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.