For some reason it occurred to me today that I don’t really know what that phrase means.
I presume it isn’t using “have” in the sexual sense. Or is it? That seems kind of crude for a wedding ceremony, IMHO.
I looked at the 1559 Book of Common Prayer to see if it used that phrase, and it does.
Trying to find common little words like “have” and “hold” in dictonaries of the period wasn’t very succesful, but A General Glossary to Shakespeare’s Works. Alexander Dyce. Boston. Dana Estes and Company. 1904. says:
Another shakespearian commentator says:
I think to have and to hold still means to be mine and stay with me.
Edited to add: I don’t think the phrase really means anything anymore. It’s just there because it’s always been there.
I think it means the wife gets to have whatever the groom is holding for all time.
I agree with Satan’s grandma. To paraphrase for modern vernacular…that you won’t divorce. The “till death do us part” puts the timing on the aforementioned condition. Unfortunately, statistically, a lot of folks don’t hold up to this vow, but it may be because, one party broke one of the other vows.
Are “have” and “hold” perhaps the Norman and Saxon words for the same thing? There seems to be a lot of that in CofE ritual.
To have and to hold, would mean to not only HAVE something but to keep it close to you.
How many “things” do you have but haven’t held in years. I have boxes of junk.
But if you were holding it, it means you would have it close to you and you’d be “using” it, not merely treating it as a possession to be filed away
The most useful dictionary for what words meant in the 15th and 16th centuries is the Oxford English Dictionary. I’ll check in my copy when I get home, but I suspect that the general meaning is something like “own and possess”.
Nope, they’re both from Old English.
Thanks Giles! I don’t have access to an OED here at work, so I was just digging through internet sources.
Without any cite to back it up, I’d guess that it comes out of real property law. There’s something called a habendum clause (otherwise known as the “to-have-and-to-hold clause”) which, according to Black’s Law dictionary is “the part of the deed that defines the extent of the interest being granted and any conditions affecting the grant”.
Originates from the latin “habendum et tenendum”.
As promised, I’ve checked in the OED, and it confirms this:
The 1549 Book of Common Prayer is given as an example.
There are many cases of legal phrases involving two or more words with similar meanings joined with “and,” for example “aid and abet,” “give, devise, and bequeath,” and so forth.
I believe it comes from a similar practice in French, from which legal English got a lot of linguistic traits. There are still a number of such phrases in French (not necessarily legal French), such as d’ores et déjà, au fur et à mesure, à tort et à travers, à ses risques et périls, bel et bien, clair, net et précis, d’abord et avant tout, and such.
You mean you lot seriously don’t know???
OK. The first part of your wedding vows contains six components in two groups; first, to take, to have and to hold, then, to love, honour and cherish (or obey).
The first three components are all physical in nature, they relate to the physical aspects of your future married life and caring for your spouse. The second three are all emotional, and relate to the emotional aspects of your future marriage.
The first is to take. By this you indicate that you have selected one person, and one person only to whom you will devote your remaining life. It is to that person that the next two aspects are relevant and extremely important.
The second is to have. The best way to explain this is with a hypothetical example. Ask yourself this: if someone of the opposite sex was to come up to you in the street and say to you “I want to have you”, How would you most likely interpret that? Pretty obvious really. To ‘have’ implies possession but in the context of a marriage the implication is sexual. You are declaring that your future spouse is going to be the one person with whom you will enjoy a sexual relationship. It is your indication of your desire to physically enjoy that person and that person only, and since the vows and intentions are reciprocated, you are also declaring your intent to give your own body to that person for their enjoyment.
The third phrase is to hold. To hold another person implies care. In other words you are declaring your intent to provide for that person’s physical care for the rest of their life.
So in effect, you are declaring a two-way physical association between yourself and your future spouse, one in which you intend to both give your own body for that person’s intimate enjoyment and to accept only their body for your intimate enjoyment, and also the other aspect of the physical relationship, to care for them physically when they need you.
If you were to translate the phrase “to take …, to have and to hold” into a more modern, and somewhat wordy English version, it would go something like this;
“I choose and accept you (chosen future spouse) and offer my body to you as your faithful sexual partner, declaring my intent to go only to you for my own sexual needs, and I also pledge to care for your physical needs for the rest of our lives”.
Really, given the close and intimate nature between two people who are married and that the institution of marriage is meant to provide for, it should come as no great surprise to discover that such a reference to the physical and intimate nature of the marriage relationship is actually included in the vows that are made. True, the reference is certainly veiled in nature, hence why many people do not understand it, however given the very public nature of the marriage ceremony, it is understandable why this needs to be so. Perhaps it is something that should be emphasised more in pre-marriage education, as the physical side of a marriage really is one of the most significant factors that distinguishes the marriage relationship from every other form of relationship.
I hope this clears up the question that has been asked.
ThD 
Actually, this lot seriously does know, and has for five years.
Weelll… The standard CofE form of wedding service is pretty direct about sex, in the preamble (emboldening mine):
*
DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.*
We do know, because we provided actual etymological citations.
You are pulling things out of your ass. You’ll find that people here will reject being handed those as much as they would their real-world counterparts.
The question was asked and the answer was given.
Strange how there will always be one person who will resort to insults - usually it means that they have no reasonable reply, so they resort to personal attacks instead.
Incidentally, an ass is a type of donkey.
Yes, I believe this is correct.
In early English legal formulas, very often two words of very similar or identical meaning were used, one of Norman origin and one of Saxon origin.
The purpose was to avoid any misunderstanding, since both languages were spoken in England.
Other examples are:
last will and testament
aid and abet
acknowledge and confess
fit and proper
reside and dwell
get and receive
There are many examples of fomulaic usages like this in old English legal documents. Sometimes the meanings have changed since then, so that they are no longer identical.
To have and to hold is the same kind of construction from the same time period, however else people may try to rationalize it today.
Specifically, an unmarried donkey.
Cite:
“the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor.”
Charles Dickens 1838