CHAPTER IX.
Disruption of the Family.

1.—Increase of Divorce.

The part played by church and state in this sort of “sacred marriage” is not a worthy one. The state official or the officiating clergyman whose task it is to perform the marriage ceremony, never pauses to consider by what methods the couple he is about to join in wedlock have been brought together. It may be quite evident, that the two are in no wise mated either in regard to their ages or in regard to physical and mental qualities; the bride may, for instance, be twenty and the groom seventy, or vice versa; the bride may be beautiful and full of vitality, the groom may be old, cross and inflicted with infirmities, it makes no difference to the representative of state and church. The marriage is consecrated, and the consecration is most solemn in character where the monetary reward for this “holy function” is most generous. But when such a marriage turns out to be an exceedingly unhappy one, as could have been foreseen by anybody, and frequently was foreseen by the unfortunate victim itself—the woman generally being the victim—and when one or the other party then seeks separation, both church and state place the greatest difficulties in their way. Yet neither church nor state questioned in advance whether love and moral sentiments, or shameless, coarse egotism brought about the union. Moral revulsion is not considered sufficient cause for separation; obvious proofs are demanded, proofs that will degrade one or the other party in public opinion, to make divorce possible. That the Catholic Church does not permit divorce at all, except by special permission from the pope, which is very hard to obtain, makes conditions particularly unfavorable among the Catholic population. The German code of civil law has also made divorce much more difficult. Thus divorce by mutual consent, that had been permitted by Prussian law, was abolished. Many divorces had been granted under this law, some for more serious reasons that were concealed out of regard for the guilty party. In Berlin, for instance, there were 5,623 divorces from 1886 until 1892; 1,400 of these, approximately 25 per cent., were granted upon mutual consent. In many cases divorce is granted only then, when the party seeking divorce does so within six months after discovery of the cause for divorce. According to Prussian law, the time limit is one year. Take, for example, that a young wife discovers soon after her marriage, that she is tied to a man who is no husband to her at all. It is asking a great deal that she should determine on divorce within six months, a step that requires a considerable amount of moral strength. To justify the increased difficulty in divorce, the following argument is advanced: “Only by making divorce increasingly difficult, can the advancing disruption of the family be counteracted and the family bonds be strengthened.” This argument is a contradiction in itself. A disrupted marriage is not made bearable by forcing husband and wife to continue living together in spite of their inward estrangement and mutual aversion. A condition of this sort, maintained by law, is profoundly immoral. The result is that in a large number of cases adultery is made a cause for divorce, since this cause cannot be ignored by the law; neither the state nor society are improved by this process. It must also be regarded as a concession to the Catholic Church, that in many cases separation takes the place of divorce which was formerly not the case according to civil law. It is no longer considered a cause for divorce, when through the fault of the one party, a marriage remains childless. The new German code of civil law contains the following paragraph: “The religious duties in regard to marriage are not touched upon in the rules laid down in this paragraph.” This likewise is a concession to the church. It is merely ornamental in character, but it is characteristic of the spirit still prevailing in Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century. For our purposes the admission is important, that divorce was made more difficult to counteract the advancing disruption of the family.

Human beings then remain chained to one another for lifetime against their will. One party becomes a slave to the other and is forced in fulfillment of “matrimonial duties,” to endure intimate embraces that perhaps seem more loathsome than harsh words and ill treatment. Rightly Mantegazza says: “There is no greater torture than to suffer the caresses of an unloved person....”[50] Is such marriage not worse than prostitution? Even the prostitute has a certain degree of liberty of withdrawing from her abominable trade, and if she is not the inmate of a public brothel, she may refuse herself to a man she does not wish for some reason or other. But a woman sold in marriage must endure the embraces of her husband, even though she have a hundred reasons to hate and despise him.

If the marriage has been contracted from the outset and by mutual understanding, as a mere marriage of convenience, matters are not quite as bad. Mutual obligations are considered and a bearable mode of life is found. Scandal is avoided, especially out of consideration for the children, where such exist; and yet it must be said that the children are the ones to suffer most when their parents lead a cold, indifferent life, devoid of love, even if it does not deteriorate into a life of open hostility. More frequently yet an agreement is accomplished to avoid material loss. Usually the husband’s misbehavior is the cause of trouble in marriage; that may be seen from the divorce cases. When a man remains dissatisfied with his marriage his domineering position enables him to find compensation elsewhere. The woman is far less inclined to go astray, firstly because physiological reasons make a transgression much more dangerous in her case, and secondly because when she is the one to break the marital vow, it is considered a crime that society will not condone. The woman alone—be she wife, widow or maiden—has “fallen”; the man, when he commits the same sin, has, at the worst, behaved with impropriety. The same action then is judged by entirely different standards, according to whether it has been committed by a man or by a woman, and the women themselves are often most bitter and unmerciful in their condemnation of a “fallen” sister.[51]

As a rule, women will seek divorce only in cases of flagrant infidelity or gross ill-treatment, because they are in a dependent position and are obliged to regard marriage as a means of subsistence; also because the social position of a divorced woman is not an enviable one. She is regarded and treated more or less as a cipher. If in spite of all this women constitute the majority of plaintives in divorce cases, this goes to prove what moral tortures they must endure. In France, even before the introduction of the new divorce laws, by far the most proceedings for separation were instituted by women. Until 1884 a woman in France could sue for divorce only in case her husband brought the woman with whom he maintained an intimate relation into the domicile of his wife against her will. Thus proceedings for separation were instituted annually by:

Not only were the majority of proceedings instituted by women, the figures also show that their number steadily increased. By information gathered from reliable sources it may be seen, that elsewhere also the greater number of actions for divorce and separation are instituted by women, as the following table shows:[52]

In the United States, where the divorce statistics cover a period of forty years, we find the following ratio:

The above table shows that in more than two-thirds of all divorce cases women were the plaintiffs.[53]

In Italy we find a similar ratio. During 1887 there were 1,221 divorce cases; 593 of these were instituted by wives, 214 by husbands, 414 by both husbands and wives. In 1904 there were 2,103 cases; 1,142 by wives, 454 by husbands, and 507 by both.

Statistics teach us that the majority of divorces are sought by women, and they furthermore teach us that the number of divorces is rapidly increasing. Since the introduction of the new divorce law in France in 1884, the divorces have increased from year to year, as follows:

In Switzerland, too, the divorce-rate is increasing. From 1886 to 1890 there were 882 divorces. From 1891 to 1895 there were 898 divorces; in 1897, 1,011; in 1898, 1,018; in 1899, 1,091; in 1905, 1,206; in 1906, 1,343. In Austria during 1899 there were 856 divorces and 133 separations. In 1900 there were 1,310 divorces and 163 separations. In 1905 there were 1,885 divorces and 262 separations. The number of divorces and separations have been doubled during a decade. In Vienna there were 148 divorces in 1870 and 1871; they increased with each succeeding year until in 1878 and 1879 there were 319 cases. Vienna being a Catholic city, divorces are not easily obtained. Nevertheless, a Viennese judge exclaimed during the eighties: “The charge of broken marriage vows is as frequent as the charge of broken windows.”

The following shows the increasing divorce-rate in the United States:

If the number of divorces in relation to the population had remained the same in 1905 as in 1870, the exact number of divorces in 1905 would have been 24,000, and not 67,791, as actually was the case. The total number of divorces from 1867 to 1886 was 328,716; from 1887 to 1906, 945,625. The United States have the highest divorce-rate. For every thousand marriages there were the following number of divorces: In 1870, 81; in 1880, 107; in 1890, 148; in 1900, 200. Why is divorce more frequent in the United States than in any other country? Firstly, because in some of the states the divorce laws are less rigorous than in most of the other countries, and, secondly, because women enjoy a freer, more independent position than in any other country of the world, and are accordingly less willing to submit to the tyranny of husbands.

The following shows the number of divorces in Germany from 1891 to 1900:

We see that from 1899 to 1900, the number of divorces have decreased by 1,635, because on the first of January, 1900, the new code of civil law went into effect which made divorce more difficult. But life is stronger than law. After there was a decrease in the divorce-rate from 1900 to 1902, there has been a rapid increase ever since, as the following table shows:

In Saxony, too, in spite of various fluctuations, there has been a steady increase, as may be seen from the following table:

For each thousand marriages in Prussia there were the following number of divorces: 1881 to 1885, 67.62; 1886 to 1890, 80.55; 1891 to 1895, 86.77; 1896, 101.97; 1905, 106; 1908, 121. That is a tremendous increase. The increase of divorce is not a national but an international symptom. For each thousand marriages there were the following number of divorces in:

It would be a great mistake to draw conclusions from these widely diverging figures about the moral status of the various countries enumerated above. No one would claim, that cause for divorce is four times greater among the Swedish people than among the English people. The laws must be taken into consideration that make divorce more or less difficult as the case may be.[54] The moral status, that is, the causes making divorce appear desirable to either man or woman, are a secondary consideration. But the figures show, that the divorce-rate is increasing more rapidly than the population; that is increasing, in fact, while the marriage-rate is decreasing. We will return to this phase of the question later on. Great differences of age between husband and wife play a considerable part in divorce. That is shown by the following table gathered from official statistics in Switzerland:

The following statistics from Saxony during 1905 and 1906, and from Prussia from 1895 to 1905, show the divorce-rate in its relation to the various strata of society:

In Saxony divorces were most frequent among officials and professional men. In Prussia they were most frequent among those employed in commerce. In Saxony those employed in commerce came second; in Prussia, officials and professional men. Men employed in industry come third; 220 in Saxony, and 158 in Prussia. Those employed in agriculture furnished the lowest figures. When we compare the growing number of divorces in the cities with those among the rural population, we are led to the conclusion that the rapid development of industry, accompanied by an increasing instability of public life, makes the marriage relation more unfavorable, and adds to the factors that make for the disruption of marriage. On the other hand, the growing divorce-rate shows, that the number of women are increasing who resolve to cast off a yoke that has become unbearable.