DIVISION OF LABOK. 329 DIVORCE. have been urged against the division of labor dis- advantages ol con^iderable wtiglit. It has been contended llial the jJloducliou of a workman whose only knowledge was how to |ioli>h the point of a pin was a pitiable speelaele for which modern industry was responsible. Not only is it urged that such extreme specialization is deleterious lo the intelligence and that it saps the vitality, but it has been pertinently pointed out that in the revolutions to which in- dustry is subject such a man might find himself without a place, and without a living. When the facts are as stated, there can be no ([uestiou of the hardship caused the individual. But the case is probably extreme. While it is true that well-rounded workmen are less frequent to-day than formerly, it is also true that the mechanical operations of factories are not so widely dis- similar that one who is displaced from one type of factor}- might not find suitable emploinent in another, with somewhat similar operations, but with somewhat difYerent materials. Nor should it be forgotten that in comparisons between the workman of to-day and the man of yesterday, it is not infrequent that the average man of to-da.v is compared with the skilled man of yesterday, and that while years ago there were many skilled carpenters, there were also many who were quite unskilled, and the man who at the present time performs a single operation in a planing-mill has perhaps deteriorated from the skilled and efficient crafti;man who was his predecessor, but has risen on the other hand from one who bungled at the trade because he had not the aptitude to acquire skillfully all of its processes, and was not per- mitted under the older organization to devote himself to that one in which he would have been most efficient. It is further ppinted out that with the subdivision of industry, and the increas- ing use of machines, there is opportunity through the reduction of working hours for mental de- velopment outside, even if the mental stimulus which comes from the work itself is not so great as formerly. In short, the disadvantages of the division of labor which were set forth with so much apprehension by writers of fifty years ago have not in the development of things proved so serious in their effects upon the working classes a= they appeared. There can be little doubt that during the century just ended the progress of the working classes, not only in their material wel- fare, but in their intellectual development, has been greater than in any preceding period of the world's hi.story. See Poutic.l Ecoxomy; Pro- DUCTIOX. BIV'ITI'ACUS. or Diviciacus. A Druid and (hicflaiii cpf the .Edui, a tribe of ancient Gaul, dwelling between the upper waters of the Saone and the Loire. His tribe enjoyed a friend- ly alliance with the Koman Oovernment, and liivitiacus himself visited Rome, where Cicero conversed with him on the subject of Druid- ism (De Divinatione, i. 41, § 90). When r.Tsar, in B.C. .58, refused to allow the Helvetii (q.v.) to migrate from their lands in Switzer- land and settle in CJaul, he relied on the .F.duans and Divitiacus to furnish supplies for his army; but Dumnorix. a brother of Divitiaois and a bitter enemy of Cirsar. had. by bribery and in- timidation, secured the chief power among his people, and the supplies were withheld. C>sar learned the facts, suppressed Dumnorix, restored Divitiacus to power, and, with the supplies thus assured, crushed the horde of Helvetii near the town of Bibracte (C;rsar, li. (I. i. Iti sq. ). Div- itiacus remained a faithful ally of Caesar during his further campaigns. DIVORCE (Lat. divorlium. from divertere, to go apart). Divorce, at modem laAV, is a dis- solution of marriage, by public authority, at the instance of one of the parties, for a cause that lias arisen since the establishment of the eon- luibial relation. Divorces are sometimes granted by the law-making power, but usually by the courts unilcr general laws. A judicial declara- tion that two persons who have gone through the form of contracting marriage are not luisband and wife (as in the case where one of the par- ties was already married to a tliird person) is not a divorce; nor is the term divorce properly applied to an annulment of marriage for a cause that antedates or has accompanied the est.iblishment of the marriage (e.g. impotence or fraud). Again, a judicial separation which merely relieves the parties of some of the du- ties and suspends some of the rights connected with the connubial relation is not a divorce, for divorce destroys the connubial bond itself. History of Divorce. In early society the hus- band usually had the right of repudiating his wife, originally, perhaps, at pleasure, among some races only for cause. Primitive causes were witchcraft, drunkenness, barrenness, adul- tery. In those communities in which the man became a member of his wife's family power to repudiate him was usually accorded to her or to her kinsfolk, as was the case among some tribes of North American Indians. Among the Athenians the husband could dismiss his wife at pleasure, and the wife could leave the hus- band with the consent of the magistrate {(irchon). In ancient Rome the rules governing divorce depended upon the form of marriage. If the parties had entered into a religious marriage (confarrcaiio) , divorce was possible only by an- other religious ceremony {diffarreatio) , which, like the marriage, required the cooperation of the priests. If the marriage was in forma purchase (coemp^io), the W'ife could be reconveyed into her original family only for grave misconduct. If, however, the marriage was 'consensual' — and this type of marriage became general in the later Republic — it wate dissoluble by dissent; i.e. either party could repudiate the other. To the Romans of the early Empire this freedom of divorce seemed morally right : and as late as the third century of our era the Roman jurists held that a promise not to exercise the riglit of divorce under any circumstances was an immoral promise. Even when the Empire became Chris- tian, the right of divorce at will w'as not abol- ished ; all that was done was to impose pecuniary disadvantages upon the party who exercised the right of divorce without good cause, or upon llie party whose misconduct gave good cause for divorce. In the view of the Christian Chuicli. however, marriage was a sacrament, and the matrimonial relation was indissoluble; and in the Jliddle Ages, when the Church courts ob- tained jurisdiction over marriage, this view de- termined the law of Europe. Marriages might be declared null because of impediments which existed at the time of marriage, but marriages could not be dissolved because of any subsequent misfortune or misconduct. This is still the law
