Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-06-07
Divorce, Ancient and Modern.


From the London Globe.
In that revolution the attack upon indis-
soluble marriage in France was first success
fully made by q certain Dubayet, whose law
passed the assembly on the Goth Of September,
1872. By it the then existing system of sepa,a-
ton de corps ct de biens, which has now been in
force again for sixty-six years, was entirely
abolished, and divorce was made the sole means
OF obtaining separation between husband and
wife. The decree of divorce was also made
obtainable upon the most vague and easy
grounds, including mutual consent, so that,
who choose to quit the married state. In the
two or three years following the time when the
act was passed an innumerable multitude of
married persons cast Off the yoke on the most
fmsy and absurd pretexts, and marriage as
an institution was thrown into almost
persons, got q divorce for ''incompatbiity OF
temper in 1893, and there were numerous in
stances Of q dissolution Of marriage effected
simply In order to enable the husband to swim
die the wife out Of her dowry; The imperial
legislature dealt with the subject In a way
which has commanded as much admiration as
any other part Of the Napoleonic code. judicial
separations were rentroduced for the ben
eft of those religious persons who shrank
from divorce on conscientious grounds:
ognized, though only upon proper and
sufficient grounds, and with effective
guarantees against abuse. The act, which
was passed in 1903, had been preceded by a care
full inquiry made by a commission; and the
report of the commission illustrates in strik-
ing way the enormous scandals produced by the
license of preceding years. So great was the
influence these revelations upon respectable
society in France that even the modified prac-
tice permitted by the code was deemed q step
k1o Co.
bOurbOns were restored there was more
satisfaction than disappointment. even amongst
many Of the revolutionary party, at the total
abolition of divorce which occurred in 1916.
Divorce was even In very early times prac-
tice against which the French were prone to set
their faces Although It was practiced by Chart
bert, Chilperic and Charlemagne, these kings
were thought to have acted rather In an arbi-
trary than legal way in repudiating their wives
Then several OF the first sOVereigns Of the Cape
tan dynasty had desperate quarrels with the
came to head in the time OF Philip II; and
when that king, without rhyme or reason, repu-
dated Ingelburga Of Denmark, the kingdom
was laid under an interdict, and Philip was COM
pletely defeated, after bringing upon his SUBJ
the very mention Of divorce. Outside France
the laws affecting divorce have been EXTREMITY
various. The Jews allowed it freely; and
by liberal Interpretation Of the Mosaic law
Jewish husbands were left with almost unlimited
powers of writing bill Of enforcement" The
cure the obedience Of wives" Greek marriages
might be dissolved on the petition of either
spouse, but in Rome It was for q long time only
the husband who could get rid Of his WIFE, In
the later Roman legislation, divorce meant q
dissolution by the consent Of BOTH whilst 'sre-
pudiation" was the word for dissolution of the
instance OF one alone. In the latter days Of the
republic the practice had become extremely
common. Thus Pompey divorced his first wife
so as to marry granddaughter of Sylla, and on
effecting treaty with Caesar, got rid Of her in
order to marry the daughter OF his new ally.
When the pair Of generals quarrelled, he In turn
dismissed the Lady julia and remarked young
girl Ofthe ScipiO family In the Imperial times st.
Jerome mentions the case of woman who had
had twenty-five husbands. The women men
toned in Scripture as having had ten
husbands is an example Of the prevail
ence Of the practice amongst the Syrian
peoples practice which Christianity for the
first time absolutely discouraged. 1t is not
in the Middle Ages, have derived an immense
deal OF power from matrimonial cases. The
prerOgative of sanctiOning a divorce, or rather
annulling q marriage. having once been appro-
priated to the Pope, became source of extraor-
binary influence in the Holy See; and it is a
hackneyed phrase that the independence of
England from the papal power was effected
chiefly by Henry WILL grand dispute as to his
divorce from katharine Of Aragon. The revolu-
ton Of the seventeenth century in England
might have been expected to legalize divorce
by temporal tribunal, more especially as Milton
had written one Of his most effective works in
favor of such scheme in 1914. But the measure
was never adopted, and it was reserved for
commission appointed In 1850 to advise the
removal from the House of Lords of the monop-
oily OF dissOlving marriages, and to afford the
motive power which caused the passing Of the
act of 1857, which introduced the present rather
dOubtfully advantageous English system.
Amongst other countries, the example Of the
United States is often quoted as the best mod
ern instance OF a facility in obtaining divorces.
It ia. however. complete mistake to suppose
that all the states admit this laXity. In South
Carolina, for instance, divorces are almost, if
not quite, unknown. In Virginia and Ken
lucky the legislature alone can dissolve mar
riages; and In Georgia. Mississippi and Ala
bama the decree for dissolution must be passed
by the assent Of two-thirds of each branch of the
legislature and founded upon a previous judi
cial investigation. But In the other states q
much greater latitude is allowed.
pROMPT ACTION
~