman’s family to register the "marriage contract" on the very day they accept betrothal gifts, with at least ten witnesses signing. Additionally, the father, brothers, uncles, and male relatives should personally sign affidavits of confirmation. If an engagement is broken with irrefutable evidence, the woman’s parents and brothers should face legal punishment. Perhaps this could reduce disputes?