CHAPTER XXIII
THE DURATION OF HUMAN MARRIAGE
The time during which marriage lasts, varies very considerably among different species. According to Dr. Brehm, most birds pair for life,[3252] while among the mammals, with the exception of man and perhaps the anthropomorphous apes, the same male and female scarcely ever live together longer than a year.[3253] In human marriage every degree of duration is met with—from unions which, though legally recognized as marriages, do not endure long enough to deserve to be so called, to others which are dissolved only by death.
There are a few remarkable instances of peoples among whom separation is said to be entirely unknown. In the Andaman Islands, according to Mr. Man, “no incompatibility of temper or other cause is allowed to dissolve the union.”[3254] The same is said of certain Papuans of New Guinea,[3255] and of several tribes of the Indian Archipelago who have remained in their native state, and continue to follow ancient custom.[3256] The Veddahs of Ceylon have a proverb that “death alone separates husband and wife;” and Mr. Bailey assures us that they faithfully act on this principle.[3257]
As a general rule, however, human marriage is not necessarily contracted for life. The Indians of North America dissolve their unions as readily as they enter into them. The Wyandots had, it is said, marriages upon trial, which were binding for a few days only.[3258] In Greenland, husband and wife sometimes separate after living together for half a year.[3259] Among the Creeks, “marriage is considered only as a temporary convenience, not binding on the parties more than one year,” the consequence being that “a large portion of the old and middle-aged men, by frequently changing, have had many different wives, and their children, scattered around the country, are unknown to them.”[3260] Speaking of the Botocudos, Mr. Keane remarks that their marriages “are all of a purely temporary nature, contracted without formalities of any sort, dissolved on the slightest pretext, or without any pretext, merely through love of change or caprice.”[3261] In Ruk, it frequently happens that newly married husbands repudiate their wives;[3262] and, in the Pelew and Kingsmill Groups, and among the aborigines of Northern Queensland, divorces are of common occurrence.[3263] “Tasmanian lords,” says Dr. Milligan, “had no difficulty, and made no scruple, about a succession of wives.”[3264] Again, in Samoa, “if the marriage had been contracted merely for the sake of the property and festivities of the occasion, the wife was not likely to be more than a few days, or weeks, with her husband.”[3265] In several of the Islands of the Indian Archipelago, “in the regular marriages the parties are always betrothed to each other for a longer or shorter time, sometimes not for more than a month and at others for a period of years.”[3266] Among the Dyaks, there are few middle-aged men who have not had several wives, and instances have been known of young women of seventeen or eighteen who had already lived with three or four husbands.[3267] Among the Yendalines in Indo-China, it is rare for any woman to arrive at middle age without having a family by two or more husbands.[3268] The Maldivians, as we are informed by Mr. Rosset, are so fond of change that many a man marries and divorces the same woman three or four times in the course of his life.[3269] Among the Sinhalese, according to Knox, “both men and women have frequently to marry four or five times before they can settle down contented;”[3270] and Father Bourien says of the Mantras of the interior of the Malay Peninsula, that it is not uncommon to meet individuals who have married even forty or fifty different times.[3271] Among the Munda Kols, Khasias, Tartars,[3272] and most Mohammedan peoples,[3273] divorces are very frequent. According to Dr. van der Berg, an even more fatal influence is exercised on family life in the East by this laxity of the marriage tie than by polygyny.[3274] Burckhardt knew Bedouins forty-five years old who had had more than fifty wives.[3275] A “Sighe” wife in Persia is taken in marriage for a certain legally stipulated period, which may vary from one hour to ninety-nine years.[3276] In Cairo, according to Mr. Lane, there are not many persons who have not divorced one wife, if they have been married for a long time; and many men in Egypt have in the course of two years married as many as twenty, thirty, or more wives; whilst there are women, not far advanced in age, who have been wives to a dozen or more men successively. Mr. Lane has even heard of men who have been in the habit of marrying a new wife almost every month.[3277] In Morocco, Dr. Churcher writes to me, a terrible state of things springs from the ease with which divorce is obtained; a man repudiates his wife on the slightest provocation and marries again. “One of the servants here,” he continues, “is reported to have had nineteen wives already, though he is still only middle-aged.” Indeed, among the Moors of the Sahara, according to Mr. Reade, it is considered “low” for a couple to live too long together, and “the leaders of fashion are those who have been the oftenest divorced.”[3278] Lobo tells us that, in Abyssinia, marriage was usually entered upon for a term of years;[3279] and, among the Somals, separation is exceedingly common.[3280] Many negro peoples marry upon trial or for a fixed time.[3281] Among the Negroes of Bondo, a man may so often send away his wife and take a new one that it is difficult to know who is the father of the children born.[3282] Regarding the ancient Persians, Professor Rawlinson observes that the easiness of divorce among the Magians was in accordance with Eranian notions on the subject of marriage—“notions far less strict than those which have commonly prevailed among civilized nations.”[3283] Among the Greeks, especially the Athenians,[3284] and among the Teutons,[3285] divorce often occurred; and in Rome, at the close of the Republic and the commencement of the Empire, it prevailed to a frightful extent.[3286]
Among uncivilized races, as a rule, and among many advanced peoples, a man may divorce his wife whenever he likes. The Aleuts used to exchange their wives for food and clothes.[3287] In Tonga, a husband divorces his wife by simply telling her that she may go.[3288] Among the Hovas of Madagascar, until the spread of Christianity, marriage was compared to a knot so lightly tied that it could be undone with the slightest possible touch.[3289] In Yucatan, a man might divorce his wife for the merest trifle, even though he had children by her.[3290] Among the ancient Hebrews,[3291] Greeks,[3292] Romans,[3293] and Germans,[3294] dislike was considered a sufficient reason for divorce, which was regarded as merely a private act.
Nevertheless, among a great many peoples, although a husband may divorce his wife, he does so only under certain exceptional conditions, marriage, as a rule, being concluded for life.[3295] The Greenlanders seldom repudiate wives who have had children.[3296] Among the Californian Wintun, according to Mr. Powers, it is very uncommon for a man to expel his wife. “In a moment of passion he may strike her dead, or ... ignominiously slink away with another, but the idea of divorcing and sending away a wife does not occur to him.”[3297] Among the Naudowessies, divorce is so rare that Carver had no opportunity of learning how it is accomplished.[3298] Speaking of several tribes on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, Harmon remarks that separation between husband and wife is seldom permanent, the parties, after a few days’ absence from one another, generally having an inclination to come together again.[3299] The Iroquois, in ancient times, regarded separation as discreditable to both man and woman, hence it was not frequently practised.[3300] If an Uaupé takes a new wife, the elder one is never turned away, but remains the mistress of the house.[3301] Among the Charruas and Patagonians, marriage lasts, as a rule, during the whole of life, if there are children.[3302] And, concerning the Yahgans, Mr. Bridges writes that there have been many instances amongst them of husband and wife living together until separated by death. The same is the case in Lifu, as I am informed by Mr. Radfield. In Tonga, according to Mariner, more than half of the number of married women were parted from their husbands only by death.[3303] Among the Maoris[3304] and the Solomon Islanders,[3305] and in New Guinea,[3306] divorce is exceptional; and, even in Tahiti, the birth of children generally prevented the dissolution of marriage.[3307] In many of the islands of the Indian Archipelago, divorce may, by law or custom, be readily obtained, but Mr. Crawfurd says that it is very rarely sued for.[3308] The Garos, according to Colonel Dalton, “will not hastily make engagements, because, when they do make them, they intend to keep them.”[3309] Among the Karens, Dr. Bunker writes, separations, save by death, are rare. Mr. Ingham informs me that, among the Bakongo, there are plenty of instances of husband and wife living together till death. Archdeacon Hodgson states the same regarding the Eastern Central Africans, Mr. Swann regarding the Waguha, Mr. Eyles regarding the Zulus. Among the Cis-Natalian Kafirs, according to Mr. Cousins, marriage, in the majority of instances, is contracted for life.[3310] In the early days of Hebrew history, says Ewald, it was only in exceptional cases that husbands made an evil use of the right to divorce a wife.[3311] Among the Greeks of the Homeric age, divorce seems to have been almost unknown, though it afterwards became an everyday event in Greece;[3312] and in Rome, in the earliest times, it was probably very little used.[3313]
Among many peoples custom or law has limited the husband’s power to dispose of his wife, permitting divorce only under certain conditions. Thus, among the Kukis, “if a woman has a son by her husband, the marriage is indissoluble,” though, if they do not agree, and have no son, the husband can cast off his wife and take another.[3314] The Red Karens in Indo-China allow divorce if there are no children; “but should there be one child, the parents are not permitted to separate.”[3315] In the tribes of Western Victoria, described by Mr. Dawson, a man can divorce a childless wife for serious misconduct, but in every case the charge against her must first be laid before the chiefs of his own and his wife’s tribes, and their consent to her punishment obtained. If the wife has children, she cannot be divorced.[3316] Among the Santals and the Tipperahs, divorce can be effected only with the consent of the husband’s clansmen, or a jury of village elders.[3317] Several tribes of the Indian Archipelago do not allow a man to repudiate his wife, except in case of adultery;[3318] and certain negro peoples have a similar rule, so far as the chief or first wife is concerned.[3319] Among the Hottentots, according to Kolben, a man may divorce his wife only “upon showing such cause as shall be satisfactory to the men of the kraal where they live.”[3320] Mr. Casalis states that, among the Basutos, “sterility is the only cause of divorce which is not subject to litigation;”[3321] and, according to Toda custom, the separation of married couples does not seem to be lightly tolerated.[3322] Among certain lower races the consent of the wife appears generally to be necessary for separation.[3323]
Civilized nations, more commonly than savages, consider marriage a union which must not be dissolved by the husband except for certain reasons stipulated by law. Among the Aztecs, it was looked upon as a tie binding for life, and divorce was always discouraged both by the magistrates and the community. The husband could repudiate even his concubines only for just cause and with the sanction of the courts, and the chief wife only for malevolence, dirtiness, or sterility.[3324] In Nicaragua, the sole offence for which a wife could be divorced was adultery.[3325] The Chinese code enumerates seven just causes of divorce—barrenness, lasciviousness, inattention to parents-in-law, loquacity, thievishness, ill-temper, and inveterate infirmity,—and a husband, except for one of these reasons, may not put away his wife on pain of receiving eighty blows.[3326] But these pretexts for divorce are very elastic. In one of the old Chinese books we read, “When a woman has any quality that is not good, it is but just and reasonable to turn her out of doors.... Among the ancients a wife was turned away if she allowed the house to be full of smoke, or if she frightened the dog with her disagreeable noise.”[3327] Nevertheless, according to Mr. Medhurst, divorce is rare in China.[3328] In Japan a man might repudiate his wife for the same reasons as in China. But Professor Rein remarks that the Japanese seldom made use of this privilege, especially if there were children, as education and custom required that, in such cases, the wife should be treated with kindness and consideration.[3329] In Arabia, Mohammed regulated the law of divorce. “In the absence of serious reasons,” says Ibrâhîm Halebî, “no Mussulman can justify divorce in the eyes either of religion or the law. If he abandon his wife or put her away from simple caprice, he draws down upon himself the divine anger, for ‘the curse of God,’ said the Prophet, 'rests on him who repudiates his wife capriciously.’”[3330] Practically, however, a Mohammedan may, whenever he pleases, without assigning any reason, say to his wife, “Thou art divorced,” and she must return to her parents or friends.[3331]
According to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ a wife “who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased, mischievous, or wasteful, may at any time be superseded by another wife. A barren wife may be superseded in the eighth year; one whose children all die, in the tenth; one who bears only daughters, in the eleventh; but one who is quarrelsome, without delay.”[3332] At present, in Southern India, divorce is common among many of the lower castes; but it is not practised at all among the Brahmans and Kshatriyas, or among the higher classes of Śudras.[3333] In Rome under the Christian Emperors, the husband’s right to put away his wife was restricted by imperial constitutions, which pointed out what were considered just causes of divorce.[3334] The dogma of the indissoluble nature of marriage, early vindicated by many Fathers in accordance with the injunction, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” came into full force only by degrees. The Council of Trent definitely suppressed the last traces of divorce as a legal practice[3335]—a decree which has exercised a powerful influence on the legislation of Roman Catholic nations. In Spain, Portugal, and Italy, a husband can demand a judicial separation, a divorce a _mensâ et thoro_, but the marriage contract cannot be dissolved; in France divorce was reintroduced by the law of 27th July, 1884. In all Protestant countries divorce is allowed. In every one of them a man may be divorced from a wife who has committed adultery, but the other legal grounds on which a divorce, in most of them, may be obtained, vary in different States. According to the Prussian ‘Landrecht,’ the list includes, among other causes, drunkenness and a disorderly life, insanity lasting longer than a year, and the mutual consent of the husband and wife, if they have no children;[3336] in Norway and Denmark, mutual consent, if the parties have been judicially separated for three years previously;[3337] in Austria, aversion proved to be invincible through several preceding divorces from bed and board.[3338] The French law recognizes as causes of divorce, besides adultery, “excès, sévices, injures graves,” as also “condamnation à une peine afflictive et infamante.”[3339]
Marriage may be dissolved not only by the man but by the woman. In Madagascar, says Mr. Sibree, although “the power of divorce is legally in the husband’s hand, a wife can practically divorce herself in several cases.[3340] The like holds true for many of the lower races;[3341] whilst, among others, custom or law seems to permit a wife to separate at least under certain conditions.[3342] Among the Inland Columbians, according to Mr. Bancroft, “either party may dissolve the marriage at will.”[3343] If a Bonak wife gets up and leaves the man, he has no claim ever after on her.[3344] Among the Navajos, when a woman marries, “she becomes free, and may leave her husband for sufficient cause.”[3345] Regarding the Guanas, Azara states, “Le divorce est libre aux deux sexes, comme tout le reste, et les femmes y sont très-portées.”[3346] In the Sandwich Islands, “a man and woman live together as long as they please, and may, at any time, separate, and make choice of other partners.”[3347] In Tahiti, parts of New Guinea, and in the Marianne Group, the marriage tie may, it is said, be dissolved whenever either of the parties desires it.[3348] In some of the smaller islands of the Indian Archipelago, a wife can sue for divorce if her husband ill-treats her, if he is unfaithful, or for other reasons.[3349] Among the Shans, “should the husband take to drinking, or otherwise misconducting himself, the woman has the right to turn him adrift, and to retain all the goods and money of the partnership.”[3350] In Burma, if one of the parties is unwilling to separate, “the other is free to go, provided all property except the clothes in wear is left behind;” and a wife can demand a divorce for ill-treatment, or if her husband cannot properly maintain her.[3351] Among the Irulas of the Neilgherries, the option of remaining in union, or of separating, rests principally with the woman.[3352] According to Kandh custom, a wife can return to her father’s house within six months after the marriage, on the articles which had been paid for her being restored; and, if childless, she can at any time quit her husband. “In no case,” says Sir W. W. Hunter, “can the husband forcibly reclaim her, but a wife separated on any grounds whatsoever from her husband cannot marry again.”[3353] In Eastern Central Africa, divorce may be effected if the husband neglects to sew his wife’s clothes, or if the partners do not please each other.[3354] And, among the Garenganze, according to Mr. Arnot, a wife “may leave her husband at any time, if she cares to do so.”[3355]
Passing to more advanced nations, we find that, among the ancient Mexicans, the wife, as well as the husband, might sue for separation.[3356] In Guatemala, she could leave him on grounds as slight as those on which he could leave her.[3357] In China, on the other hand, a woman cannot obtain legal separation; and the same was the case in Japan till the year 1873.[3358] According to the Talmudic Law, the wife is authorized to demand a divorce if the husband refuses to perform his conjugal duty, if he continues to lead a disorderly life after marriage, if he proves impotent during ten years, if he suffers from an insupportable disease, or if he leaves the country for ever.[3359] According to Mohammedan legislation, divorce may, in certain cases, take place at the instance of the wife, and, if cruelly treated or neglected by her husband, she has the right of demanding a divorce by authority of justice.[3360] The ancient Hindus[3361] and Teutons[3362] allowed a wife to separate from her husband only in certain exceptional cases. According to Gallic laws, a wife could quit her husband without losing her _dos_, “si leprosus sit vir; si habeat fetidum anhelatum, et si cum ea concumbere non possit.”[3363] Among the Saxons and Danes in England, marriage might be dissolved at the pleasure of either party, the wife, however, being obliged to return the price paid for her, if she deserted the husband without his consent.[3364] At Athens, a woman could demand a divorce if she was ill-treated by her husband, in which case she had merely to announce her wish before the ἄρχων.[3365] Rossbach thinks that, in Rome, a marriage with _manus_ could be dissolved by the husband only, a marriage without _manus_ by the wife’s father also.[3366] But Lord Mackenzie observes that, whatever effect _conventio in manum_ may have had in ancient times, it did not, in the age of Gaius, limit the wife’s freedom to seek divorce.[3367] In those Christian States of Europe where absolute divorce is permitted, the grounds on which it may be sued for are nearly the same for the man and the woman—except in England, where the husband must be accused of one or other of several offences besides adultery. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, a judicial separation may always be decreed on the ground of the adultery of the wife, but, on the ground of the adultery of the husband, only if it has been committed under certain aggravating circumstances.[3368]
* * * * *
The causes by which duration of human marriage is influenced are, on the whole, the same as those which determine the form of marriage.
Man’s appetite for youth and beauty often induces him to repudiate a wife who has grown old and ugly. According to Cook, it was much more common for a Tahitian to cast off the first wife and take a more youthful partner than to live with both.[3369] Among the Aleuts, when a wife “ceases to possess attractions or value in the eyes of her proprietor, she is sent back to her friends.”[3370] A Malay, in many cases, turns away his wife as soon as she becomes ugly from hard work and maternal cares.[3371] In Switzerland, marriage is much oftener dissolved through divorce when the wife is the husband’s senior, than when the reverse is the case.[3372]
Dr. Béringer-Féraud observes that the Moors in the region of the Senegal “divorcent avec une facilité extrême, non seulement sous le prétexte le plus futile, mais souvent, et même uniquement, pour le plaisir de changer.”[3373] According to v. Oettingen, the statistics of divorce and remarriage in Europe prove that the taste for variety is often the chief cause of the dissolution of marriage.[3374]
As the desire for offspring is a frequent cause of divorce,[3375] so the birth of children is generally the best guarantee for the continuance of the marriage tie. Speaking of some Indian tribes of North America, Schoolcraft says, “The best protection to married females arises from the ties of children, which, by bringing into play the strong natural affections of the heart, appeal at once to that principle in man’s original organization which is the strongest.”[3376]
Where women are regarded almost as beasts of burden, it often happens that a wife who is a bad worker is divorced. The Dyak husbands “coolly dismiss their helpmates when too lazy or too weak to work, and select partners better qualified to undergo the toils of life.”[3377] Among the Sinhalese, according to Mr. Bailey, sickness is perhaps the most common reason why a husband repudiates his wife. The heartless desertion of a sick wife, he says, is “the worst trait in the Kandyan character, and the cool and unconcerned manner in which they themselves allude to it, shows that it is as common as it is cruel.”[3378]
However desirable separation, in many cases, may be for the husband, there are various circumstances which tend to prevent him from recklessly repudiating his wife. In many instances divorce implies for the man a loss of fortune. Though not, as a rule,[3379] obliged to provide the divorced wife with the full means of subsistence, he must, as already mentioned, usually give her what she brought with her into the house, and, among several peoples, a certain proportion—often the half—of the common wealth.[3380] Among the Karens, if a man leaves his wife, the rule is that the house and all the property belong to her, nothing being his but what he takes with him.[3381] Among the Manipuris, according to Colonel Dalton, a wife who is put away without fault on her part, takes all the personal property of the husband, except one drinking cup and the cloth round his loins.[3382] Similar rules prevail among the Galela, and in the Marianne Group.[3383] As to the ancient Teutons, M. Glasson observes, “Les lois barbares voulaient d’ailleurs que, sauf le cas d’adultère, la femme répudiée eût son existence assurée. Le mari devait lui laisser la maison et tout ce qu’elle contenait; il était même obligé de lui abandonner l’équivalent du _mundium_ et de payer une amende au fisc s’il répudiait sa femme sans aucun motif sérieux.”[3384]
The practice of purchasing wives forms a very important obstacle to frequent repudiation.[3385] If the wife proves barren, or is unfaithful, or otherwise affords sufficient cause of divorce, the husband generally receives back what he has paid for her;[3386] but, if he repudiates her without satisfactory grounds, the purchase sum is usually forfeited.[3387] “Cases of divorce are very frequent,” says Mr. Casalis, “where the price of the wife is of small value. Among the Basutos, where it is of considerable amount, the dissolution of marriage is attended with much difficulty.”[3388] And Dr. Finsch ascribes the frequency of divorce in Ponapé to the fact that wife-purchase does not exist there.[3389]
Moreover, when he divorces his wife, a man very often loses his children at the same time. Among several peoples they remain the property of the father.[3390] Among others, they are taken in some cases by the man, in others by the woman.[3391] In Samoa, the young children followed the mother, the more advanced the father;[3392] whilst, among the Sinhalese, boys are taken by the latter, girls by the former.[3393] But among many uncivilized peoples, all the children, if young, follow the mother,[3394] as Colden says, “according to the natural course of all animals.”[3395]
Another factor which has much influence upon the stability of marriage, is the position held by women. When some regard is paid to their feelings, a husband does not, of course, put his wife away for trivial reasons, divorce meaning for her, in many cases, misery and distress. Dr. Churcher informs me from Morocco that “the divorced woman too often goes to swell the ranks of the prostitutes.” And the same is the case in China and among the Arabs of the Sahara.[3396]
When a man and woman unite with one another from love, there is, of course, more security that the marriage contract will be lasting. The Mantras, says Father Bourien, “frequently marry without previously knowing one another, and live together without loving. Is it, then, astonishing that they part without regret, and that divorce is frequent among them?”[3397] The facility of Mohammedan divorce, as Mr. Bosworth Smith remarks, is the necessary consequence of the separation of the sexes. “A man would never embark in the hazardous lottery of Eastern marriage, if he had not the escape of divorce from the woman whom he has never seen, and who may be in every way uncongenial to him.”[3398] A union with a first cousin, among Mohammedans, is generally lasting, because early associations may have led to an attachment at a tender age.[3399] Separation is especially rare when the uniting passion is not merely of a sensual nature, but involves mutual sympathy depending upon mental qualities.
Many of the factors which influence the duration of marriage, so far as it depends upon the will of the husband, operate also in cases where marriage may be dissolved by the wife. But the woman’s subordinate position and her inability to support herself, makes separation more difficult for her than for the man.[3400] Moreover, if the woman claims a divorce, the purchase-sum paid for her has to be returned,[3401] and she may even, in certain cases, forfeit her dowry and whatever property she brought with her at marriage.[3402] If she must lose her children also, she will naturally shrink from the idea of separation.
Since the causes which influence the duration of marriage are, to so great an extent, the same as those which influence the form of marriage, so far as monogamy and polygyny are concerned, we might expect strict monogamy to be associated with stability of marriage, and extensive polygyny with instability. But this is only partly the case. When monogamy is chiefly due to the man’s inability to support many wives, or when he secures no economical advantage by a plurality of wives, he tries in many cases to make up for the inconveniences of monogamy by a frequent change of mate. Mr. Bickmore thinks that the reason why polygyny is not more generally practised by the Mohammedan Malays is to be found in the facility with which divorce is obtained and a new marriage contracted.[3403] And the Arabs of Asia and the Moors of the Western Sahara, according to Burckhardt and Chavanne, indemnify themselves through a succession of wives for their monogamous habits.[3404] Considering, further, that the proportion between the sexes, and the monogamous instinct which man in early times probably shared with others of the higher primates, have affected the forms of human marriage, but scarcely at all its duration, we may infer that the development of the latter, at least at the lower stages of civilization, has been somewhat different from that of the former.
As has already been pointed out, it is extremely probable that, among primitive men, the union of the sexes lasted till after the birth of the offspring. We have also perhaps some reason to believe that the connection lasted for years. Lieutenant de Crespigny met Orang-utan families consisting of male, female, and two young ones, and v. Koppenfels saw similar groups of the Gorilla; but whether the male was the father of both the young ones, it is of course impossible to decide. In any case, there is abundant evidence that marriage has, upon the whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has risen to higher degrees of cultivation, and that a certain amount of civilization is an essential condition of the formation of life-long unions.
It is evident that, at the early stage of development at which women first became valuable as labourers, a wife was united with her husband by a new bond more lasting than youth and beauty. The tie was strengthened by the bride-price and the marriage portion. And greater consideration for women, a higher development of the paternal feeling, better forethought for the children’s welfare, and a more refined love-passion have gradually made it stronger, until it has become, in many cases, almost indissoluble. A husband in the most advanced societies is no longer permitted to repudiate his wife whenever he likes; a wife cannot, without more ado, divorce herself from her husband. Marriage has become a contract the keeping of which is superintended by the State, and which may be dissolved only under certain stipulated conditions.
Although there can be no doubt that the psychical causes which have strengthened the marriage tie tend to become more potent, we must not conclude that divorce will in future be less frequent and more restricted by the laws than it is now in European countries. It must be remembered that the laws of divorce in Christian Europe owe their origin to an idealistic religious commandment which, interpreted in its literal sense, gave rise to legal prescriptions far from harmonizing with the mental and social life of the mass of the people. The powerful authority of the Roman Church was necessary to enforce the dogma that marriage is indissoluble. The Reformation introduced somewhat greater liberty in this respect, and modern legislation has gone further in the same direction.