Page:The evolution of marriage and of the family ... (IA evolutionofmarri00letorich).pdf/263

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

wife divorced without a cause, the husband retained a sixth of the dowry for each child, but only up to three-sixths.[1] The formula of the Roman repudiation recalls by its energetic conciseness the Kabyle formula, and it seems especially to relate to the property: Res tuas habeto.[2] The wife, even though subjected to the manus, obtained at last the power of divorce, by sending the repudium to her husband, who was then forced to set her free from the manus.[3] In short, divorce became in time very easy. Cicero repudiated his wife Terentia in order to get a new dowry. Augustus forced the husband of Livia to put her away, although she was with child. Seneca speaks of women counting their years, not according to the Consuls, but to the number of their husbands. Juvenal quotes a woman who was married eight times in five years. St. Jerome mentions another who, after having had twenty-three husbands, married a man who had had twenty-three wives.

Constantine, humbly obedient to the Christian spirit which had invaded his base soul, restricted the cases of divorce to three for each spouse, but always admitted mutual consent, and under Justinian the full liberty of divorce reappeared in the Code.[4]

From its origin Christianity combatted the morals called pagan, which name even was a reproach. Abandoning the modest reality, it lost anchor from the first, and was drowned in a sea of dreams. Marriage, instead of being simply the union of a man and a woman in order to produce children, became mystic; it was the symbol of the union of Christ with his church; it was tolerated only, and the church especially condemned divorce. Nevertheless, custom and good sense held out a long time against ecclesiastical unreason, and it was very slowly, in the twelfth century only, that the civil law prohibited divorce.[5] St. Jerome had allowed, as did afterwards the Christians of the East, that adultery broke the bond of marriage as well for the woman as the man, which is simply just; but this sentiment was condemned and anathematised by the Council of Trent,[6] which thus returned, contrary to the

  1. Italie ancienne, p. 488.
  2. R. Cubain, Lois Civiles de Rome, p. 183.
  3. Italie ancienne, p. 487.
  4. Lecky, loc. cit., p. 352.
  5. Id., ibid.
  6. Session xxiv., can. 17.