Definition
Digama (also spelled digamy) refers to a second marriage contracted after the death of a first spouse — that is, a lawful second marriage following the dissolution of the first by death. The term describes the state of having been married twice, successively and legally, as distinguished from bigamy, which involves a second marriage attempted while the first remains in force.
In its strict legal sense, digama carries no pejorative weight. It is simply the condition of a person who has married a second time after becoming widowed, with the second union being fully valid in the eyes of the law.
---
Common Confusion
Digama is frequently confused with bigamy. The distinction is foundational: bigamy is a criminal offense involving a simultaneous second marriage while the first subsists; digama describes a successive second marriage entered into only after the first has ended by death. A bigamist acts unlawfully; a digamist does not. The confusion arises because both words describe "marrying twice," but the legal consequences are entirely opposite. Researchers encountering these terms in historical sources must attend closely to context, as loose usage occasionally blurred the line.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Digama appears primarily in ecclesiastical and canon law contexts, where the distinction between a first and second marriage carried significant legal and theological consequences. Under medieval canon law, a digamist — a man who had married twice successively — was subject to canonical irregularity, meaning he was disqualified from receiving holy orders. This irregularity did not render the second marriage invalid; it affected only the man's eligibility for the priesthood. Researchers working in ecclesiastical records, clerical qualification disputes, or early English common law sources influenced by canon doctrine will encounter digama in this specific technical sense.
In early common law and equity materials, digama may appear in discussions of dower, inheritance, and the status of children from successive marriages. The term is uncommon in modern American legal sources and has largely disappeared from practice vocabulary, but it surfaces reliably in pre-twentieth century legal dictionaries and treatises on marriage law.
The source fragment preserved in Black's 2nd Edition — referencing Co. Litt. 135a, Noy's Maxims, Wing's Maxims, and Broom's Legal Maxims — places digama in a maxims-and-principles context, suggesting the term anchored foundational propositions about marriage status rather than merely describing a factual condition. Researchers consulting Coke on Littleton or Broom's Legal Maxims should look to these passages for digama's role in broader common law marriage doctrine.
Be cautious: some historical sources use "digamy" and "second marriage" interchangeably without intending any canonical disqualification meaning. Context determines which sense is operative.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) preserves only a fragment directly adjacent to the digama entry — a series of Latin maxims (dies inceptus pro completo habetur; dies incertus pro conditione habetur) that belong to an adjacent entry on dies, not to digama itself. This suggests the digama entry in Black's 2nd Edition was brief, likely a short definitional statement pointing the reader to the civil and canon law sources cited.
The authorities cited — Co. Litt. 135a, Noy's Maxims, Wing's Maxims, and Broom's Legal Maxims — are consistent with how Black's treated foundational marriage-status terms in this edition: a concise definition supported by classical common law authority rather than case law. The reliance on Coke on Littleton signals that digama had settled meaning in English common law by the early modern period, drawn substantially from earlier canonist sources absorbed into common law doctrine.
Historical dictionaries are largely silent on digama's evolution over time, which itself reflects the term's narrowing to specialized ecclesiastical and academic legal usage by the nineteenth century. Researchers should not expect robust treatment of digama in American legal sources after the mid-1800s.
---