Читать книгу History of Matrimonial Institutions - George Elliott Howard - Страница 29

Table of Contents

The laws of divorce among backward races, it is thus perceived, are full of interest for the student of social institutions. One comes from the study with a clearer perception of the fact that such institutions are but the outward expression of human life—of slow experience and experimentation; and one gains a deeper respect for the concrete results of primitive culture. Especially important is the relation of divorce to the stability of society. The conservatism prevailing even among rude peoples with respect to the liberty of divorce is remarkable. This may be due in part to the fact that primarily marriage does not rest so much upon the sexual instinct as upon family needs.[827] In some instances, where dissolution of the marriage is free to either party, or where it is the peculiar right of the man, divorce is exceedingly rare.[828] The American Indian tribes are conspicuous in this regard.[829] Sometimes there is a strong social sentiment against it. Such is the case in China. Formerly among the Japanese, like the ancient Aztecs, divorces were infrequent;[830] and among many less advanced peoples, such as the Afghans, the Veddahs, or even the Zulus, the sentiment of love is doubtless a stronger check upon instability of the family than is commonly supposed.[831]

The rules governing the division of property are important in this connection; for, as Westermarck suggests, the selfish interests of the husband "prevent him from recklessly repudiating his wife. In many instances divorce implies for the man a loss of fortune."[832] In rare cases he is obliged to provide for the wife's support even after the separation.[833] Often, as already seen, the woman receives back her dotal gift and whatever she brought with her at the marriage; while frequently the husband is obliged to surrender a portion or all of the common property. Thus "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. 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;" and "similar rules prevail among the Galela, and in the Marianne Group."[834]

The conservative influence of property is even more marked in connection with wife-purchase—a powerful deterrent of hasty divorce. In the case of a sale-marriage, even in the weakened form of dower to the woman, the guilty or responsible party usually suffers a decided disadvantage from the separation. The man who repudiates his wife without just cause, as already shown, may not only forfeit his right to reclaim the bride-money, and incur other losses on the division of the property; but often, particularly where the maternal system of kinship prevails, he may have to surrender his children as well; and the woman who unjustly leaves her husband may lose all that she brought with her into the home or compel her kindred to restore the purchase price.[835]

Here also the results of the genealogical organization must be considered. The blood-feud, paradoxical as it may seem, often acts as a conservative power among primitive men. The wife's kindred may protect her from the vengeance of a brutal husband whom she has deserted; or they may send her back when she has acted indiscreetly or when they dread the wrath of the husband's clan. The organization of society on the basis of kinship has another important bearing upon the effects of divorce. It appears to be practically a universal rule among uncivilized races that the repudiated wife or the woman who legally puts away her husband shall return to her own family or clan, whose duty it is to receive her. Accordingly, the lot even of the savage woman has mitigating conditions not always accorded by the laws of civilized society. "In savages," observes Mason, "where every man and woman and child is billeted somewhere, there is no such thing as thrusting man or woman out into nowhere.... Should the man wish to repudiate his wife, she cannot be sent out into the jungle or forest; she must be returned to somebody."[836]