PART II

PART IIMATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLANDContinuedCHAPTER XIHISTORY OF SEPARATION AND DIVORCE UNDER ENGLISH AND ECCLESIASTICAL LAW[Bibliographical Note XI.—For divorce among the Athenians Meier and Schömann'sDer attische Process(Berlin, 1883-87) is important. Assistance has also been given by Hruza,Ehebegründung nach att. Rechte(Leipzig, 1892);idem,Polygamie und Pellikat(Leipzig, 1894); and Müller and Bauer, "Die griech. Privat- und Kriegsalterthümer" (1893), in Müller'sHandbuch. The Hebrew law on the subject is well treated by Mielziner,The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce(Cincinnati, 1884); and especially by Amram, in his excellentJewish Law of Divorce(Philadelphia, 1896). In his "Divorce on Condition," in theGreen Bag, III, August, 1891, the last-named writer has described a curious device for escaping marriage with a brother-in-law and employed also in cases of long absence. Besides the works of Stubbe, Duschak, Döllinger, and Lichtschein, elsewhere noticed, see Selden,Uxor ebraica(Frankfort, 1673), or the same in hisOpera, II (London, 1726); Fraenkel,Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts(Breslau, 1860); Saalschuetz,Das mosaische Recht(2d ed., Berlin, 1853); and Meyer,Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, und Römer(Leipzig, 1862-66).The leading work on Roman divorce is Wächter'sUeber die Ehescheidungen(Stuttgart, 1821). There is also a good account in the seventh and eighth chapters of Hasse'sDas Gütterrecht der Ehegatten nach röm. Recht(Berlin, 1824). Savigny has an article on "Die erste Ehescheidung in Rom," inAbhandlungen der könig. Akad. der Wiss. in Berlin, 1814-16(Berlin, 1818). Very important also is Rein,Das röm. Privatrecht(Leipzig, 1836); and on divorce in connection with the alleged depravation of morals at the close of the republic there is a fine passage in Lecky,European Morals(3d ed., New York, 1881). The subject is treated by Marche,Historia juris civilis de divortiis(Leipzig, 1764); Langeron,Du divorce en droit romain(Paris, 1857); Morael,Droit romain: du divorce(Paris, 1888); and Combier,Du divorce en droit romain(Paris, 1880). Esmein,Mélanges(Paris, 1886), has a chapter dealing in part with Roman divorce; and in the same volume may be found the best existing treatment of adultery in connection with theLex Julia de adulteriis. With other matter this law is also considered by Gessert,Ad leg. Jul. de adult. coerc.(Würtemberg,1795); Haupt,De poena adulterii ex leg. Jul.(Leipzig, 1797); Jörs,Die Ehegesetze des Augustus(Marburg, 1894); and Bennecke in his able monographDie strafrechtliche Lehre vom Ehebruch(Marburg, 1884), bringing the general history of his subject down to the middle of the fifteenth century. In this connection have likewise been of service Sohm'sInstitutesand the works of Fustel de Coulanges, Hölder, Rossbach, Karlowa, Unger, Maine, Marquardt, and Zhishman elsewhere described. The ground of the chapter is mainly covered by Woolsey,Divorce and Divorce Legislation(2d ed., New York, 1882); and Glasson,Le mariage civil et le divorce(2d ed., Paris, 1880); as also by the general works of Popp,Ehescheidung(Amberg and Sulzbach, 1800); Tissot,Le mariage, la séparation et le divorce(Paris, 1868); Thwing,The Family(Boston, 1887); Gide,La femme(2d ed., Paris, 1885); Scheurl,Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht(Erlangen, 1882); and there is a concise historical account by Friedericus,De divortio meditationes(Leipzig, 1842).For the origin and early development of the Christian doctrine, besides the Scriptures, the principle sources are, of course, the writings of the Fathers and the provisions of the first ecclesiastical councils. The most important monograph is Geffcken'sZur Geschichte der Ehescheidung vor Gratian(Leipzig, 1894). The subject is treated in Moy,Das Eherecht der Christen(Regensburg, 1833). There is a good account by Loening,Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts(Strassburg, 1878); and another by Meyrick in his article "Marriage," in the second volume of theDict. of Christ. Antiquities. The rigid theological point of view is taken by Watkins,Holy Matrimony(London, 1895); and Luckock,History of Marriage(London, 1894). Among similar works, mainly controversial, may be consulted Ap Richard,Marriage and Divorce(London, 1888); Caverno,Treatise on Divorce(Madison, 1889); Hovey,The Scriptural Law of Divorce(Philadelphia, 1866); Greve,Die Ehescheidung nach der Lehre des Neuen Testamentes(Leipzig, 1873); and the anonymousUeber den einzig wahren Ehescheidungsgrund in der christ. Kirche(Bayreuth, 1838). Standard Catholic treatises are Cigoi,Die Unauflösbarkeit der christ. Ehe(Paderborn, 1895); Didon,Indissolubilité et divorce(4th ed., Paris, 1880); or the German translation of the same by Schneider (Regensburg, 1893); Roskovány,De matrimonio in eccle. cath.(Augustae Vindelicorum, 1837); Scheicher-Binder,Praktisches Handbuch des kath. Eherechts(4th ed., Freiburg, 1891); and especially Perrone,De matrimonio christ.(Leodii, 1861). Pompen has a specialTractatus de dispensationibus et de revalidatione mat.(2d ed., Amsterdam, 1897).On Germanic law and custom see Tacitus'sGermania; theMonumenta Germaniae Historica; and the collections of Thorpe, Schmid,and Liebermann. Heussler'sInstitutionen, Weinhold'sDeutsche Frauen, Grimm'sRechtsalterthümer, Brunner'sRechtsgeschichte, and the similar works of Schroeder, Zoepfl, and Walter have all been consulted. The penitentials, containing evidence of compromise between Teutonic usage and the strict dogmas of the church, may be found in Thorpe,Ancient Laws; Haddan and Stubbs,Councils; Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen(Halle, 1851); and Schmitz,Bussbücher(Mayence, 1883). These have largely superseded the older works of Kuntsmann,Die lateinischen Poenitentialbücher der Angelsachsen(Mayence, 1844); and Hildebrand,Untersuchungen über die germ. Poenitentialbücher(Würzburg, 1851). The penitentials are analyzed by Bennecke, Esmein, and Freisen; also by Hinschius, "Das Ehescheidungsrecht nach den angelsäch. und frank. Bussordnungen," inZeitschrift für deutsches Recht, XX; and Rosenthal,Die Rechtsfolgen des Ehebruchs nach kan. und deutsch. Recht(Würzburg, 1880). In this connection may also be read Heller,Ueber die Strafe des Ehebruchs(Ulm, 1773); Wächter,Abhandlungen aus dem Strafrechte(Leipzig, 1835), I, dealing withEntführungandNothzucht; Wilda,Strafrecht(Halle, 1842); and Pollen,Fatal Consequences of Adultery(London, 1772), giving literary and other curiosities of the subject. A useful book is Boehmer'sUeber die Ehegesetze im Zeitalter Karls des Grossen(Göttingen, 1826), discussing the inconsistency of temporal and ecclesiastical legislation regarding divorce; as is also Sdralek'sHinkmars Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II.(Freiburg, 1881).Primary sources for the settlement of the canon law on the subject of divorce are theDecretumof Gratian and the other materials comprised in Richter-Friedberg'sCorpus juris canonici. For England Johnson'sCanonsand Godolphin'sRepartorium canonicum(3d ed., London, 1687) are serviceable. The state of the law in the age of the decretalists may be learned from Wunderlich's edition of Tancred'sSumma de matrimonio(Göttingen, 1841); and for its historical development the great works of Esmein and Freisen, elsewhere mentioned, are indispensable. Schulte'sLehrbuchand theLehrbuchof Friedberg cover the subject. In connection with the rise of the jurisdiction of the church should be read Sohm, "Die geist. Gerichtsbarkeit im frank. Reich," inZKR., IX (Tübingen, 1870). For the matrimonial experiences of Margaret of Scotland, illustrating the facility of divorce by indirect methods under the canon law, see Tait's article in theDict. of Nat. Biog., XXXVI; and similar material in theReports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. For the literature relating to the Council of Trent consult Bibliographical Note VII.The foundation of the Protestant doctrine of divorce was laid by Martin Luther. His writings on the subject may, of course, be foundin his collected works mentioned in Bibliographical Note IX; or in the source-book of Strampff,Luther: Ueber die Ehe(Berlin, 1857); while the more important papers are reprinted in Vol. II of theKleinere Schriften Dr. Martin Luthers: von Ehe- und Klostersachen(Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1877). An earlier book of a somewhat similar character is Froböse'sDr. Martin Luther's ernste, kräftige Worte über Ehe und eheliche Verhältnisse(Hanover, 1825). In the sixteenth century Luther's relatively conservative teaching regarding the scriptural grounds of divorce is adopted in the main by the theologians Brenz,Wie yn Ehesachen ... zu Handeln(1530); Bugenhagen,Von Ehebruch und Weglaufen(1539); also in the collections of Sarcerius, below mentioned; Chemnitz,Examen concilii tridentini(Frankfort, 1615); Beza,Tractatio de repudiis et divortiis(Geneva, 1569); the jurists Kling,Matrimonialium causarum tractatus(1st ed., Frankfort, 1553; 3d ed., here cited, 1577), being a reprint of the title "De nuptiis" of hisEnarrationes in Institutiones(1542); Beust,Tractatus de jure connubiorum(3d ed., Leipzig, 1592);idem,Tractatus de sponsalibus et matrimoniis(Wittenberg, 1586); Schneidewin,Commentarius in Institutiones(1st ed., Wittenberg, 1571); andidem,De nuptiis(Jena, 1585), being a part of the earlier work published by the heirs after the author's death. In the seventeenth century the more stringent tendency is represented by the theologians Bidembach,De causis matrimonialibus tractatus(Frankfort, 1608); Mentzer,De conjugio tractatus(Wittenberg, 1612); and by the jurists Cypräus,De connubiorum jure(Frankfort, 1605); Nicolai,Tractatus de repudiis et divortiis(Dresden, 1685); and Brouwer,De jure connubiorum(Amsterdam, 1665), whose book has the distinction of being placed on theIndex. On the other hand, in the age of Luther a more liberal direction is taken by Erasmus,Annat. in Nov. Testam.(Basel, 1515); whose influence, according to Richter, is felt by Zwingli, "Ordnung wie zu Zürich ... über eelich sachen gericht soll werden" (1525): in Richter,Kirchordnungen, I, 21, 22; and his "Commentary on Matthew xix, 9," in Richter,Beiträge, 7; and by Zwingli's disciple Bullinger,Der christlich Ehestand(1579). The laxer tendency is also represented by Lambert of Avignon,De sacro conjugio(Strasburg, 1524); Melanchthon, "De conjugio" (1551), inOpera, I (Erlangen, 1828); Bucer, whose work is mentioned in connection with the English Reformation; the jurist Monner,Tract. de matrimonio et clandestinis conjugiis(Jena, 1561); and in the seventeenth century especially by Hülsemann,Extensio breviarii theologici(3d ed., Leipzig, 1655); and the jurist Forster,De nuptiis(Wittenberg, 1617). The more essential parts of the works of Luther, Brenz, Bugenhagen, Bullinger, and Melanchthon may also be found in that remarkable treasury of materials gathered by Sarcerius,Ein Buch vom heiligen Ehestande(1553); enlarged under titleCorpus juris matrimonialis(Frankfort, 1569).Heading the modern literature is Richter's ableBeiträge zur Geschichte des Ehescheidungsrechts in der evang. Kirche(Berlin, 1858), which has the special merit of first classifying the post-Reformation writers on divorce according to their more rigid or more liberal tendencies. The subject is also treated with the usual precision and thoroughness in hisLehrbuch des kath. und evang. Kirchenrechts(8th ed., Leipzig, 1886). Important likewise are Strippelmann,Das Ehescheidungsrecht(Cassel, 1854); Goeschen, "Ehe," in Herzog'sEncyclopaedie, III, 666-707 (Stuttgart and Hamburg, 1855); Hauber, "Ehescheidung im Reformations-Jahrhundert," inJahrbücher für deutsche Theologie(1857), II; Hubrich,Das Recht der Ehescheidung(Berlin, 1891); Buchka,Das mecklenburgische Ehescheidungsrecht(Wismar, 1885); Gräbner,Ueber Desertion und Quasidesertion(Colberg, 1882); and Friedberg, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des brand.-preuss. Eherechts," inZKR., VIII (Tübingen, 1886-87). Weydmann,Luther(Hamburg and Gotha, 1850), has two chapters on Luther's views and his matrimonial life. The second and third parts of Vol. III of Schulte'sGeschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des can. Rechts(Stuttgart, 1880) provide a mass of valuable biographical and bibliographical material for the whole post-Reformation period.Richter's well-edited and now exceedingly scarceKirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts(Weimar, 1846) contains the legislation of the Evangelical churches on marriage and divorce. Especially important for the seventeenth century is the very rareDes Herzogthums Wirtemberg ernuerte Ehe- und Ehe-Gerichts-Ordnung(Stuttgart, 1687), marking the beginning of a more liberal treatment of the divorce problem. The ecclesiastical ordinances are analyzed by Goeschen,Doctrina de matrimonio(Halle, 1848); and by Dietrich,Evangelisches Ehescheidungsrecht(Erlangen, 1892). Original divorce decrees and opinions are collected in Bruckner'sDecisiones juris matrimonialis, II (Gotha, 1724); and several cases are published by Schleusner, "Anfänge des protest. Eherechts," inZKG., XIII (Gotha, 1892). The best monographs on the evolution of jurisdiction and process in such causes, aside from the work of Dietrich just mentioned, are Geffcken, "Zur ältesten Geschichte und ehegericht. Praxis des Leipzig. Konsist.," inZKR., 3. Folge, IV (Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894); Hinschius, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des Desertionsprocesses,"ibid., II (Berlin, 1862); and especially Stölzel,Ueber das landesherrliche Ehescheidungsrecht(Berlin, 1891), the first part of which having already appeared inZKR., XVIII (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1883). Stölzel holds that the authority of the chief magistrate to grant divorce is originally a right of episcopal dispensation, and that his authority is not superseded by the imperial law of 1875. On the controversy growing out of this dual question see Meurer,Das landesherrliche Ehescheidungsrecht(Freiburg, 1891); and compare Scheurl, "Die Ablösung des Eherechts von dem Kirchenrecht," inZKR., XIII (Tübingen, 1876); Buchka, "Das Eheschliessungsrecht,"ibid., XVI; Sicherer,Personnenstand und Eheschliessung(Erlangen, 1879); the two dissertations of Wasserschleben, each entitledDas Ehescheidungsrecht kraft landesh. Machtvollkommenheit(Giessen, 1877; Berlin, 1880); and Hinschius,Das Reichsgesetz(3d ed., 1890). On the rise of the early consistorial courts see especially Mejer, "Anfänge des Wittenberger Consistoriums," inZKR., XIII (Tübingen, 1876);idem, "Zur Geschichte des ältesten protest. Eherechts,"ibid., XVI (Tübingen, 1881); both articles being reprinted with other matter in hisZum Kirchenrecht des Reformationsjahrhunderts(Hanover, 1891).Since the Reformation the questions of the proper grounds of divorce and of the remarriage of divorced persons have given rise to perennial discussion. Among the many writings so produced may be mentioned Gerlach,Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung(Erlangen, 1839); Savigny, "Darstellung der in den preuss. Gesetzen über die Ehescheidung unternommenen Reform," inVermischte Schriften, V (Berlin, 1850); Müller,Ueber Ehescheidung und Wiederverehlichung geschiedener Gatten(Berlin, 1855); Hundrich,Ueber Ehen und Scheidungen(Breslau, 1855); Seidler,Beiträge zur Reform der preuss. Gesetzgebung(Nordhausen, 1861); Hoyer,Die Ehescheidungsfrage(Berlin, 1859); Scheurl,Zur praktischen Lösung der Ehescheidungsfrage(Nürnberg, 1861); Harless,Die Ehescheidungsfrage(Stuttgart, 1861); Bräunig,Das Recht der Ehescheidung(Zwickau, 1861); Huschke,Was lehrt Gottes Wort über die Ehescheidung?(Leipzig and Dresden, 1860);idem,Beleuchtung der Einwürfe gegen meine Schrift(Leipzig and Dresden, 1861). Among the many Latin dissertations on the subject are Majer,De separatione cohabitationis(Tübingen, 1675); Eckstein,De divortio ex causa desertionis(Tübingen, 1675); Wagner,De divortio, et convictus conjugalis separatione(Magdeburg, 1723); Memminger,De divortio propter insidias vitae structas(Halle, 1738); Struvvius,De jure divortiorum(Jena, 1735); Seiff,De divortio totali(Giessen, 1740); Mossheim,De divortio(Jena, 1737, 1773); Scopp,Tractatus, de jure divortiorum(Frankfort and Leipzig, 1756); Wunderlich,De separatione a thoro et mensa(Jena, 1774); and especially theControversiae circa jura divortiorum(2d ed., Halle, 1729), being a reprint of tracts of Kayser, Lange, and Michaelis. For the more recent development of the law in German lands see Schilling,Der Ehescheidungsprocess in den sächsischen Gerichten(Leipzig, 1831);Ehegerichts-Ordnung für den Kanton Basel-Stadtheil(Basel, 1857); Lauenstein,Hannoverisches Eherecht und Process-Verfahren(Hanover, 1869); Peters,Die Ehescheidung(Berlin, 1881); Wasserschleben,Das Ehescheidungsrecht(Berlin, 1887); Hergenhahn,Das Eheschliessungs- und Ehescheidungs-Recht(Hanover, 1890-93);Ney,Das Kirchenrecht(Berlin, 1895); Part II of Lehr,Le mariage, le divorce, et la séparation(Paris, 1899); Erles,Ehescheidungsrecht und Ehescheidungsprozess(2d ed., Berlin, 1900); and Dedekind,Das protest. Ehescheidungsrecht und Verwandtes(Braunschweig, 1872), containing decisions extending over many years with full bibliographical citations.Of primary importance for the Reformation in England are the writings of Becon, Hooper, Tyndale, and Whitgift, all, with theOriginal Letters, comprised in the publications of the Parker Society and described in Bibliographical Note IX. The radical doctrines of Bucer'sDe regno Christi(1557) were supported by Milton, who published an English version under title of "The Judgment of Martin Bucer," inProse Works, III. Pocock'sRecords of the Reformation: The Divorce, 1527-1533(Oxford, 1870), has placed within easy reach a fine collection of original materials relating to Henry VIII.'s famous cause; and Huth,The Marriage of Near Kin(2d ed., London, 1887), has provided a bibliography of the extensive literature to which it has given rise. For the whole period Burnet'sHistory of the Reformation(London, 1850) is of service. The state of public sentiment is reflected in Raynold'sDefence of the Judgment of the Reformed Churches(1609, 1610); the opposing work of Bunny,Of Divorce for Adultery, And Marrying againe: that there is no sufficient warrant so to do(Oxford, 1610; prepared for publication in 1595); and the curiousLawes Resolutions of Womens Rights(London, 1632). The corruption and injustice often attending the proceedings of the old spiritual courts in actions for annulment of wedlock are revealed in Archbishop Abbot'sThe Case of Impotency As Debated in England, In that Remarkable Tryal An. 1613, between Robert, Earl of Essex, and the Lady Frances Howard(London, 1715), in which King James I. appears in the rôle of pander to the lust of his guilty favorite. The publication of this book, a century after it was written, appears to have been suggested by the similarPleadings for the Marquis de Gesvres against the Marchioness(London, 1714). In this connection may also be mentioned as illustrative material theCases of Divorce for Several Causes(London, 1715); and theCrim. Con. Actions and Trials and other Legal Proceedings relating to Marriage before the passing of the present Divorce Act(London, n. d.). With these may be compared the modern caseEhescheidungs-Process Colin-Campbell(London, 1886). For the Stuart period have also been used Barrington,Observations Upon the Statutes(2d ed., London, 1766); Hale,History of the Pleas of the Crown(London, 1800); Coke,Reports(London, 1826); hisInstitutes; and theReportsof Croke, Kelyng, and Marche.Milton's "Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," "Tetrachordon," and "Colasterion" may be found in Vols. III and IV of hisProse Works(London, 1889-90). The only special work on parliamentary divorce is that contained in Macqueen'sPractical Treatise on the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords and Privy Council(London, 1842). There are a number of papers relating to the early cases in theReports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. Morgan,Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce(Oxford, 1826), has a long account; and the Lord Roos suit gave rise toThe Case of Divorce and Re-Marriage(London, 1673). The proceedings in the Northampton case may be found in Howell'sState Trials, XII.TheStatutes at Largeand Hansard'sParliamentary Debatesare, of course, in frequent requisition. For the reform of the laws relating to affinity and divorce important sources are the "First Report of the Commissioners" (affinity), inBrit. Documents, 1847-8, XXVIII (London, 1848); "First Report of the Commissioners" (divorce),ibid.,1852-3, XL (London, 1853); "Evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, 1844" (divorce), reprintedibid.;A Return giving an Outline of Marriage Laws, and the State of the Law of Divorce, in three parts (London, 1894);Return of the Number of Divorces, Part I, "Foreign Countries;" Part II, "Brit. Colonies"(London, 1895-96); and theReport of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, 1885(divorce).The development of a liberal sentiment in contemporary literature may be traced inA Treatise Concerning Adultery and Divorce(London, 1700);Two Cases: The First of Adultery and Divorce(London, 1702); the anonymousEssay upon Divorcement(London, 1715), replying to Milton; Salmon,A Critical Essay Concerning Marriage(London, 1824), accepting Milton's views;Cri d'une honnête femme qui réclame le divorce(London, 1770);Observations on the Marriage Laws particularly in reference to the Case of Desertion(London, 1815); andPlea for an Alteration of the Divorce Laws(London, 1831). With these writers may be compared Ireland,Nuptiae sacrae(London, 1801, 1821, 1830), opposing Bishop Horsley's argument that in case of divorce the Scriptures directly prohibit the marriage of the adulterer with the adulteress; Tebbs,Essay on the Scripture Doctrines of Adultery and Divorce(London, 1822), too harshly accused of plagiarism by the author of the preceding book; Keble,Sequel of the Argument against immediately repealing the Laws which treat the Nuptial Bond as indissoluble(Oxford, 1857), opposing the proposed divorce law; and Browne,The Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church(London and New York, 1896), taking a reactionary position.Important for the chapter are Glasson,Histoire du droit et des institutions ... de l'Angleterre(Paris, 1882-83); Cleveland,Woman under the English Law(London, 1896); Barclay,La femme anglaise(Paris, 1896); Lehr,Le mariage, le divorce, et la séparation(Paris,1899); Lecky,Democracy and Liberty(New York, 1896); Neubauer, "Ehescheidung im Auslande," inZVR., VII (Stuttgart, 1887); Swinderen, "Ueber das Gütterrecht der Ehefrau in England,"ibid., V (Stuttgart, 1884); Hirschfeld, "The Law of Divorce in England and in Germany," inLaw Quarterly Review, XIII, October (London, 1897); Montmorency, "The Changing Status of a Married Woman,"ibid., April (London, 1897); and the able article "Divorce," inLaw Review(English), I (London, 1845). The absurd conflicts of English and Scottish law, as illustrated especially by Lolley's case, are discussed in Brougham's "Discourse on the Law of Marriage, Divorce, and Legitimacy" (1835) and his "Speech on the Scotch Marriage and Divorce Bills" (1835), both inSpeeches, III (London, 1838); Fraser,Conflict of the Laws in Case of Divorce(Edinburgh, 1860); and Fergusson,Reports of Some Decisions(Edinburgh, 1817); while the proceedings in divorce under the old law are treated by Poynter,Doctrine and Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Doctors Commons(London, 1822). Besides the technical treatises of Bishop, Geary, Ernst, and Hammick may be consulted Spence,Equitable Jurisdiction(Philadelphia, 1846); Baker,Husband and Wife and the Married Women's Property Act, 1882(London, 1882); Barrett-Leonard,The Position in Law of Woman(London, 1883); Shelford,Marriage and Divorce(London, 1841); Browne,Divorce and Alimony(Philadelphia, 1890); Browning,Practice and Procedure of the Court for Divorce(London, 1862);idem,Exposition of the Laws of Marriage and Divorce(London, 1872); and Harrison,Probate and Divorce(4th ed., London, 1891). Among the works elsewhere described from which aid has been derived are those of Bracton, Blackstone, Reeves, Burn, Jeaffreson, Lingard, Wharton, Pollock and Maitland, and Haggard,Reports of Cases in the Consistory Court of London(London, 1822).For the literature relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister and other kindred see a footnote below and the elaborate bibliography by Huth in the work already mentioned.]I. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND THE THEORY OF THE CANON LAWa)Historical elements of the Christian teaching.—According to the spirit of the earliest Christian teaching divorce, properly so called, is strongly condemned, though by a strict interpretation of its letter it may not be entirely forbidden. Between the first assertion of the new doctrine and the final triumph of the canonical theory of absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond intervenes a struggle of twelve hundredyears, whose more salient features may now be sketched in rapid outline.To understand the influences which aided in molding the conceptions of the founders of the Christian church relative to marriage and divorce, one must first of all notice the legal and social environment. By each of the three systems of law with which originally the Christians were most acquainted marriage was treated as a private or lay contract, and its dissolution was therefore freely allowed. Among the early Greeks, at any rate in the Homeric age, divorce is thought, on slender evidence, to have been entirely unknown,[1]although the practice arose later. By the Athenian law, which probably was not entirely supplanted by the Roman until 212 A.D.,[2]it was freely granted to either spouse. The benefit inured, however, mainly to the husband, since to begin proceedings for a divorce the wife was required to present in person to the archon a written statement of her desire; and this, in a society where popular sentiment relegated woman to a seclusion truly oriental, it was in practice exceedingly hard to do.[3]By the Jewish law, as it still existed at the dawn of the present era, divorce was the one-sided privilege of the man.[4]At most there was only a faint trace of the woman's later right, sanctioned by the Talmud, of demanding a separation.[5]Legally, for the slightest reason, as the school of Hillel justly maintained, the husband could put away the wife by simply handing her a "get" or bill of divorce.[6]By the written law only in two cases, for grave misconduct, was he deprived of this power;[7]though in practice there were several ameliorating conditions which tended to put a check upon arbitrary action. Thus, while divorce was a private transaction, certain formalities had to be observed in connection with the "get" which secured the restraining influence of publicity;[8]and in case the wife was unjustly repudiated thedower, representing the ancientmohar, or purchase price of the bride, had to be paid to her from the husband's property.[9]Moreover, some of the limitations of the husband's despotic power recognized by the Mishnah or oral law may already have been in force; and the highest ethical sentiment among the Jews had long been decidedly against too great freedom of divorce. It was the rabbi's duty as much as possible to discourage it and to effect reconciliations between husband and wife.[10]Negatively, however, it was the later law of Rome which had most to do with shaping the ideas of the Christian Fathers relative to the nature of marriage and the doctrine of divorce.[11]By each of the three ancient forms of marriage the wife came or might come under the power of the husband,in manu viri. In the family she was legally regarded as being in a daughter's place,in loco filiae;[12]and in eachcase divorce was solely the husband's prerogative.[13]But by the beginning of our era all these older and stricter forms, with their consequent one-sided right of separation, had been practically superseded by free contract in which the husband and wife were placed on an equal footing.[14]By this form marriage became a simple private agreement. The wife did not pass under themanuof the husband. She retained full control of her property, being in this regard, as it were, temporarily deposited at her husband's side;[15]while divorce became a formless private transaction to which the woman was as freely entitled as was the man.[16]No intervention of court or magistrate was essential. So far, indeed, was carried the theory of absolute liberty of either spouse to dissolve the contract that, according to Cicero, the jurists in one case were in doubt whether a divorce did not legally ariseipso factothrough the consummation of a second marriage by one of the parties during the lifetime of the other.[17]Augustus, however, introduced an important change in the interest of publicity, requiring the party wishing a divorce to declare to the other his purpose in the presence of seven witnesses, who must be Roman citizens of full age; otherwise the divorce to be null and void.[18]But there was no intention through this condition of establishing the jurisdiction of the state in the matter of divorce, which remained, as before, a private legal act of the interested persons. "Still less was it the purpose of the state to put any material restriction upon the freedom of divorce."[19]To this liberty there was but one exception. The freedwoman might not repudiate her patron, her former master, who had taken her in marriage.[20]In all other cases the divorce, however arbitrary or unjust, was legally effective. There was no action for the restitution of conjugalrights; though the responsible party might in certain cases suffer pecuniary damage.[21]What were the moral and social results of this excessive freedom of divorce? To many the answer seems easy enough; for during the later republic and the early empire the laxity of the nuptial bond became a notorious scandal. At the capital, and especially in the imperial circle, wives as well as husbands gave free rein to their licentious passions. Marriage became unpopular. A recent historian even declares that "almost always" it was ended by divorce.[22]Already in the age of the Gracchi, Metellus the Macedonian cynically exclaimed: "Romans, if we could get along without wives, assuredly none of us would accept so grievous a burden; but since nature has ordained that one cannot live easily with them, nor live without them, let us sacrifice the happiness of our short life to the perpetuity of our nation."[23]Later even the most distinguished and reputable men, as if in mockery of wedlock, put away their wives on purely selfish or absurdly trivial grounds.[24]To believe the exaggerationsof the satirists, one changed his partner almost as often as the cut of his garment.[25]"Seneca denounced this evil with especial vehemence, declaring that divorce in Rome no longer brought with it any shame, and there were women who reckoned their years rather by their husbands than by the consuls."[26]Nevertheless, the abuse was more a result than a cause of the gradual decline of Roman morals during the two centuries following the conquest of Carthage.[27]Doubtless, the state in neglecting to exercise a proper jurisdiction in this field had abrogated a function important for her own stability. Proper restraints would have lessened the evil. But the character of the law was very far from being its sole, or even its primary, cause. "In a purer state of public opinion," well observes Lecky, "a very wide latitude of divorce might probably have been allowed to both parties, without any serious consequences. The right of repudiation which the husband had always possessed was, as we have seen, in the Republic never or very rarely exercised. Of those who scandalised good men by the rapid recurrence of their marriages, probably most, if marriage had been indissoluble, would have refrained from entering into it.... A vast wave of corruption had flowed in upon Rome, and under any system of law it wouldhave penetrated into domestic life. Laws prohibiting all divorce have never secured the purity of married life in ages of great corruption, nor did the latitude which was accorded in imperial Rome prevent the existence of a very large amount of female virtue."[28]Nor, it may be added, does it appear that the family life of the people at large, notably that of the middle classes in the provinces, was seriously tainted by the social corruption of the capital, where all the causes of moral degeneration were especially active.It is, however, not surprising that the founders of the Christian church should have regarded the laxity of the marriage bond as a sign, if not the primary cause, of the degradation of Roman society. From the beginning an earnest effort is made so far as possible to restrict the liberty of separation and to prohibit the persons separated on proper grounds from contracting further marriage. The various passages of the New Testament relating to the subject are disjointed and confusing in their details.[29]Many vital questions are either completely ignored or left in such obscurity as to open the way for wide divergence of doctrine and the bitter controversies of future ages, especially those of the Reformation period. According to the fundamental teaching of Jesus, as reported by Matthew, thehusband is forbidden to put away the wife except for unfaithfulness.[30]Divinely created as male and female, "they twain shall be one flesh;" and "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."[31]Whether for the same reason the woman may put away the man, or whether either the innocent or the guilty party may contract a second marriage, we are here not expressly informed. Inferences may, of course, be drawn by assuming that Jesus had the principles of the Jewish law in mind; but this mode of procedure is scarcely satisfying.[32]Nor do the other sacred writers throw any clear light on these important questions. Rather do they deepen the obscurity; for both Mark and Luke appear absolutely to prohibit divorce, not expressly admitting even the one ground of separationgranted on the authority of Matthew. Moreover, Mark sets up a new stumbling-block. In the presence of the Pharisees, who sought to tempt him, Jesus is made to put aside as morally wrong and born of hardness of heart the harsh freedom of divorce secured to the man alone by the Mosaic code; while "in the house" he tells his disciples that "whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her," and "if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery;" so leaving us in doubt whether legal separationwithoutthe privilege of a further marriage is sanctioned—in effect thus anticipating the later distinction between divorcequoad thorumandquoad vinculum; or, if such separation be sanctioned, whether, in sharp contrast to the spirit of Jewish law, the wife is placed on a level with the husband in this regard.The utterances of Paul on this subject,[33]as on all questions connected with marriage and the family, are of the highest importance in view of their historical consequences. Referring directly to the teaching of Jesus, he first seemingly denies the right of divorce to either party. With Mark and Luke he omits the exception mentioned by Matthew; and with Mark he expressly forbids the wife to "depart from her husband," adding, however, the inconsequent and bewildering command, "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." Here apparently, where both persons are believers, separationa mensa et thorois approved. Whether in such case this is the only Christian form of divorce allowed either party, however grave the cause of separation;[34]or whether his ruleapplies to the woman only, and then merely when some lesser ground of action exists, the Apostle to the Gentiles fails entirely to place beyond the field of debate.Thus far Paul has spoken professedly on the authority of "the Lord." Next he contemplates the case of an existing union between a Christian and an unbeliever; and on his own judgment he admits a new ground of separation. "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." The Christian may not put away or abandon his spouse on account of difference in religious faith. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases."[35]Again, through this last remark, the seeds of dissension are planted; for it is not clear whether the "bondage" from which the brother or sister is freed is that of the existing marriage or the irksome necessity of perpetual single life after separation.Upon these Bible passages, often vague and puzzling in the extreme,[36]was eventually erected the whole doctrine of the mediæval church relating to divorce. It is not surprising that harmony was reached only after many centuries of struggle. With the exact processes of argument by which ingenious theologians have in all ages sought to reconcile or interpret the scriptural teaching we are here but little concerned. At present we are mainly interested in thegeneral results of thought as they find expression in the law and practice of the church previous to the Reformation. The subject presents four phases or aspects of development, each of which will be briefly considered: the views of the early Fathers; the legislation of the Christian emperors; the compromise with Germanic custom; and the final settlement of doctrine in the canon law.b)Views of the early Fathers.—During the first four centuries of our era the so-called "strict" construction of the utterances of Jesus and Paul relating to the twofold question of separation and second marriage was formulated by the Fathers of the church; and the principles then agreed upon were in the end, after an intervening period of vacillation and compromise, to be accepted and elaborated into a complete system of law by the canonists. The literature of this early debate may be regarded as reaching from the Pastor of Hermas, a writer in the first half of the second century, highly respected in Christian antiquity,[37]to Augustine, late in the fourth century (died 430), who towers above all the other Fathers in his influence for good or evil in the history of European thought. At first the Pauline interdict of further marriage after separation receives more attention perhaps than the question of divorce itself, with its assigned cause as laid down by Jesus; for it is strongly urged that the chief evil of a too lax divorce system, such as theRoman, is the facility of second marriage regardless of the guilt or innocence of the parties.[38]Setting aside for the present the case of the Christian whose unbelieving spouse voluntarily departs—thecasus apostoliorprivilegium Paulinum, as it is later styled by the canonists[39]—nearly all are agreed that divorce is forbidden except for the one cause mentioned by Matthew. There is, however, a divergence of view in two important particulars. On the one hand, certain writers, such as Tertullian and pseudo-Ambrose, following the principle of the Jewish law, admit this ground of repudiation to the advantage of the man, but not to that of the woman; while others, like Epiphanius, maintain the equal right of the sexes in this regard. On the other hand, in a few instances the word "adultery"[40]is accepted in an allegorical or spiritual sense, thus greatly widening the field of divorce. In this way, for example, Hermas, Hieronymus, and, for a time, Augustine anticipate the mode of interpretation adopted by some of the Reformation Fathers, admitting idolatry, apostasy, and covetousness, equally with carnal transgression, as proper grounds of separation.[41]The case is similar with respect to second marriage. Apparently there is a strong tendency from the beginning to treat marriage as indissoluble, but, "intentionally or unintentionally," the utterances of the Fathers on this vital question are unclear. Frequently they content themselves, as Geffcken observes, with a "paraphrase of the scripturaltexts relating to the matter."[42]Seemingly, according to the common or prevailing opinion, neither party whether innocent or guilty is allowed to form a new marriage during the lifetime of the other; but there is on this point a great lack of precision.[43]Tertullian, after yielding to Montanism, even goes so far as to reject all second marriage as un-Christian; and the same position is taken by Minutius Felix.[44]There are, however, less rigid constructions. By some Fathers the right of remarriage is conceded to the man repudiating a guilty wife, while they deny it to the woman under like conditions. Others, actuated by a livelier sense of justice, like Epiphanius, concede it to both consorts alike; but these opinions are rejected by the majority.[45]More and more, in theory if not always in practice, the antagonism of the church to the second marriage of a divorced man or woman becomes apparent as we approach the close of the period under consideration. This is proved even by the action of the provincial assemblies. Thus the Spanish Council of Elvira of the year 306 decrees that the woman who puts away a guilty husband and marries another shall be excommunicated;and, save in case of mortal sickness, she shall not be admitted again to communion until after her first husband's death. If, however, she have left her husband without cause and contracted another marriage, she shall not be admitted to communion even on the death-bed; but nothing is said concerning a dissolution of the later marriage.[46]Similar in spirit are the canons of the Council of Arles held in the year 314. The general principle of the indissolubility of the matrimonial relation is positively asserted,[47]but in connection with a concession which illustrates the practical difficulty of consistently enforcing the new doctrine in all parts of the Roman world. The youthful husband[48]who puts away a guilty wife is to be "advised" not to marry again during her lifetime; thus dealing far more gently with the man than did the Council of Elvira with the woman for the same offense.[49]Finally, with Augustine, the strict doctrine of the early church takes a definite form, to which the masters of later times look back as to an authoritative canon of interpretation. He gave to the theory of indissolubility, declares Esmein, a "basis solid, in a measure scientific. He gave it a consistencyforced from the sacrament of marriage. He set aside at one stroke all the causes of divorce admitted by the secular law: sickness, captivity, or prolonged absence. He was, one may say, the artisan who gave the final touch to the theory of indissolubility."[50]According to Augustine, adultery is the only scriptural ground of separation; but even this does not dissolve the nuptial bond. Moreover, those who, following the letter of Matthew's text, would for this offense allow the man, but not the woman, the right of repudiation, he "justly reproaches with violating one of the great principles of Christian law—the equality of the wedded pair."[51]Similar views are held by Hieronymus, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and other contemporaries of Augustine;[52]and it is probably due to his influence mainly that in 407 the strict theory of indissolubility was proclaimed by the Council of Carthage;[53]as already in 405 it had been accepted in a decree of Pope Innocent I. addressed to the bishop of Toulouse.[54]In practical life the strict theory of the Fathers came very far short of realization. Hermas, who strongly favors the rigid view, allows the man to marry again whose wifesins a second time after once being reconciled.[55]Basil goes farther, declaring that the husband abandoned by his wife is worthy of pardon, and that the woman who then marries him is not condemned.[56]Even Jerome excuses Fabiola, a young Christian woman of high position who had repudiated a licentious husband and contracted a new marriage, saying, "if she is blamed because when her husband was divorced she did not remain unmarried, I will readily admit her fault, while I admit her necessity."[57]Origen shows that some rulers of the church in such a case permit a woman to marry again while the first husband is living;[58]and Augustine confesses that the women who abstain from remarriage after divorce are extremely few.[59]c)The legislation of the Christian emperors.—Where the most severe teachers of the early church, and even the ecclesiastical councils themselves, as we have seen, were thus led to temporize, it is not surprising that an enlightened secular policy should be compelled to take intermediate ground. The legislation of the first Christian emperors goes far beyond the narrow limits which Tertullian, Clement, or Augustine would have drawn. For centuries, throughevery change in the statutes, the Roman principles of one-sided divorce and divorce by mutual consent were maintained, though it was precisely these principles against which primitive Christianity took its firmest stand. "It was a maxim of Roman law far down beyond the time when the emperors became Christian, that no obstacle ought to be put in the way of a dissolution of marriage caused by the free consent of the partners, liberty of marrying again being in this case equally unrestricted. The lawyer Paulus says, that it has been thought improper that marriages, whether already contracted or about to take place, should be secured by the force of penalty (poenae vinculo obstringi), that is that two parties ought not to be forced by fear of penalty either to enter into a state of wedlock to which they were pledged, or to keep up such a state if they were agreed to the contrary. And it was laid down that marriage was so free, according to ancient opinion, that even agreements between the parties not to separate from one another could have no validity (pacta ne liceret divertere non valere)."[60]One-sided divorce was equally free, except in the cases and under the conditions fixed by Augustus,[61]"saving that here, if the woman had caused the divorce by her conduct, a large share of her dower was withheld from her, and if the man had caused it, he might be liable to pay over the whole of the dower, and that within a short term. The parties were subjected until the time of Justinian to ajudicium morum, which might be instituted on a complaint of either consort. The fear, then, of losing a portion or the whole of the dower, and the dread of a loss of reputation, when the conduct of the parties in their married life should be investigated, seemto have been the only inducements to prevent one-sided divorces. But what if no misconduct could be alleged on the part of the man, what if he dismissed his wife to marry a richer woman, the law in this case had no restraining power. And where the wife brought no dower, as might happen in the lower classes, there could be no operation of the law at all."[62]Accordingly, the legislation of the early Christian emperors shows no radical departure from the principles of the existing civil law. Divorceex consensuwas not prohibited until Justinian, who decreed that only when both partners are about to enter the cloister shall a separation by mutual agreement be permitted.[63]But this prohibition was short-lived; for in consequence of it the number of suits growing out of "poisoning or other attempts upon life among married people increased in so frightful a manner"[64]that the provision was abrogated by Justin II., the immediate successor of Justinian.[65]On the other hand, the efforts of Constantine and later rulers are directed mainly toward checking the evils of one-sided divorce. This is done chiefly through restricting the number of legal grounds of separation and sharpening the penalties for their disregard. Thus in 331 Constantine ordains that trifling causes (exquisitae causae) shall no longer suffice for arepudium justumor legal divorce at the will of one party. The woman may put away her husband only when he is a murderer, poisoner, or violator of sepulchers; and the man is allowed to repudiate his wife only when she is guilty of poisoning, procuring, or adultery. If the divorce takes place for any other reason, the woman so violating the statute shall forfeit all claim to restitution of dower and suffer transportation to an island;while the man in like case must at once surrender the entiredos, being prohibited also from contracting another marriage.[66]"Still further, if he thus married, his repudiated wife 'could invade his house,' as the law expresses it, and acquire possession of the entire dower of her successor."[67]It should be noted, however, that the Roman principle of divorcebona gratia, or one-sided separation for a legal cause not implying any guilt or offense, was still retained.[68]In 363 Julian repealed the divorce law of Constantine;[69]but the principle of restricting the grounds of arbitrary repudiation was again adopted in 421 by Honorius and Constantius; though, like Julian, they allowed arbitrary separation for lesser faults, with retention of some portion of the dower.[70]Theodosius II., in 439, abrogating previous legislation, restored the law of the early empire; but "after ten years of experiment, in which divorces had alarmingly increased, gave out another law,[71]which laid down the causes for which one party might lawfully separate from the other. The woman was authorized to do this if the man had been guilty of certain crimes, among which are murder, poisoning, plotting against the government, fraud, and various sorts ofrobbery, cruelty toward or attempts on the life of his wife, intimacy with prostitutes, and adultery. The causes for which a man could without penalty put away his wife were for the most part of the same description with those just mentioned. But peculiar to her are the offenses of passing the night out of his house, or visiting the theatre, circus, or other public place against his will."[72]If the divorce occurs for any reason other than those mentioned in the statute, the penalty for either person is loss or surrender of the dower and the ante-nuptial gift; while in addition the woman, under penalty of "infamy," is prohibited from marrying again within five years.[73]This is a severe discrimination against the wife; but in one important matter, it will be noted, the law of Theodosius is strikingly impartial; for separation is permitted on account of adultery of the man as well as for that of the woman. In this regard the measure is far more liberal than the earlier Roman law, according to which adultery is not a crime which a husband can commit against his wife.[74]Moreover, while this offense is not always mentioned in the constitutions of the Christian emperors as legal ground for divorcing the husband, it is punished with extreme rigor. Sometimes both offenders are condemned to death. Sometimes a discrimination is made, the woman usually suffering the harsher penalty.[75]The legislation of Justinian, except in abolishing divorce by common consent, does not differ essentially in principle or detail from that of Theodosius II. The causes assigned for a reasonable divorce (ex rationabili causa) are much the same as in the former law. For disregard of the statute the woman loses her dower and is condemned to lifelong imprisonment in a cloister; while the man forfeits the nuptial gift (donatio propter nuptias), and besides must pay a fine equal to one-third of that donation.[76]Thus it appears that during the two centuries between Constantine and Justinian the legislation of the state relative to the vital question of divorce is practically untouched by the influence of Christianity. Informal divorcebona gratia[77]and divorce by mutual consent, both contrary to Christian teaching, are freely allowed. The principle of further marriage after separation is fully maintained for the innocent party, and usually under restrictions for the guilty person as well. The causes of legal divorce are, indeed, limited and the penalties for unjust repudiation made more severe; but the strict principle of indissolubility of the marriage bond, as already conceived by Augustine and his contemporaries, is completely ignored.[78]d)The compromise with German custom.—Far more important in its results is the contact of the Christian doctrine with Germanic customs and ideas. To the newly converted nations of Teutonic stock came the western empire as a properheritage. It would be their task to make the history of the future; to construct a new civilization by blending the best elements of their own culture with the maturer results of Roman experience. But this could be accomplished only through ages of struggle and compromise; through a slow and painful process of amalgamation in religion, language, and jurisprudence. For the Germans were relatively young in social progress. In law and institutions at the time of conversion they stood about where the Romans were when Roman legendary history begins. With respect to the customs of marriage and divorce they stood even lower; for the earliest collections of folk-laws, some of which were made after the acceptance of Christianity, disclose marriage as a real contract of sale through which the wife in theory, and no doubt often in practice, becomes the husband's chattel. With regard to the primitive law of divorce there is scarcely any direct information. But it seems probable that originally the right of repudiation was the sole privilege of the man, though in practice the arbitrary use of his power must have been restrained by dread of the blood-feud and the fear of pecuniary sacrifice.[79]In the historical period, however, and long after the conversion divorce by mutual agreement seems to have prevailed very widely among the Germanic peoples; but with the exception of theLex romana Burgundionum, it does not appear to be sanctioned in the folk-laws until the seventh[80]century, which fact has led tothe conjecture that this form of separation, "originally alien to the German legal consciousness," was gradually adopted under Roman influence.[81]The folk-laws show that, side by side with divorce by free consent of the parties, the husband still possessed the right to put away his wife for certain specified crimes;[82]or, indeed, without assigning any cause whatever, though in that case he might suffer serious disadvantage with respect to property.[83]Another principle of the ancient German law it is necessary to mention in order to obtain a starting-point for the measure of Christian influence. Originally, according to Wilda,[84]by the strict legal theory adultery is not a crime which a man can commit against his wife. He may be punished: indeed very generally in the folk-laws both the guilty persons may be slain when surprised by the aggrieved; but if he be punished "it is not for unfaithfulness to his wife, but for violating the rights of another husband."[85]On theother hand, for similar misconduct the woman is put to death. So "in Saxony, where the old heathen ideas survived until the forcible conversion under Charles the Great, as Boniface reports, the adulteress, stripped to the girdle, was driven out of her husband's house and whipped through the streets of the village until she died."[86]To analyze the secular laws or ecclesiastical canons relating to divorce, as they were slowly developed on Germanic territory after the conversion, is not an easy task; for they reveal a striving to harmonize in various ways the often irreconcilable elements of Roman, Teutonic, and Christian ideas. In the first place, the imperial legislation remained in force for the Roman population, though in the compilations made under the barbarian kings various changes are made to satisfy new and complex relations.[87]Next, the German folk-laws show in many ways the evidences of compromise with Christian doctrine under the exigencies of practical life.[88]National sentiment will not suffer the absolute interdict of further marriage after separation; but the penalties for unjust action may be made so severe as to prepare the way for the strict theory of the church. In the Burgundian code, for example, the man who puts away his wife for any cause other than those named in the statute must surrender to her his house and all his possessions;whereas in the West Gothic Interpretation of the Theodosian code the chapter on which this provision is modeled prescribes a similar penalty, not for the illegal divorce itself, but for contracting a second marriage after the unjust repudiation of the first wife.[89]Accordingly, in these laws one-sided divorce on the part of the husband is not entirely taken away; but the grounds on which he may act are more or less restricted in harmony with the scriptural rules; and the wife is herself given a rudimentary right of one-sided repudiation when the husband is guilty of very grave crimes. In the law of the West Goths, for instance, where Christian influence is more marked than in any of the other codes before the close of the eighth century,[90]the right of the man to put away his wife is restricted to the one cause mentioned by Matthew; while for two scandalous wrongs the woman may repudiate the husband and contract another marriage if she likes.[91]On the other hand, the ancient rule that a man cannot be guilty of adultery against his wife yields very slightly to the Christian principle of equality of the sexes with respect to the punishment of carnal sins. Generally,according to the harsh sanction of the ancient law, the guilty woman as well as her paramour may be slain by the aggrieved.[92]In theory, as Geffcken insists, a husband in similar case is still merely responsible for violating the rights of another man; the only concessions to the Christian teaching being a tendency to check concubinage and the privilege of the woman, already mentioned, of repudiating her husband for certain offenses, among which, it may be noted, intimacy with other women is not found.[93]Such are the salient features of secular legislation on German territory following the migration and settlement of the new nations. Let us now look at the question from the opposite point of view—that of the decrees and practice of the church itself. For more than three hundred years after the strict theory of Augustine had been proclaimed by the Council of Carthage and by Innocent I. in the beginning of the fifth century, there is more or less wavering on the part of ecclesiastical authorities. In general, it may be said there is a tendency to uphold the rigid doctrine of indissolubility; but the evidences of compromise with popular sentiment are by no means wanting. Almost always in the papal letters divorce with remarriage is absolutely forbidden.[94]Yet in 726 Gregory II., in a letter addressed to St. Boniface, permits a man to contract a new marriage because his wife by reason of infirmity is unable to perform her conjugal duty; and this opinion has proved a sore puzzle tocanonists and theologians, for it is utterly inconsistent with an earlier decision of the same pontiff.[95]A similar inconsistency exists in the conciliar decrees. The doctrine of indissolubility is rigidly enforced by the Council of Angers in 453; the two Councils of Orleans in 533; the Council of Nantes in 658; that of Friuli in 796; and generally by those of the ninth century.[96]On the other hand, several decrees are much more tolerant. In 465 the Council of Vannes "expressly exempts from anathema those men who marry again after putting away their wives for adultery proved;"[97]and, still more liberal, the Council of Agde, 505, while expressly allowing more than one cause of separationa vinculo, threatens with excommunication only those who repudiate their wives for the sake of remarriage without "establishing in advance before the bishops of the province the causes of their divorce."[98]

MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS IN ENGLANDContinued

[Bibliographical Note XI.—For divorce among the Athenians Meier and Schömann'sDer attische Process(Berlin, 1883-87) is important. Assistance has also been given by Hruza,Ehebegründung nach att. Rechte(Leipzig, 1892);idem,Polygamie und Pellikat(Leipzig, 1894); and Müller and Bauer, "Die griech. Privat- und Kriegsalterthümer" (1893), in Müller'sHandbuch. The Hebrew law on the subject is well treated by Mielziner,The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce(Cincinnati, 1884); and especially by Amram, in his excellentJewish Law of Divorce(Philadelphia, 1896). In his "Divorce on Condition," in theGreen Bag, III, August, 1891, the last-named writer has described a curious device for escaping marriage with a brother-in-law and employed also in cases of long absence. Besides the works of Stubbe, Duschak, Döllinger, and Lichtschein, elsewhere noticed, see Selden,Uxor ebraica(Frankfort, 1673), or the same in hisOpera, II (London, 1726); Fraenkel,Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts(Breslau, 1860); Saalschuetz,Das mosaische Recht(2d ed., Berlin, 1853); and Meyer,Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, und Römer(Leipzig, 1862-66).The leading work on Roman divorce is Wächter'sUeber die Ehescheidungen(Stuttgart, 1821). There is also a good account in the seventh and eighth chapters of Hasse'sDas Gütterrecht der Ehegatten nach röm. Recht(Berlin, 1824). Savigny has an article on "Die erste Ehescheidung in Rom," inAbhandlungen der könig. Akad. der Wiss. in Berlin, 1814-16(Berlin, 1818). Very important also is Rein,Das röm. Privatrecht(Leipzig, 1836); and on divorce in connection with the alleged depravation of morals at the close of the republic there is a fine passage in Lecky,European Morals(3d ed., New York, 1881). The subject is treated by Marche,Historia juris civilis de divortiis(Leipzig, 1764); Langeron,Du divorce en droit romain(Paris, 1857); Morael,Droit romain: du divorce(Paris, 1888); and Combier,Du divorce en droit romain(Paris, 1880). Esmein,Mélanges(Paris, 1886), has a chapter dealing in part with Roman divorce; and in the same volume may be found the best existing treatment of adultery in connection with theLex Julia de adulteriis. With other matter this law is also considered by Gessert,Ad leg. Jul. de adult. coerc.(Würtemberg,1795); Haupt,De poena adulterii ex leg. Jul.(Leipzig, 1797); Jörs,Die Ehegesetze des Augustus(Marburg, 1894); and Bennecke in his able monographDie strafrechtliche Lehre vom Ehebruch(Marburg, 1884), bringing the general history of his subject down to the middle of the fifteenth century. In this connection have likewise been of service Sohm'sInstitutesand the works of Fustel de Coulanges, Hölder, Rossbach, Karlowa, Unger, Maine, Marquardt, and Zhishman elsewhere described. The ground of the chapter is mainly covered by Woolsey,Divorce and Divorce Legislation(2d ed., New York, 1882); and Glasson,Le mariage civil et le divorce(2d ed., Paris, 1880); as also by the general works of Popp,Ehescheidung(Amberg and Sulzbach, 1800); Tissot,Le mariage, la séparation et le divorce(Paris, 1868); Thwing,The Family(Boston, 1887); Gide,La femme(2d ed., Paris, 1885); Scheurl,Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht(Erlangen, 1882); and there is a concise historical account by Friedericus,De divortio meditationes(Leipzig, 1842).For the origin and early development of the Christian doctrine, besides the Scriptures, the principle sources are, of course, the writings of the Fathers and the provisions of the first ecclesiastical councils. The most important monograph is Geffcken'sZur Geschichte der Ehescheidung vor Gratian(Leipzig, 1894). The subject is treated in Moy,Das Eherecht der Christen(Regensburg, 1833). There is a good account by Loening,Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts(Strassburg, 1878); and another by Meyrick in his article "Marriage," in the second volume of theDict. of Christ. Antiquities. The rigid theological point of view is taken by Watkins,Holy Matrimony(London, 1895); and Luckock,History of Marriage(London, 1894). Among similar works, mainly controversial, may be consulted Ap Richard,Marriage and Divorce(London, 1888); Caverno,Treatise on Divorce(Madison, 1889); Hovey,The Scriptural Law of Divorce(Philadelphia, 1866); Greve,Die Ehescheidung nach der Lehre des Neuen Testamentes(Leipzig, 1873); and the anonymousUeber den einzig wahren Ehescheidungsgrund in der christ. Kirche(Bayreuth, 1838). Standard Catholic treatises are Cigoi,Die Unauflösbarkeit der christ. Ehe(Paderborn, 1895); Didon,Indissolubilité et divorce(4th ed., Paris, 1880); or the German translation of the same by Schneider (Regensburg, 1893); Roskovány,De matrimonio in eccle. cath.(Augustae Vindelicorum, 1837); Scheicher-Binder,Praktisches Handbuch des kath. Eherechts(4th ed., Freiburg, 1891); and especially Perrone,De matrimonio christ.(Leodii, 1861). Pompen has a specialTractatus de dispensationibus et de revalidatione mat.(2d ed., Amsterdam, 1897).On Germanic law and custom see Tacitus'sGermania; theMonumenta Germaniae Historica; and the collections of Thorpe, Schmid,and Liebermann. Heussler'sInstitutionen, Weinhold'sDeutsche Frauen, Grimm'sRechtsalterthümer, Brunner'sRechtsgeschichte, and the similar works of Schroeder, Zoepfl, and Walter have all been consulted. The penitentials, containing evidence of compromise between Teutonic usage and the strict dogmas of the church, may be found in Thorpe,Ancient Laws; Haddan and Stubbs,Councils; Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen(Halle, 1851); and Schmitz,Bussbücher(Mayence, 1883). These have largely superseded the older works of Kuntsmann,Die lateinischen Poenitentialbücher der Angelsachsen(Mayence, 1844); and Hildebrand,Untersuchungen über die germ. Poenitentialbücher(Würzburg, 1851). The penitentials are analyzed by Bennecke, Esmein, and Freisen; also by Hinschius, "Das Ehescheidungsrecht nach den angelsäch. und frank. Bussordnungen," inZeitschrift für deutsches Recht, XX; and Rosenthal,Die Rechtsfolgen des Ehebruchs nach kan. und deutsch. Recht(Würzburg, 1880). In this connection may also be read Heller,Ueber die Strafe des Ehebruchs(Ulm, 1773); Wächter,Abhandlungen aus dem Strafrechte(Leipzig, 1835), I, dealing withEntführungandNothzucht; Wilda,Strafrecht(Halle, 1842); and Pollen,Fatal Consequences of Adultery(London, 1772), giving literary and other curiosities of the subject. A useful book is Boehmer'sUeber die Ehegesetze im Zeitalter Karls des Grossen(Göttingen, 1826), discussing the inconsistency of temporal and ecclesiastical legislation regarding divorce; as is also Sdralek'sHinkmars Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II.(Freiburg, 1881).Primary sources for the settlement of the canon law on the subject of divorce are theDecretumof Gratian and the other materials comprised in Richter-Friedberg'sCorpus juris canonici. For England Johnson'sCanonsand Godolphin'sRepartorium canonicum(3d ed., London, 1687) are serviceable. The state of the law in the age of the decretalists may be learned from Wunderlich's edition of Tancred'sSumma de matrimonio(Göttingen, 1841); and for its historical development the great works of Esmein and Freisen, elsewhere mentioned, are indispensable. Schulte'sLehrbuchand theLehrbuchof Friedberg cover the subject. In connection with the rise of the jurisdiction of the church should be read Sohm, "Die geist. Gerichtsbarkeit im frank. Reich," inZKR., IX (Tübingen, 1870). For the matrimonial experiences of Margaret of Scotland, illustrating the facility of divorce by indirect methods under the canon law, see Tait's article in theDict. of Nat. Biog., XXXVI; and similar material in theReports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. For the literature relating to the Council of Trent consult Bibliographical Note VII.The foundation of the Protestant doctrine of divorce was laid by Martin Luther. His writings on the subject may, of course, be foundin his collected works mentioned in Bibliographical Note IX; or in the source-book of Strampff,Luther: Ueber die Ehe(Berlin, 1857); while the more important papers are reprinted in Vol. II of theKleinere Schriften Dr. Martin Luthers: von Ehe- und Klostersachen(Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1877). An earlier book of a somewhat similar character is Froböse'sDr. Martin Luther's ernste, kräftige Worte über Ehe und eheliche Verhältnisse(Hanover, 1825). In the sixteenth century Luther's relatively conservative teaching regarding the scriptural grounds of divorce is adopted in the main by the theologians Brenz,Wie yn Ehesachen ... zu Handeln(1530); Bugenhagen,Von Ehebruch und Weglaufen(1539); also in the collections of Sarcerius, below mentioned; Chemnitz,Examen concilii tridentini(Frankfort, 1615); Beza,Tractatio de repudiis et divortiis(Geneva, 1569); the jurists Kling,Matrimonialium causarum tractatus(1st ed., Frankfort, 1553; 3d ed., here cited, 1577), being a reprint of the title "De nuptiis" of hisEnarrationes in Institutiones(1542); Beust,Tractatus de jure connubiorum(3d ed., Leipzig, 1592);idem,Tractatus de sponsalibus et matrimoniis(Wittenberg, 1586); Schneidewin,Commentarius in Institutiones(1st ed., Wittenberg, 1571); andidem,De nuptiis(Jena, 1585), being a part of the earlier work published by the heirs after the author's death. In the seventeenth century the more stringent tendency is represented by the theologians Bidembach,De causis matrimonialibus tractatus(Frankfort, 1608); Mentzer,De conjugio tractatus(Wittenberg, 1612); and by the jurists Cypräus,De connubiorum jure(Frankfort, 1605); Nicolai,Tractatus de repudiis et divortiis(Dresden, 1685); and Brouwer,De jure connubiorum(Amsterdam, 1665), whose book has the distinction of being placed on theIndex. On the other hand, in the age of Luther a more liberal direction is taken by Erasmus,Annat. in Nov. Testam.(Basel, 1515); whose influence, according to Richter, is felt by Zwingli, "Ordnung wie zu Zürich ... über eelich sachen gericht soll werden" (1525): in Richter,Kirchordnungen, I, 21, 22; and his "Commentary on Matthew xix, 9," in Richter,Beiträge, 7; and by Zwingli's disciple Bullinger,Der christlich Ehestand(1579). The laxer tendency is also represented by Lambert of Avignon,De sacro conjugio(Strasburg, 1524); Melanchthon, "De conjugio" (1551), inOpera, I (Erlangen, 1828); Bucer, whose work is mentioned in connection with the English Reformation; the jurist Monner,Tract. de matrimonio et clandestinis conjugiis(Jena, 1561); and in the seventeenth century especially by Hülsemann,Extensio breviarii theologici(3d ed., Leipzig, 1655); and the jurist Forster,De nuptiis(Wittenberg, 1617). The more essential parts of the works of Luther, Brenz, Bugenhagen, Bullinger, and Melanchthon may also be found in that remarkable treasury of materials gathered by Sarcerius,Ein Buch vom heiligen Ehestande(1553); enlarged under titleCorpus juris matrimonialis(Frankfort, 1569).Heading the modern literature is Richter's ableBeiträge zur Geschichte des Ehescheidungsrechts in der evang. Kirche(Berlin, 1858), which has the special merit of first classifying the post-Reformation writers on divorce according to their more rigid or more liberal tendencies. The subject is also treated with the usual precision and thoroughness in hisLehrbuch des kath. und evang. Kirchenrechts(8th ed., Leipzig, 1886). Important likewise are Strippelmann,Das Ehescheidungsrecht(Cassel, 1854); Goeschen, "Ehe," in Herzog'sEncyclopaedie, III, 666-707 (Stuttgart and Hamburg, 1855); Hauber, "Ehescheidung im Reformations-Jahrhundert," inJahrbücher für deutsche Theologie(1857), II; Hubrich,Das Recht der Ehescheidung(Berlin, 1891); Buchka,Das mecklenburgische Ehescheidungsrecht(Wismar, 1885); Gräbner,Ueber Desertion und Quasidesertion(Colberg, 1882); and Friedberg, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des brand.-preuss. Eherechts," inZKR., VIII (Tübingen, 1886-87). Weydmann,Luther(Hamburg and Gotha, 1850), has two chapters on Luther's views and his matrimonial life. The second and third parts of Vol. III of Schulte'sGeschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des can. Rechts(Stuttgart, 1880) provide a mass of valuable biographical and bibliographical material for the whole post-Reformation period.Richter's well-edited and now exceedingly scarceKirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts(Weimar, 1846) contains the legislation of the Evangelical churches on marriage and divorce. Especially important for the seventeenth century is the very rareDes Herzogthums Wirtemberg ernuerte Ehe- und Ehe-Gerichts-Ordnung(Stuttgart, 1687), marking the beginning of a more liberal treatment of the divorce problem. The ecclesiastical ordinances are analyzed by Goeschen,Doctrina de matrimonio(Halle, 1848); and by Dietrich,Evangelisches Ehescheidungsrecht(Erlangen, 1892). Original divorce decrees and opinions are collected in Bruckner'sDecisiones juris matrimonialis, II (Gotha, 1724); and several cases are published by Schleusner, "Anfänge des protest. Eherechts," inZKG., XIII (Gotha, 1892). The best monographs on the evolution of jurisdiction and process in such causes, aside from the work of Dietrich just mentioned, are Geffcken, "Zur ältesten Geschichte und ehegericht. Praxis des Leipzig. Konsist.," inZKR., 3. Folge, IV (Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894); Hinschius, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des Desertionsprocesses,"ibid., II (Berlin, 1862); and especially Stölzel,Ueber das landesherrliche Ehescheidungsrecht(Berlin, 1891), the first part of which having already appeared inZKR., XVIII (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1883). Stölzel holds that the authority of the chief magistrate to grant divorce is originally a right of episcopal dispensation, and that his authority is not superseded by the imperial law of 1875. On the controversy growing out of this dual question see Meurer,Das landesherrliche Ehescheidungsrecht(Freiburg, 1891); and compare Scheurl, "Die Ablösung des Eherechts von dem Kirchenrecht," inZKR., XIII (Tübingen, 1876); Buchka, "Das Eheschliessungsrecht,"ibid., XVI; Sicherer,Personnenstand und Eheschliessung(Erlangen, 1879); the two dissertations of Wasserschleben, each entitledDas Ehescheidungsrecht kraft landesh. Machtvollkommenheit(Giessen, 1877; Berlin, 1880); and Hinschius,Das Reichsgesetz(3d ed., 1890). On the rise of the early consistorial courts see especially Mejer, "Anfänge des Wittenberger Consistoriums," inZKR., XIII (Tübingen, 1876);idem, "Zur Geschichte des ältesten protest. Eherechts,"ibid., XVI (Tübingen, 1881); both articles being reprinted with other matter in hisZum Kirchenrecht des Reformationsjahrhunderts(Hanover, 1891).Since the Reformation the questions of the proper grounds of divorce and of the remarriage of divorced persons have given rise to perennial discussion. Among the many writings so produced may be mentioned Gerlach,Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung(Erlangen, 1839); Savigny, "Darstellung der in den preuss. Gesetzen über die Ehescheidung unternommenen Reform," inVermischte Schriften, V (Berlin, 1850); Müller,Ueber Ehescheidung und Wiederverehlichung geschiedener Gatten(Berlin, 1855); Hundrich,Ueber Ehen und Scheidungen(Breslau, 1855); Seidler,Beiträge zur Reform der preuss. Gesetzgebung(Nordhausen, 1861); Hoyer,Die Ehescheidungsfrage(Berlin, 1859); Scheurl,Zur praktischen Lösung der Ehescheidungsfrage(Nürnberg, 1861); Harless,Die Ehescheidungsfrage(Stuttgart, 1861); Bräunig,Das Recht der Ehescheidung(Zwickau, 1861); Huschke,Was lehrt Gottes Wort über die Ehescheidung?(Leipzig and Dresden, 1860);idem,Beleuchtung der Einwürfe gegen meine Schrift(Leipzig and Dresden, 1861). Among the many Latin dissertations on the subject are Majer,De separatione cohabitationis(Tübingen, 1675); Eckstein,De divortio ex causa desertionis(Tübingen, 1675); Wagner,De divortio, et convictus conjugalis separatione(Magdeburg, 1723); Memminger,De divortio propter insidias vitae structas(Halle, 1738); Struvvius,De jure divortiorum(Jena, 1735); Seiff,De divortio totali(Giessen, 1740); Mossheim,De divortio(Jena, 1737, 1773); Scopp,Tractatus, de jure divortiorum(Frankfort and Leipzig, 1756); Wunderlich,De separatione a thoro et mensa(Jena, 1774); and especially theControversiae circa jura divortiorum(2d ed., Halle, 1729), being a reprint of tracts of Kayser, Lange, and Michaelis. For the more recent development of the law in German lands see Schilling,Der Ehescheidungsprocess in den sächsischen Gerichten(Leipzig, 1831);Ehegerichts-Ordnung für den Kanton Basel-Stadtheil(Basel, 1857); Lauenstein,Hannoverisches Eherecht und Process-Verfahren(Hanover, 1869); Peters,Die Ehescheidung(Berlin, 1881); Wasserschleben,Das Ehescheidungsrecht(Berlin, 1887); Hergenhahn,Das Eheschliessungs- und Ehescheidungs-Recht(Hanover, 1890-93);Ney,Das Kirchenrecht(Berlin, 1895); Part II of Lehr,Le mariage, le divorce, et la séparation(Paris, 1899); Erles,Ehescheidungsrecht und Ehescheidungsprozess(2d ed., Berlin, 1900); and Dedekind,Das protest. Ehescheidungsrecht und Verwandtes(Braunschweig, 1872), containing decisions extending over many years with full bibliographical citations.Of primary importance for the Reformation in England are the writings of Becon, Hooper, Tyndale, and Whitgift, all, with theOriginal Letters, comprised in the publications of the Parker Society and described in Bibliographical Note IX. The radical doctrines of Bucer'sDe regno Christi(1557) were supported by Milton, who published an English version under title of "The Judgment of Martin Bucer," inProse Works, III. Pocock'sRecords of the Reformation: The Divorce, 1527-1533(Oxford, 1870), has placed within easy reach a fine collection of original materials relating to Henry VIII.'s famous cause; and Huth,The Marriage of Near Kin(2d ed., London, 1887), has provided a bibliography of the extensive literature to which it has given rise. For the whole period Burnet'sHistory of the Reformation(London, 1850) is of service. The state of public sentiment is reflected in Raynold'sDefence of the Judgment of the Reformed Churches(1609, 1610); the opposing work of Bunny,Of Divorce for Adultery, And Marrying againe: that there is no sufficient warrant so to do(Oxford, 1610; prepared for publication in 1595); and the curiousLawes Resolutions of Womens Rights(London, 1632). The corruption and injustice often attending the proceedings of the old spiritual courts in actions for annulment of wedlock are revealed in Archbishop Abbot'sThe Case of Impotency As Debated in England, In that Remarkable Tryal An. 1613, between Robert, Earl of Essex, and the Lady Frances Howard(London, 1715), in which King James I. appears in the rôle of pander to the lust of his guilty favorite. The publication of this book, a century after it was written, appears to have been suggested by the similarPleadings for the Marquis de Gesvres against the Marchioness(London, 1714). In this connection may also be mentioned as illustrative material theCases of Divorce for Several Causes(London, 1715); and theCrim. Con. Actions and Trials and other Legal Proceedings relating to Marriage before the passing of the present Divorce Act(London, n. d.). With these may be compared the modern caseEhescheidungs-Process Colin-Campbell(London, 1886). For the Stuart period have also been used Barrington,Observations Upon the Statutes(2d ed., London, 1766); Hale,History of the Pleas of the Crown(London, 1800); Coke,Reports(London, 1826); hisInstitutes; and theReportsof Croke, Kelyng, and Marche.Milton's "Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," "Tetrachordon," and "Colasterion" may be found in Vols. III and IV of hisProse Works(London, 1889-90). The only special work on parliamentary divorce is that contained in Macqueen'sPractical Treatise on the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords and Privy Council(London, 1842). There are a number of papers relating to the early cases in theReports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. Morgan,Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce(Oxford, 1826), has a long account; and the Lord Roos suit gave rise toThe Case of Divorce and Re-Marriage(London, 1673). The proceedings in the Northampton case may be found in Howell'sState Trials, XII.TheStatutes at Largeand Hansard'sParliamentary Debatesare, of course, in frequent requisition. For the reform of the laws relating to affinity and divorce important sources are the "First Report of the Commissioners" (affinity), inBrit. Documents, 1847-8, XXVIII (London, 1848); "First Report of the Commissioners" (divorce),ibid.,1852-3, XL (London, 1853); "Evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, 1844" (divorce), reprintedibid.;A Return giving an Outline of Marriage Laws, and the State of the Law of Divorce, in three parts (London, 1894);Return of the Number of Divorces, Part I, "Foreign Countries;" Part II, "Brit. Colonies"(London, 1895-96); and theReport of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, 1885(divorce).The development of a liberal sentiment in contemporary literature may be traced inA Treatise Concerning Adultery and Divorce(London, 1700);Two Cases: The First of Adultery and Divorce(London, 1702); the anonymousEssay upon Divorcement(London, 1715), replying to Milton; Salmon,A Critical Essay Concerning Marriage(London, 1824), accepting Milton's views;Cri d'une honnête femme qui réclame le divorce(London, 1770);Observations on the Marriage Laws particularly in reference to the Case of Desertion(London, 1815); andPlea for an Alteration of the Divorce Laws(London, 1831). With these writers may be compared Ireland,Nuptiae sacrae(London, 1801, 1821, 1830), opposing Bishop Horsley's argument that in case of divorce the Scriptures directly prohibit the marriage of the adulterer with the adulteress; Tebbs,Essay on the Scripture Doctrines of Adultery and Divorce(London, 1822), too harshly accused of plagiarism by the author of the preceding book; Keble,Sequel of the Argument against immediately repealing the Laws which treat the Nuptial Bond as indissoluble(Oxford, 1857), opposing the proposed divorce law; and Browne,The Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church(London and New York, 1896), taking a reactionary position.Important for the chapter are Glasson,Histoire du droit et des institutions ... de l'Angleterre(Paris, 1882-83); Cleveland,Woman under the English Law(London, 1896); Barclay,La femme anglaise(Paris, 1896); Lehr,Le mariage, le divorce, et la séparation(Paris,1899); Lecky,Democracy and Liberty(New York, 1896); Neubauer, "Ehescheidung im Auslande," inZVR., VII (Stuttgart, 1887); Swinderen, "Ueber das Gütterrecht der Ehefrau in England,"ibid., V (Stuttgart, 1884); Hirschfeld, "The Law of Divorce in England and in Germany," inLaw Quarterly Review, XIII, October (London, 1897); Montmorency, "The Changing Status of a Married Woman,"ibid., April (London, 1897); and the able article "Divorce," inLaw Review(English), I (London, 1845). The absurd conflicts of English and Scottish law, as illustrated especially by Lolley's case, are discussed in Brougham's "Discourse on the Law of Marriage, Divorce, and Legitimacy" (1835) and his "Speech on the Scotch Marriage and Divorce Bills" (1835), both inSpeeches, III (London, 1838); Fraser,Conflict of the Laws in Case of Divorce(Edinburgh, 1860); and Fergusson,Reports of Some Decisions(Edinburgh, 1817); while the proceedings in divorce under the old law are treated by Poynter,Doctrine and Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Doctors Commons(London, 1822). Besides the technical treatises of Bishop, Geary, Ernst, and Hammick may be consulted Spence,Equitable Jurisdiction(Philadelphia, 1846); Baker,Husband and Wife and the Married Women's Property Act, 1882(London, 1882); Barrett-Leonard,The Position in Law of Woman(London, 1883); Shelford,Marriage and Divorce(London, 1841); Browne,Divorce and Alimony(Philadelphia, 1890); Browning,Practice and Procedure of the Court for Divorce(London, 1862);idem,Exposition of the Laws of Marriage and Divorce(London, 1872); and Harrison,Probate and Divorce(4th ed., London, 1891). Among the works elsewhere described from which aid has been derived are those of Bracton, Blackstone, Reeves, Burn, Jeaffreson, Lingard, Wharton, Pollock and Maitland, and Haggard,Reports of Cases in the Consistory Court of London(London, 1822).For the literature relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister and other kindred see a footnote below and the elaborate bibliography by Huth in the work already mentioned.]

[Bibliographical Note XI.—For divorce among the Athenians Meier and Schömann'sDer attische Process(Berlin, 1883-87) is important. Assistance has also been given by Hruza,Ehebegründung nach att. Rechte(Leipzig, 1892);idem,Polygamie und Pellikat(Leipzig, 1894); and Müller and Bauer, "Die griech. Privat- und Kriegsalterthümer" (1893), in Müller'sHandbuch. The Hebrew law on the subject is well treated by Mielziner,The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce(Cincinnati, 1884); and especially by Amram, in his excellentJewish Law of Divorce(Philadelphia, 1896). In his "Divorce on Condition," in theGreen Bag, III, August, 1891, the last-named writer has described a curious device for escaping marriage with a brother-in-law and employed also in cases of long absence. Besides the works of Stubbe, Duschak, Döllinger, and Lichtschein, elsewhere noticed, see Selden,Uxor ebraica(Frankfort, 1673), or the same in hisOpera, II (London, 1726); Fraenkel,Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts(Breslau, 1860); Saalschuetz,Das mosaische Recht(2d ed., Berlin, 1853); and Meyer,Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, und Römer(Leipzig, 1862-66).

The leading work on Roman divorce is Wächter'sUeber die Ehescheidungen(Stuttgart, 1821). There is also a good account in the seventh and eighth chapters of Hasse'sDas Gütterrecht der Ehegatten nach röm. Recht(Berlin, 1824). Savigny has an article on "Die erste Ehescheidung in Rom," inAbhandlungen der könig. Akad. der Wiss. in Berlin, 1814-16(Berlin, 1818). Very important also is Rein,Das röm. Privatrecht(Leipzig, 1836); and on divorce in connection with the alleged depravation of morals at the close of the republic there is a fine passage in Lecky,European Morals(3d ed., New York, 1881). The subject is treated by Marche,Historia juris civilis de divortiis(Leipzig, 1764); Langeron,Du divorce en droit romain(Paris, 1857); Morael,Droit romain: du divorce(Paris, 1888); and Combier,Du divorce en droit romain(Paris, 1880). Esmein,Mélanges(Paris, 1886), has a chapter dealing in part with Roman divorce; and in the same volume may be found the best existing treatment of adultery in connection with theLex Julia de adulteriis. With other matter this law is also considered by Gessert,Ad leg. Jul. de adult. coerc.(Würtemberg,1795); Haupt,De poena adulterii ex leg. Jul.(Leipzig, 1797); Jörs,Die Ehegesetze des Augustus(Marburg, 1894); and Bennecke in his able monographDie strafrechtliche Lehre vom Ehebruch(Marburg, 1884), bringing the general history of his subject down to the middle of the fifteenth century. In this connection have likewise been of service Sohm'sInstitutesand the works of Fustel de Coulanges, Hölder, Rossbach, Karlowa, Unger, Maine, Marquardt, and Zhishman elsewhere described. The ground of the chapter is mainly covered by Woolsey,Divorce and Divorce Legislation(2d ed., New York, 1882); and Glasson,Le mariage civil et le divorce(2d ed., Paris, 1880); as also by the general works of Popp,Ehescheidung(Amberg and Sulzbach, 1800); Tissot,Le mariage, la séparation et le divorce(Paris, 1868); Thwing,The Family(Boston, 1887); Gide,La femme(2d ed., Paris, 1885); Scheurl,Das gemeine deutsche Eherecht(Erlangen, 1882); and there is a concise historical account by Friedericus,De divortio meditationes(Leipzig, 1842).

For the origin and early development of the Christian doctrine, besides the Scriptures, the principle sources are, of course, the writings of the Fathers and the provisions of the first ecclesiastical councils. The most important monograph is Geffcken'sZur Geschichte der Ehescheidung vor Gratian(Leipzig, 1894). The subject is treated in Moy,Das Eherecht der Christen(Regensburg, 1833). There is a good account by Loening,Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts(Strassburg, 1878); and another by Meyrick in his article "Marriage," in the second volume of theDict. of Christ. Antiquities. The rigid theological point of view is taken by Watkins,Holy Matrimony(London, 1895); and Luckock,History of Marriage(London, 1894). Among similar works, mainly controversial, may be consulted Ap Richard,Marriage and Divorce(London, 1888); Caverno,Treatise on Divorce(Madison, 1889); Hovey,The Scriptural Law of Divorce(Philadelphia, 1866); Greve,Die Ehescheidung nach der Lehre des Neuen Testamentes(Leipzig, 1873); and the anonymousUeber den einzig wahren Ehescheidungsgrund in der christ. Kirche(Bayreuth, 1838). Standard Catholic treatises are Cigoi,Die Unauflösbarkeit der christ. Ehe(Paderborn, 1895); Didon,Indissolubilité et divorce(4th ed., Paris, 1880); or the German translation of the same by Schneider (Regensburg, 1893); Roskovány,De matrimonio in eccle. cath.(Augustae Vindelicorum, 1837); Scheicher-Binder,Praktisches Handbuch des kath. Eherechts(4th ed., Freiburg, 1891); and especially Perrone,De matrimonio christ.(Leodii, 1861). Pompen has a specialTractatus de dispensationibus et de revalidatione mat.(2d ed., Amsterdam, 1897).

On Germanic law and custom see Tacitus'sGermania; theMonumenta Germaniae Historica; and the collections of Thorpe, Schmid,and Liebermann. Heussler'sInstitutionen, Weinhold'sDeutsche Frauen, Grimm'sRechtsalterthümer, Brunner'sRechtsgeschichte, and the similar works of Schroeder, Zoepfl, and Walter have all been consulted. The penitentials, containing evidence of compromise between Teutonic usage and the strict dogmas of the church, may be found in Thorpe,Ancient Laws; Haddan and Stubbs,Councils; Wasserschleben,Bussordnungen(Halle, 1851); and Schmitz,Bussbücher(Mayence, 1883). These have largely superseded the older works of Kuntsmann,Die lateinischen Poenitentialbücher der Angelsachsen(Mayence, 1844); and Hildebrand,Untersuchungen über die germ. Poenitentialbücher(Würzburg, 1851). The penitentials are analyzed by Bennecke, Esmein, and Freisen; also by Hinschius, "Das Ehescheidungsrecht nach den angelsäch. und frank. Bussordnungen," inZeitschrift für deutsches Recht, XX; and Rosenthal,Die Rechtsfolgen des Ehebruchs nach kan. und deutsch. Recht(Würzburg, 1880). In this connection may also be read Heller,Ueber die Strafe des Ehebruchs(Ulm, 1773); Wächter,Abhandlungen aus dem Strafrechte(Leipzig, 1835), I, dealing withEntführungandNothzucht; Wilda,Strafrecht(Halle, 1842); and Pollen,Fatal Consequences of Adultery(London, 1772), giving literary and other curiosities of the subject. A useful book is Boehmer'sUeber die Ehegesetze im Zeitalter Karls des Grossen(Göttingen, 1826), discussing the inconsistency of temporal and ecclesiastical legislation regarding divorce; as is also Sdralek'sHinkmars Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II.(Freiburg, 1881).

Primary sources for the settlement of the canon law on the subject of divorce are theDecretumof Gratian and the other materials comprised in Richter-Friedberg'sCorpus juris canonici. For England Johnson'sCanonsand Godolphin'sRepartorium canonicum(3d ed., London, 1687) are serviceable. The state of the law in the age of the decretalists may be learned from Wunderlich's edition of Tancred'sSumma de matrimonio(Göttingen, 1841); and for its historical development the great works of Esmein and Freisen, elsewhere mentioned, are indispensable. Schulte'sLehrbuchand theLehrbuchof Friedberg cover the subject. In connection with the rise of the jurisdiction of the church should be read Sohm, "Die geist. Gerichtsbarkeit im frank. Reich," inZKR., IX (Tübingen, 1870). For the matrimonial experiences of Margaret of Scotland, illustrating the facility of divorce by indirect methods under the canon law, see Tait's article in theDict. of Nat. Biog., XXXVI; and similar material in theReports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. For the literature relating to the Council of Trent consult Bibliographical Note VII.

The foundation of the Protestant doctrine of divorce was laid by Martin Luther. His writings on the subject may, of course, be foundin his collected works mentioned in Bibliographical Note IX; or in the source-book of Strampff,Luther: Ueber die Ehe(Berlin, 1857); while the more important papers are reprinted in Vol. II of theKleinere Schriften Dr. Martin Luthers: von Ehe- und Klostersachen(Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1877). An earlier book of a somewhat similar character is Froböse'sDr. Martin Luther's ernste, kräftige Worte über Ehe und eheliche Verhältnisse(Hanover, 1825). In the sixteenth century Luther's relatively conservative teaching regarding the scriptural grounds of divorce is adopted in the main by the theologians Brenz,Wie yn Ehesachen ... zu Handeln(1530); Bugenhagen,Von Ehebruch und Weglaufen(1539); also in the collections of Sarcerius, below mentioned; Chemnitz,Examen concilii tridentini(Frankfort, 1615); Beza,Tractatio de repudiis et divortiis(Geneva, 1569); the jurists Kling,Matrimonialium causarum tractatus(1st ed., Frankfort, 1553; 3d ed., here cited, 1577), being a reprint of the title "De nuptiis" of hisEnarrationes in Institutiones(1542); Beust,Tractatus de jure connubiorum(3d ed., Leipzig, 1592);idem,Tractatus de sponsalibus et matrimoniis(Wittenberg, 1586); Schneidewin,Commentarius in Institutiones(1st ed., Wittenberg, 1571); andidem,De nuptiis(Jena, 1585), being a part of the earlier work published by the heirs after the author's death. In the seventeenth century the more stringent tendency is represented by the theologians Bidembach,De causis matrimonialibus tractatus(Frankfort, 1608); Mentzer,De conjugio tractatus(Wittenberg, 1612); and by the jurists Cypräus,De connubiorum jure(Frankfort, 1605); Nicolai,Tractatus de repudiis et divortiis(Dresden, 1685); and Brouwer,De jure connubiorum(Amsterdam, 1665), whose book has the distinction of being placed on theIndex. On the other hand, in the age of Luther a more liberal direction is taken by Erasmus,Annat. in Nov. Testam.(Basel, 1515); whose influence, according to Richter, is felt by Zwingli, "Ordnung wie zu Zürich ... über eelich sachen gericht soll werden" (1525): in Richter,Kirchordnungen, I, 21, 22; and his "Commentary on Matthew xix, 9," in Richter,Beiträge, 7; and by Zwingli's disciple Bullinger,Der christlich Ehestand(1579). The laxer tendency is also represented by Lambert of Avignon,De sacro conjugio(Strasburg, 1524); Melanchthon, "De conjugio" (1551), inOpera, I (Erlangen, 1828); Bucer, whose work is mentioned in connection with the English Reformation; the jurist Monner,Tract. de matrimonio et clandestinis conjugiis(Jena, 1561); and in the seventeenth century especially by Hülsemann,Extensio breviarii theologici(3d ed., Leipzig, 1655); and the jurist Forster,De nuptiis(Wittenberg, 1617). The more essential parts of the works of Luther, Brenz, Bugenhagen, Bullinger, and Melanchthon may also be found in that remarkable treasury of materials gathered by Sarcerius,Ein Buch vom heiligen Ehestande(1553); enlarged under titleCorpus juris matrimonialis(Frankfort, 1569).

Heading the modern literature is Richter's ableBeiträge zur Geschichte des Ehescheidungsrechts in der evang. Kirche(Berlin, 1858), which has the special merit of first classifying the post-Reformation writers on divorce according to their more rigid or more liberal tendencies. The subject is also treated with the usual precision and thoroughness in hisLehrbuch des kath. und evang. Kirchenrechts(8th ed., Leipzig, 1886). Important likewise are Strippelmann,Das Ehescheidungsrecht(Cassel, 1854); Goeschen, "Ehe," in Herzog'sEncyclopaedie, III, 666-707 (Stuttgart and Hamburg, 1855); Hauber, "Ehescheidung im Reformations-Jahrhundert," inJahrbücher für deutsche Theologie(1857), II; Hubrich,Das Recht der Ehescheidung(Berlin, 1891); Buchka,Das mecklenburgische Ehescheidungsrecht(Wismar, 1885); Gräbner,Ueber Desertion und Quasidesertion(Colberg, 1882); and Friedberg, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des brand.-preuss. Eherechts," inZKR., VIII (Tübingen, 1886-87). Weydmann,Luther(Hamburg and Gotha, 1850), has two chapters on Luther's views and his matrimonial life. The second and third parts of Vol. III of Schulte'sGeschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des can. Rechts(Stuttgart, 1880) provide a mass of valuable biographical and bibliographical material for the whole post-Reformation period.

Richter's well-edited and now exceedingly scarceKirchenordnungen des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts(Weimar, 1846) contains the legislation of the Evangelical churches on marriage and divorce. Especially important for the seventeenth century is the very rareDes Herzogthums Wirtemberg ernuerte Ehe- und Ehe-Gerichts-Ordnung(Stuttgart, 1687), marking the beginning of a more liberal treatment of the divorce problem. The ecclesiastical ordinances are analyzed by Goeschen,Doctrina de matrimonio(Halle, 1848); and by Dietrich,Evangelisches Ehescheidungsrecht(Erlangen, 1892). Original divorce decrees and opinions are collected in Bruckner'sDecisiones juris matrimonialis, II (Gotha, 1724); and several cases are published by Schleusner, "Anfänge des protest. Eherechts," inZKG., XIII (Gotha, 1892). The best monographs on the evolution of jurisdiction and process in such causes, aside from the work of Dietrich just mentioned, are Geffcken, "Zur ältesten Geschichte und ehegericht. Praxis des Leipzig. Konsist.," inZKR., 3. Folge, IV (Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894); Hinschius, "Beiträge zur Geschichte des Desertionsprocesses,"ibid., II (Berlin, 1862); and especially Stölzel,Ueber das landesherrliche Ehescheidungsrecht(Berlin, 1891), the first part of which having already appeared inZKR., XVIII (Freiburg and Tübingen, 1883). Stölzel holds that the authority of the chief magistrate to grant divorce is originally a right of episcopal dispensation, and that his authority is not superseded by the imperial law of 1875. On the controversy growing out of this dual question see Meurer,Das landesherrliche Ehescheidungsrecht(Freiburg, 1891); and compare Scheurl, "Die Ablösung des Eherechts von dem Kirchenrecht," inZKR., XIII (Tübingen, 1876); Buchka, "Das Eheschliessungsrecht,"ibid., XVI; Sicherer,Personnenstand und Eheschliessung(Erlangen, 1879); the two dissertations of Wasserschleben, each entitledDas Ehescheidungsrecht kraft landesh. Machtvollkommenheit(Giessen, 1877; Berlin, 1880); and Hinschius,Das Reichsgesetz(3d ed., 1890). On the rise of the early consistorial courts see especially Mejer, "Anfänge des Wittenberger Consistoriums," inZKR., XIII (Tübingen, 1876);idem, "Zur Geschichte des ältesten protest. Eherechts,"ibid., XVI (Tübingen, 1881); both articles being reprinted with other matter in hisZum Kirchenrecht des Reformationsjahrhunderts(Hanover, 1891).

Since the Reformation the questions of the proper grounds of divorce and of the remarriage of divorced persons have given rise to perennial discussion. Among the many writings so produced may be mentioned Gerlach,Kirchenrechtliche Untersuchung(Erlangen, 1839); Savigny, "Darstellung der in den preuss. Gesetzen über die Ehescheidung unternommenen Reform," inVermischte Schriften, V (Berlin, 1850); Müller,Ueber Ehescheidung und Wiederverehlichung geschiedener Gatten(Berlin, 1855); Hundrich,Ueber Ehen und Scheidungen(Breslau, 1855); Seidler,Beiträge zur Reform der preuss. Gesetzgebung(Nordhausen, 1861); Hoyer,Die Ehescheidungsfrage(Berlin, 1859); Scheurl,Zur praktischen Lösung der Ehescheidungsfrage(Nürnberg, 1861); Harless,Die Ehescheidungsfrage(Stuttgart, 1861); Bräunig,Das Recht der Ehescheidung(Zwickau, 1861); Huschke,Was lehrt Gottes Wort über die Ehescheidung?(Leipzig and Dresden, 1860);idem,Beleuchtung der Einwürfe gegen meine Schrift(Leipzig and Dresden, 1861). Among the many Latin dissertations on the subject are Majer,De separatione cohabitationis(Tübingen, 1675); Eckstein,De divortio ex causa desertionis(Tübingen, 1675); Wagner,De divortio, et convictus conjugalis separatione(Magdeburg, 1723); Memminger,De divortio propter insidias vitae structas(Halle, 1738); Struvvius,De jure divortiorum(Jena, 1735); Seiff,De divortio totali(Giessen, 1740); Mossheim,De divortio(Jena, 1737, 1773); Scopp,Tractatus, de jure divortiorum(Frankfort and Leipzig, 1756); Wunderlich,De separatione a thoro et mensa(Jena, 1774); and especially theControversiae circa jura divortiorum(2d ed., Halle, 1729), being a reprint of tracts of Kayser, Lange, and Michaelis. For the more recent development of the law in German lands see Schilling,Der Ehescheidungsprocess in den sächsischen Gerichten(Leipzig, 1831);Ehegerichts-Ordnung für den Kanton Basel-Stadtheil(Basel, 1857); Lauenstein,Hannoverisches Eherecht und Process-Verfahren(Hanover, 1869); Peters,Die Ehescheidung(Berlin, 1881); Wasserschleben,Das Ehescheidungsrecht(Berlin, 1887); Hergenhahn,Das Eheschliessungs- und Ehescheidungs-Recht(Hanover, 1890-93);Ney,Das Kirchenrecht(Berlin, 1895); Part II of Lehr,Le mariage, le divorce, et la séparation(Paris, 1899); Erles,Ehescheidungsrecht und Ehescheidungsprozess(2d ed., Berlin, 1900); and Dedekind,Das protest. Ehescheidungsrecht und Verwandtes(Braunschweig, 1872), containing decisions extending over many years with full bibliographical citations.

Of primary importance for the Reformation in England are the writings of Becon, Hooper, Tyndale, and Whitgift, all, with theOriginal Letters, comprised in the publications of the Parker Society and described in Bibliographical Note IX. The radical doctrines of Bucer'sDe regno Christi(1557) were supported by Milton, who published an English version under title of "The Judgment of Martin Bucer," inProse Works, III. Pocock'sRecords of the Reformation: The Divorce, 1527-1533(Oxford, 1870), has placed within easy reach a fine collection of original materials relating to Henry VIII.'s famous cause; and Huth,The Marriage of Near Kin(2d ed., London, 1887), has provided a bibliography of the extensive literature to which it has given rise. For the whole period Burnet'sHistory of the Reformation(London, 1850) is of service. The state of public sentiment is reflected in Raynold'sDefence of the Judgment of the Reformed Churches(1609, 1610); the opposing work of Bunny,Of Divorce for Adultery, And Marrying againe: that there is no sufficient warrant so to do(Oxford, 1610; prepared for publication in 1595); and the curiousLawes Resolutions of Womens Rights(London, 1632). The corruption and injustice often attending the proceedings of the old spiritual courts in actions for annulment of wedlock are revealed in Archbishop Abbot'sThe Case of Impotency As Debated in England, In that Remarkable Tryal An. 1613, between Robert, Earl of Essex, and the Lady Frances Howard(London, 1715), in which King James I. appears in the rôle of pander to the lust of his guilty favorite. The publication of this book, a century after it was written, appears to have been suggested by the similarPleadings for the Marquis de Gesvres against the Marchioness(London, 1714). In this connection may also be mentioned as illustrative material theCases of Divorce for Several Causes(London, 1715); and theCrim. Con. Actions and Trials and other Legal Proceedings relating to Marriage before the passing of the present Divorce Act(London, n. d.). With these may be compared the modern caseEhescheidungs-Process Colin-Campbell(London, 1886). For the Stuart period have also been used Barrington,Observations Upon the Statutes(2d ed., London, 1766); Hale,History of the Pleas of the Crown(London, 1800); Coke,Reports(London, 1826); hisInstitutes; and theReportsof Croke, Kelyng, and Marche.

Milton's "Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," "Tetrachordon," and "Colasterion" may be found in Vols. III and IV of hisProse Works(London, 1889-90). The only special work on parliamentary divorce is that contained in Macqueen'sPractical Treatise on the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords and Privy Council(London, 1842). There are a number of papers relating to the early cases in theReports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. Morgan,Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce(Oxford, 1826), has a long account; and the Lord Roos suit gave rise toThe Case of Divorce and Re-Marriage(London, 1673). The proceedings in the Northampton case may be found in Howell'sState Trials, XII.

TheStatutes at Largeand Hansard'sParliamentary Debatesare, of course, in frequent requisition. For the reform of the laws relating to affinity and divorce important sources are the "First Report of the Commissioners" (affinity), inBrit. Documents, 1847-8, XXVIII (London, 1848); "First Report of the Commissioners" (divorce),ibid.,1852-3, XL (London, 1853); "Evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords, 1844" (divorce), reprintedibid.;A Return giving an Outline of Marriage Laws, and the State of the Law of Divorce, in three parts (London, 1894);Return of the Number of Divorces, Part I, "Foreign Countries;" Part II, "Brit. Colonies"(London, 1895-96); and theReport of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, 1885(divorce).

The development of a liberal sentiment in contemporary literature may be traced inA Treatise Concerning Adultery and Divorce(London, 1700);Two Cases: The First of Adultery and Divorce(London, 1702); the anonymousEssay upon Divorcement(London, 1715), replying to Milton; Salmon,A Critical Essay Concerning Marriage(London, 1824), accepting Milton's views;Cri d'une honnête femme qui réclame le divorce(London, 1770);Observations on the Marriage Laws particularly in reference to the Case of Desertion(London, 1815); andPlea for an Alteration of the Divorce Laws(London, 1831). With these writers may be compared Ireland,Nuptiae sacrae(London, 1801, 1821, 1830), opposing Bishop Horsley's argument that in case of divorce the Scriptures directly prohibit the marriage of the adulterer with the adulteress; Tebbs,Essay on the Scripture Doctrines of Adultery and Divorce(London, 1822), too harshly accused of plagiarism by the author of the preceding book; Keble,Sequel of the Argument against immediately repealing the Laws which treat the Nuptial Bond as indissoluble(Oxford, 1857), opposing the proposed divorce law; and Browne,The Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church(London and New York, 1896), taking a reactionary position.

Important for the chapter are Glasson,Histoire du droit et des institutions ... de l'Angleterre(Paris, 1882-83); Cleveland,Woman under the English Law(London, 1896); Barclay,La femme anglaise(Paris, 1896); Lehr,Le mariage, le divorce, et la séparation(Paris,1899); Lecky,Democracy and Liberty(New York, 1896); Neubauer, "Ehescheidung im Auslande," inZVR., VII (Stuttgart, 1887); Swinderen, "Ueber das Gütterrecht der Ehefrau in England,"ibid., V (Stuttgart, 1884); Hirschfeld, "The Law of Divorce in England and in Germany," inLaw Quarterly Review, XIII, October (London, 1897); Montmorency, "The Changing Status of a Married Woman,"ibid., April (London, 1897); and the able article "Divorce," inLaw Review(English), I (London, 1845). The absurd conflicts of English and Scottish law, as illustrated especially by Lolley's case, are discussed in Brougham's "Discourse on the Law of Marriage, Divorce, and Legitimacy" (1835) and his "Speech on the Scotch Marriage and Divorce Bills" (1835), both inSpeeches, III (London, 1838); Fraser,Conflict of the Laws in Case of Divorce(Edinburgh, 1860); and Fergusson,Reports of Some Decisions(Edinburgh, 1817); while the proceedings in divorce under the old law are treated by Poynter,Doctrine and Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Doctors Commons(London, 1822). Besides the technical treatises of Bishop, Geary, Ernst, and Hammick may be consulted Spence,Equitable Jurisdiction(Philadelphia, 1846); Baker,Husband and Wife and the Married Women's Property Act, 1882(London, 1882); Barrett-Leonard,The Position in Law of Woman(London, 1883); Shelford,Marriage and Divorce(London, 1841); Browne,Divorce and Alimony(Philadelphia, 1890); Browning,Practice and Procedure of the Court for Divorce(London, 1862);idem,Exposition of the Laws of Marriage and Divorce(London, 1872); and Harrison,Probate and Divorce(4th ed., London, 1891). Among the works elsewhere described from which aid has been derived are those of Bracton, Blackstone, Reeves, Burn, Jeaffreson, Lingard, Wharton, Pollock and Maitland, and Haggard,Reports of Cases in the Consistory Court of London(London, 1822).

For the literature relating to marriage with a deceased wife's sister and other kindred see a footnote below and the elaborate bibliography by Huth in the work already mentioned.]

a)Historical elements of the Christian teaching.—According to the spirit of the earliest Christian teaching divorce, properly so called, is strongly condemned, though by a strict interpretation of its letter it may not be entirely forbidden. Between the first assertion of the new doctrine and the final triumph of the canonical theory of absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond intervenes a struggle of twelve hundredyears, whose more salient features may now be sketched in rapid outline.

To understand the influences which aided in molding the conceptions of the founders of the Christian church relative to marriage and divorce, one must first of all notice the legal and social environment. By each of the three systems of law with which originally the Christians were most acquainted marriage was treated as a private or lay contract, and its dissolution was therefore freely allowed. Among the early Greeks, at any rate in the Homeric age, divorce is thought, on slender evidence, to have been entirely unknown,[1]although the practice arose later. By the Athenian law, which probably was not entirely supplanted by the Roman until 212 A.D.,[2]it was freely granted to either spouse. The benefit inured, however, mainly to the husband, since to begin proceedings for a divorce the wife was required to present in person to the archon a written statement of her desire; and this, in a society where popular sentiment relegated woman to a seclusion truly oriental, it was in practice exceedingly hard to do.[3]

By the Jewish law, as it still existed at the dawn of the present era, divorce was the one-sided privilege of the man.[4]At most there was only a faint trace of the woman's later right, sanctioned by the Talmud, of demanding a separation.[5]Legally, for the slightest reason, as the school of Hillel justly maintained, the husband could put away the wife by simply handing her a "get" or bill of divorce.[6]By the written law only in two cases, for grave misconduct, was he deprived of this power;[7]though in practice there were several ameliorating conditions which tended to put a check upon arbitrary action. Thus, while divorce was a private transaction, certain formalities had to be observed in connection with the "get" which secured the restraining influence of publicity;[8]and in case the wife was unjustly repudiated thedower, representing the ancientmohar, or purchase price of the bride, had to be paid to her from the husband's property.[9]Moreover, some of the limitations of the husband's despotic power recognized by the Mishnah or oral law may already have been in force; and the highest ethical sentiment among the Jews had long been decidedly against too great freedom of divorce. It was the rabbi's duty as much as possible to discourage it and to effect reconciliations between husband and wife.[10]

Negatively, however, it was the later law of Rome which had most to do with shaping the ideas of the Christian Fathers relative to the nature of marriage and the doctrine of divorce.[11]By each of the three ancient forms of marriage the wife came or might come under the power of the husband,in manu viri. In the family she was legally regarded as being in a daughter's place,in loco filiae;[12]and in eachcase divorce was solely the husband's prerogative.[13]But by the beginning of our era all these older and stricter forms, with their consequent one-sided right of separation, had been practically superseded by free contract in which the husband and wife were placed on an equal footing.[14]By this form marriage became a simple private agreement. The wife did not pass under themanuof the husband. She retained full control of her property, being in this regard, as it were, temporarily deposited at her husband's side;[15]while divorce became a formless private transaction to which the woman was as freely entitled as was the man.[16]No intervention of court or magistrate was essential. So far, indeed, was carried the theory of absolute liberty of either spouse to dissolve the contract that, according to Cicero, the jurists in one case were in doubt whether a divorce did not legally ariseipso factothrough the consummation of a second marriage by one of the parties during the lifetime of the other.[17]Augustus, however, introduced an important change in the interest of publicity, requiring the party wishing a divorce to declare to the other his purpose in the presence of seven witnesses, who must be Roman citizens of full age; otherwise the divorce to be null and void.[18]But there was no intention through this condition of establishing the jurisdiction of the state in the matter of divorce, which remained, as before, a private legal act of the interested persons. "Still less was it the purpose of the state to put any material restriction upon the freedom of divorce."[19]To this liberty there was but one exception. The freedwoman might not repudiate her patron, her former master, who had taken her in marriage.[20]In all other cases the divorce, however arbitrary or unjust, was legally effective. There was no action for the restitution of conjugalrights; though the responsible party might in certain cases suffer pecuniary damage.[21]

What were the moral and social results of this excessive freedom of divorce? To many the answer seems easy enough; for during the later republic and the early empire the laxity of the nuptial bond became a notorious scandal. At the capital, and especially in the imperial circle, wives as well as husbands gave free rein to their licentious passions. Marriage became unpopular. A recent historian even declares that "almost always" it was ended by divorce.[22]Already in the age of the Gracchi, Metellus the Macedonian cynically exclaimed: "Romans, if we could get along without wives, assuredly none of us would accept so grievous a burden; but since nature has ordained that one cannot live easily with them, nor live without them, let us sacrifice the happiness of our short life to the perpetuity of our nation."[23]Later even the most distinguished and reputable men, as if in mockery of wedlock, put away their wives on purely selfish or absurdly trivial grounds.[24]To believe the exaggerationsof the satirists, one changed his partner almost as often as the cut of his garment.[25]"Seneca denounced this evil with especial vehemence, declaring that divorce in Rome no longer brought with it any shame, and there were women who reckoned their years rather by their husbands than by the consuls."[26]Nevertheless, the abuse was more a result than a cause of the gradual decline of Roman morals during the two centuries following the conquest of Carthage.[27]Doubtless, the state in neglecting to exercise a proper jurisdiction in this field had abrogated a function important for her own stability. Proper restraints would have lessened the evil. But the character of the law was very far from being its sole, or even its primary, cause. "In a purer state of public opinion," well observes Lecky, "a very wide latitude of divorce might probably have been allowed to both parties, without any serious consequences. The right of repudiation which the husband had always possessed was, as we have seen, in the Republic never or very rarely exercised. Of those who scandalised good men by the rapid recurrence of their marriages, probably most, if marriage had been indissoluble, would have refrained from entering into it.... A vast wave of corruption had flowed in upon Rome, and under any system of law it wouldhave penetrated into domestic life. Laws prohibiting all divorce have never secured the purity of married life in ages of great corruption, nor did the latitude which was accorded in imperial Rome prevent the existence of a very large amount of female virtue."[28]Nor, it may be added, does it appear that the family life of the people at large, notably that of the middle classes in the provinces, was seriously tainted by the social corruption of the capital, where all the causes of moral degeneration were especially active.

It is, however, not surprising that the founders of the Christian church should have regarded the laxity of the marriage bond as a sign, if not the primary cause, of the degradation of Roman society. From the beginning an earnest effort is made so far as possible to restrict the liberty of separation and to prohibit the persons separated on proper grounds from contracting further marriage. The various passages of the New Testament relating to the subject are disjointed and confusing in their details.[29]Many vital questions are either completely ignored or left in such obscurity as to open the way for wide divergence of doctrine and the bitter controversies of future ages, especially those of the Reformation period. According to the fundamental teaching of Jesus, as reported by Matthew, thehusband is forbidden to put away the wife except for unfaithfulness.[30]Divinely created as male and female, "they twain shall be one flesh;" and "what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."[31]Whether for the same reason the woman may put away the man, or whether either the innocent or the guilty party may contract a second marriage, we are here not expressly informed. Inferences may, of course, be drawn by assuming that Jesus had the principles of the Jewish law in mind; but this mode of procedure is scarcely satisfying.[32]Nor do the other sacred writers throw any clear light on these important questions. Rather do they deepen the obscurity; for both Mark and Luke appear absolutely to prohibit divorce, not expressly admitting even the one ground of separationgranted on the authority of Matthew. Moreover, Mark sets up a new stumbling-block. In the presence of the Pharisees, who sought to tempt him, Jesus is made to put aside as morally wrong and born of hardness of heart the harsh freedom of divorce secured to the man alone by the Mosaic code; while "in the house" he tells his disciples that "whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her," and "if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery;" so leaving us in doubt whether legal separationwithoutthe privilege of a further marriage is sanctioned—in effect thus anticipating the later distinction between divorcequoad thorumandquoad vinculum; or, if such separation be sanctioned, whether, in sharp contrast to the spirit of Jewish law, the wife is placed on a level with the husband in this regard.

The utterances of Paul on this subject,[33]as on all questions connected with marriage and the family, are of the highest importance in view of their historical consequences. Referring directly to the teaching of Jesus, he first seemingly denies the right of divorce to either party. With Mark and Luke he omits the exception mentioned by Matthew; and with Mark he expressly forbids the wife to "depart from her husband," adding, however, the inconsequent and bewildering command, "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." Here apparently, where both persons are believers, separationa mensa et thorois approved. Whether in such case this is the only Christian form of divorce allowed either party, however grave the cause of separation;[34]or whether his ruleapplies to the woman only, and then merely when some lesser ground of action exists, the Apostle to the Gentiles fails entirely to place beyond the field of debate.

Thus far Paul has spoken professedly on the authority of "the Lord." Next he contemplates the case of an existing union between a Christian and an unbeliever; and on his own judgment he admits a new ground of separation. "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." The Christian may not put away or abandon his spouse on account of difference in religious faith. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases."[35]Again, through this last remark, the seeds of dissension are planted; for it is not clear whether the "bondage" from which the brother or sister is freed is that of the existing marriage or the irksome necessity of perpetual single life after separation.

Upon these Bible passages, often vague and puzzling in the extreme,[36]was eventually erected the whole doctrine of the mediæval church relating to divorce. It is not surprising that harmony was reached only after many centuries of struggle. With the exact processes of argument by which ingenious theologians have in all ages sought to reconcile or interpret the scriptural teaching we are here but little concerned. At present we are mainly interested in thegeneral results of thought as they find expression in the law and practice of the church previous to the Reformation. The subject presents four phases or aspects of development, each of which will be briefly considered: the views of the early Fathers; the legislation of the Christian emperors; the compromise with Germanic custom; and the final settlement of doctrine in the canon law.

b)Views of the early Fathers.—During the first four centuries of our era the so-called "strict" construction of the utterances of Jesus and Paul relating to the twofold question of separation and second marriage was formulated by the Fathers of the church; and the principles then agreed upon were in the end, after an intervening period of vacillation and compromise, to be accepted and elaborated into a complete system of law by the canonists. The literature of this early debate may be regarded as reaching from the Pastor of Hermas, a writer in the first half of the second century, highly respected in Christian antiquity,[37]to Augustine, late in the fourth century (died 430), who towers above all the other Fathers in his influence for good or evil in the history of European thought. At first the Pauline interdict of further marriage after separation receives more attention perhaps than the question of divorce itself, with its assigned cause as laid down by Jesus; for it is strongly urged that the chief evil of a too lax divorce system, such as theRoman, is the facility of second marriage regardless of the guilt or innocence of the parties.[38]Setting aside for the present the case of the Christian whose unbelieving spouse voluntarily departs—thecasus apostoliorprivilegium Paulinum, as it is later styled by the canonists[39]—nearly all are agreed that divorce is forbidden except for the one cause mentioned by Matthew. There is, however, a divergence of view in two important particulars. On the one hand, certain writers, such as Tertullian and pseudo-Ambrose, following the principle of the Jewish law, admit this ground of repudiation to the advantage of the man, but not to that of the woman; while others, like Epiphanius, maintain the equal right of the sexes in this regard. On the other hand, in a few instances the word "adultery"[40]is accepted in an allegorical or spiritual sense, thus greatly widening the field of divorce. In this way, for example, Hermas, Hieronymus, and, for a time, Augustine anticipate the mode of interpretation adopted by some of the Reformation Fathers, admitting idolatry, apostasy, and covetousness, equally with carnal transgression, as proper grounds of separation.[41]

The case is similar with respect to second marriage. Apparently there is a strong tendency from the beginning to treat marriage as indissoluble, but, "intentionally or unintentionally," the utterances of the Fathers on this vital question are unclear. Frequently they content themselves, as Geffcken observes, with a "paraphrase of the scripturaltexts relating to the matter."[42]Seemingly, according to the common or prevailing opinion, neither party whether innocent or guilty is allowed to form a new marriage during the lifetime of the other; but there is on this point a great lack of precision.[43]Tertullian, after yielding to Montanism, even goes so far as to reject all second marriage as un-Christian; and the same position is taken by Minutius Felix.[44]There are, however, less rigid constructions. By some Fathers the right of remarriage is conceded to the man repudiating a guilty wife, while they deny it to the woman under like conditions. Others, actuated by a livelier sense of justice, like Epiphanius, concede it to both consorts alike; but these opinions are rejected by the majority.[45]More and more, in theory if not always in practice, the antagonism of the church to the second marriage of a divorced man or woman becomes apparent as we approach the close of the period under consideration. This is proved even by the action of the provincial assemblies. Thus the Spanish Council of Elvira of the year 306 decrees that the woman who puts away a guilty husband and marries another shall be excommunicated;and, save in case of mortal sickness, she shall not be admitted again to communion until after her first husband's death. If, however, she have left her husband without cause and contracted another marriage, she shall not be admitted to communion even on the death-bed; but nothing is said concerning a dissolution of the later marriage.[46]Similar in spirit are the canons of the Council of Arles held in the year 314. The general principle of the indissolubility of the matrimonial relation is positively asserted,[47]but in connection with a concession which illustrates the practical difficulty of consistently enforcing the new doctrine in all parts of the Roman world. The youthful husband[48]who puts away a guilty wife is to be "advised" not to marry again during her lifetime; thus dealing far more gently with the man than did the Council of Elvira with the woman for the same offense.[49]

Finally, with Augustine, the strict doctrine of the early church takes a definite form, to which the masters of later times look back as to an authoritative canon of interpretation. He gave to the theory of indissolubility, declares Esmein, a "basis solid, in a measure scientific. He gave it a consistencyforced from the sacrament of marriage. He set aside at one stroke all the causes of divorce admitted by the secular law: sickness, captivity, or prolonged absence. He was, one may say, the artisan who gave the final touch to the theory of indissolubility."[50]According to Augustine, adultery is the only scriptural ground of separation; but even this does not dissolve the nuptial bond. Moreover, those who, following the letter of Matthew's text, would for this offense allow the man, but not the woman, the right of repudiation, he "justly reproaches with violating one of the great principles of Christian law—the equality of the wedded pair."[51]Similar views are held by Hieronymus, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and other contemporaries of Augustine;[52]and it is probably due to his influence mainly that in 407 the strict theory of indissolubility was proclaimed by the Council of Carthage;[53]as already in 405 it had been accepted in a decree of Pope Innocent I. addressed to the bishop of Toulouse.[54]

In practical life the strict theory of the Fathers came very far short of realization. Hermas, who strongly favors the rigid view, allows the man to marry again whose wifesins a second time after once being reconciled.[55]Basil goes farther, declaring that the husband abandoned by his wife is worthy of pardon, and that the woman who then marries him is not condemned.[56]Even Jerome excuses Fabiola, a young Christian woman of high position who had repudiated a licentious husband and contracted a new marriage, saying, "if she is blamed because when her husband was divorced she did not remain unmarried, I will readily admit her fault, while I admit her necessity."[57]Origen shows that some rulers of the church in such a case permit a woman to marry again while the first husband is living;[58]and Augustine confesses that the women who abstain from remarriage after divorce are extremely few.[59]

c)The legislation of the Christian emperors.—Where the most severe teachers of the early church, and even the ecclesiastical councils themselves, as we have seen, were thus led to temporize, it is not surprising that an enlightened secular policy should be compelled to take intermediate ground. The legislation of the first Christian emperors goes far beyond the narrow limits which Tertullian, Clement, or Augustine would have drawn. For centuries, throughevery change in the statutes, the Roman principles of one-sided divorce and divorce by mutual consent were maintained, though it was precisely these principles against which primitive Christianity took its firmest stand. "It was a maxim of Roman law far down beyond the time when the emperors became Christian, that no obstacle ought to be put in the way of a dissolution of marriage caused by the free consent of the partners, liberty of marrying again being in this case equally unrestricted. The lawyer Paulus says, that it has been thought improper that marriages, whether already contracted or about to take place, should be secured by the force of penalty (poenae vinculo obstringi), that is that two parties ought not to be forced by fear of penalty either to enter into a state of wedlock to which they were pledged, or to keep up such a state if they were agreed to the contrary. And it was laid down that marriage was so free, according to ancient opinion, that even agreements between the parties not to separate from one another could have no validity (pacta ne liceret divertere non valere)."[60]One-sided divorce was equally free, except in the cases and under the conditions fixed by Augustus,[61]"saving that here, if the woman had caused the divorce by her conduct, a large share of her dower was withheld from her, and if the man had caused it, he might be liable to pay over the whole of the dower, and that within a short term. The parties were subjected until the time of Justinian to ajudicium morum, which might be instituted on a complaint of either consort. The fear, then, of losing a portion or the whole of the dower, and the dread of a loss of reputation, when the conduct of the parties in their married life should be investigated, seemto have been the only inducements to prevent one-sided divorces. But what if no misconduct could be alleged on the part of the man, what if he dismissed his wife to marry a richer woman, the law in this case had no restraining power. And where the wife brought no dower, as might happen in the lower classes, there could be no operation of the law at all."[62]

Accordingly, the legislation of the early Christian emperors shows no radical departure from the principles of the existing civil law. Divorceex consensuwas not prohibited until Justinian, who decreed that only when both partners are about to enter the cloister shall a separation by mutual agreement be permitted.[63]But this prohibition was short-lived; for in consequence of it the number of suits growing out of "poisoning or other attempts upon life among married people increased in so frightful a manner"[64]that the provision was abrogated by Justin II., the immediate successor of Justinian.[65]On the other hand, the efforts of Constantine and later rulers are directed mainly toward checking the evils of one-sided divorce. This is done chiefly through restricting the number of legal grounds of separation and sharpening the penalties for their disregard. Thus in 331 Constantine ordains that trifling causes (exquisitae causae) shall no longer suffice for arepudium justumor legal divorce at the will of one party. The woman may put away her husband only when he is a murderer, poisoner, or violator of sepulchers; and the man is allowed to repudiate his wife only when she is guilty of poisoning, procuring, or adultery. If the divorce takes place for any other reason, the woman so violating the statute shall forfeit all claim to restitution of dower and suffer transportation to an island;while the man in like case must at once surrender the entiredos, being prohibited also from contracting another marriage.[66]"Still further, if he thus married, his repudiated wife 'could invade his house,' as the law expresses it, and acquire possession of the entire dower of her successor."[67]It should be noted, however, that the Roman principle of divorcebona gratia, or one-sided separation for a legal cause not implying any guilt or offense, was still retained.[68]

In 363 Julian repealed the divorce law of Constantine;[69]but the principle of restricting the grounds of arbitrary repudiation was again adopted in 421 by Honorius and Constantius; though, like Julian, they allowed arbitrary separation for lesser faults, with retention of some portion of the dower.[70]Theodosius II., in 439, abrogating previous legislation, restored the law of the early empire; but "after ten years of experiment, in which divorces had alarmingly increased, gave out another law,[71]which laid down the causes for which one party might lawfully separate from the other. The woman was authorized to do this if the man had been guilty of certain crimes, among which are murder, poisoning, plotting against the government, fraud, and various sorts ofrobbery, cruelty toward or attempts on the life of his wife, intimacy with prostitutes, and adultery. The causes for which a man could without penalty put away his wife were for the most part of the same description with those just mentioned. But peculiar to her are the offenses of passing the night out of his house, or visiting the theatre, circus, or other public place against his will."[72]If the divorce occurs for any reason other than those mentioned in the statute, the penalty for either person is loss or surrender of the dower and the ante-nuptial gift; while in addition the woman, under penalty of "infamy," is prohibited from marrying again within five years.[73]This is a severe discrimination against the wife; but in one important matter, it will be noted, the law of Theodosius is strikingly impartial; for separation is permitted on account of adultery of the man as well as for that of the woman. In this regard the measure is far more liberal than the earlier Roman law, according to which adultery is not a crime which a husband can commit against his wife.[74]Moreover, while this offense is not always mentioned in the constitutions of the Christian emperors as legal ground for divorcing the husband, it is punished with extreme rigor. Sometimes both offenders are condemned to death. Sometimes a discrimination is made, the woman usually suffering the harsher penalty.[75]

The legislation of Justinian, except in abolishing divorce by common consent, does not differ essentially in principle or detail from that of Theodosius II. The causes assigned for a reasonable divorce (ex rationabili causa) are much the same as in the former law. For disregard of the statute the woman loses her dower and is condemned to lifelong imprisonment in a cloister; while the man forfeits the nuptial gift (donatio propter nuptias), and besides must pay a fine equal to one-third of that donation.[76]

Thus it appears that during the two centuries between Constantine and Justinian the legislation of the state relative to the vital question of divorce is practically untouched by the influence of Christianity. Informal divorcebona gratia[77]and divorce by mutual consent, both contrary to Christian teaching, are freely allowed. The principle of further marriage after separation is fully maintained for the innocent party, and usually under restrictions for the guilty person as well. The causes of legal divorce are, indeed, limited and the penalties for unjust repudiation made more severe; but the strict principle of indissolubility of the marriage bond, as already conceived by Augustine and his contemporaries, is completely ignored.[78]

d)The compromise with German custom.—Far more important in its results is the contact of the Christian doctrine with Germanic customs and ideas. To the newly converted nations of Teutonic stock came the western empire as a properheritage. It would be their task to make the history of the future; to construct a new civilization by blending the best elements of their own culture with the maturer results of Roman experience. But this could be accomplished only through ages of struggle and compromise; through a slow and painful process of amalgamation in religion, language, and jurisprudence. For the Germans were relatively young in social progress. In law and institutions at the time of conversion they stood about where the Romans were when Roman legendary history begins. With respect to the customs of marriage and divorce they stood even lower; for the earliest collections of folk-laws, some of which were made after the acceptance of Christianity, disclose marriage as a real contract of sale through which the wife in theory, and no doubt often in practice, becomes the husband's chattel. With regard to the primitive law of divorce there is scarcely any direct information. But it seems probable that originally the right of repudiation was the sole privilege of the man, though in practice the arbitrary use of his power must have been restrained by dread of the blood-feud and the fear of pecuniary sacrifice.[79]In the historical period, however, and long after the conversion divorce by mutual agreement seems to have prevailed very widely among the Germanic peoples; but with the exception of theLex romana Burgundionum, it does not appear to be sanctioned in the folk-laws until the seventh[80]century, which fact has led tothe conjecture that this form of separation, "originally alien to the German legal consciousness," was gradually adopted under Roman influence.[81]The folk-laws show that, side by side with divorce by free consent of the parties, the husband still possessed the right to put away his wife for certain specified crimes;[82]or, indeed, without assigning any cause whatever, though in that case he might suffer serious disadvantage with respect to property.[83]

Another principle of the ancient German law it is necessary to mention in order to obtain a starting-point for the measure of Christian influence. Originally, according to Wilda,[84]by the strict legal theory adultery is not a crime which a man can commit against his wife. He may be punished: indeed very generally in the folk-laws both the guilty persons may be slain when surprised by the aggrieved; but if he be punished "it is not for unfaithfulness to his wife, but for violating the rights of another husband."[85]On theother hand, for similar misconduct the woman is put to death. So "in Saxony, where the old heathen ideas survived until the forcible conversion under Charles the Great, as Boniface reports, the adulteress, stripped to the girdle, was driven out of her husband's house and whipped through the streets of the village until she died."[86]

To analyze the secular laws or ecclesiastical canons relating to divorce, as they were slowly developed on Germanic territory after the conversion, is not an easy task; for they reveal a striving to harmonize in various ways the often irreconcilable elements of Roman, Teutonic, and Christian ideas. In the first place, the imperial legislation remained in force for the Roman population, though in the compilations made under the barbarian kings various changes are made to satisfy new and complex relations.[87]Next, the German folk-laws show in many ways the evidences of compromise with Christian doctrine under the exigencies of practical life.[88]National sentiment will not suffer the absolute interdict of further marriage after separation; but the penalties for unjust action may be made so severe as to prepare the way for the strict theory of the church. In the Burgundian code, for example, the man who puts away his wife for any cause other than those named in the statute must surrender to her his house and all his possessions;whereas in the West Gothic Interpretation of the Theodosian code the chapter on which this provision is modeled prescribes a similar penalty, not for the illegal divorce itself, but for contracting a second marriage after the unjust repudiation of the first wife.[89]Accordingly, in these laws one-sided divorce on the part of the husband is not entirely taken away; but the grounds on which he may act are more or less restricted in harmony with the scriptural rules; and the wife is herself given a rudimentary right of one-sided repudiation when the husband is guilty of very grave crimes. In the law of the West Goths, for instance, where Christian influence is more marked than in any of the other codes before the close of the eighth century,[90]the right of the man to put away his wife is restricted to the one cause mentioned by Matthew; while for two scandalous wrongs the woman may repudiate the husband and contract another marriage if she likes.[91]On the other hand, the ancient rule that a man cannot be guilty of adultery against his wife yields very slightly to the Christian principle of equality of the sexes with respect to the punishment of carnal sins. Generally,according to the harsh sanction of the ancient law, the guilty woman as well as her paramour may be slain by the aggrieved.[92]In theory, as Geffcken insists, a husband in similar case is still merely responsible for violating the rights of another man; the only concessions to the Christian teaching being a tendency to check concubinage and the privilege of the woman, already mentioned, of repudiating her husband for certain offenses, among which, it may be noted, intimacy with other women is not found.[93]

Such are the salient features of secular legislation on German territory following the migration and settlement of the new nations. Let us now look at the question from the opposite point of view—that of the decrees and practice of the church itself. For more than three hundred years after the strict theory of Augustine had been proclaimed by the Council of Carthage and by Innocent I. in the beginning of the fifth century, there is more or less wavering on the part of ecclesiastical authorities. In general, it may be said there is a tendency to uphold the rigid doctrine of indissolubility; but the evidences of compromise with popular sentiment are by no means wanting. Almost always in the papal letters divorce with remarriage is absolutely forbidden.[94]Yet in 726 Gregory II., in a letter addressed to St. Boniface, permits a man to contract a new marriage because his wife by reason of infirmity is unable to perform her conjugal duty; and this opinion has proved a sore puzzle tocanonists and theologians, for it is utterly inconsistent with an earlier decision of the same pontiff.[95]A similar inconsistency exists in the conciliar decrees. The doctrine of indissolubility is rigidly enforced by the Council of Angers in 453; the two Councils of Orleans in 533; the Council of Nantes in 658; that of Friuli in 796; and generally by those of the ninth century.[96]On the other hand, several decrees are much more tolerant. In 465 the Council of Vannes "expressly exempts from anathema those men who marry again after putting away their wives for adultery proved;"[97]and, still more liberal, the Council of Agde, 505, while expressly allowing more than one cause of separationa vinculo, threatens with excommunication only those who repudiate their wives for the sake of remarriage without "establishing in advance before the bishops of the province the causes of their divorce."[98]

Back to IndexNext