THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
trial in 1S67 in London. The weighing of a person against the Bible to determine his guilt or innocence is known to have occurred as late as 1759 at Aylesbury, England. Geo. W. Gilmore.
Bibliography: Classical works are Cicoro, De divinaiione; Lucian. De astrologia; Cornelius ARrippa, De occulta philosophia. For the ethnic side consult: E. H. Tylor, Primitive CuUure, i. 7S-81, 117-133, ii. 155, Boston, 1874; F. B. Jevons, Introduction to Hist, of Religion, London, 1896; J, G. Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 355, iii. 342, London, 1900; Mary Hamilton, Incubation, London, 1906. For the Biblical side consult: C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, §§ 4-8, New York, 1902; H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology, ii. 322. London, 1892; S. R. Driver, Commentary on Deuteronomy (on Deut. xviii. 10), New York, 1895; Smith, Ret. of Sem., pp. 194, 246, 407, 427. For divination under Christianity consult: H. C. Lea, Superstition and Force, pp. 93-370, Philadelphia, 1878; S. Baring- Gould, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages, pp. 55 sqq., London, 1884; H. C. Bolton, The Counting-out Rhymes of Children, London, 1888. A quite full list of the " mancy's " from Bolton is given in The New International Encyclopcedia, " Superstition," xvi. 347, New York, 1904.
DIVORCE,
I. History of Divorce Law and Custom. Among Existing Backward Peoples (§ 1). Earlier Christian Doctrine (§ 2). The Canon Law. Theory and Practise (§ 3). Protestant Doctrine. The Rise of Civil Divorce (§ 4). Civil Divorce and New England Puritanism (§ 5). II. European Divorce Legislation.
III. Divorce Legislation in the United States. Statutory Grounds of Divorce (§ 1). Remarriage After Divorce (§ 2). Residence and Notices (§ 3). American Statistics (§ 4).
American Legislative Reform, 1887-1907 (| 5).
IV. Nature of the Divorce Problem.
I. History of Divorce Law and Custom: Recent research has disclosed among rude peoples elaborate systems of unwritten law covering, often in an orderly way, most of the divisions commonly associated with " civilized " jurisprudence. This is especially true of divorce. Among barbarous, even savage, races appears a careful attention to detail, a stability, and a respect for equity in the social rules relating to the dissolution of marriage, which Western prejudice is hardly prepared to find; while other races commonly looked upon as civilized, but hitherto relatively non-progressive, such as the Chinese, are quite capable of teaching us valuable lessons in this regard.
As to the right or freedom of divorce, five classes of peoples may be differentiated: (1) The marriage bond is lax and readily dissolved at I. Among the pleasure of either the man or the
Existing woman. Such is the case among a Backward large number of American, African,
Peoples. .\siatic, and Oceanic tribes; e.g., among the Makassars and Buginese, the Alfurese of Minehasa, and the Point Barrow Eskimo. (2) At the other extreme are peoples with whom wedlock is absolutely indissoluble; for the sacramental nature of marriage is affirmed, not exclusively in Christian lands, but among races standing on a very low plane of culture; e.g., with certain Papuans of New Guinea, the Veddahs of Ceylon, and the Niassers of Batu death alone is sufficient to dissolve the nuptial tic. (.3) Sometimes the only method is mutual agreement exco])t in case of life-assault, as among the Karo-Karo of Sumatra; or the husband may put away the wife
for serious misconduct, as in West Victoria, but then only when she has no children and the tribal chiefs give their consent. (4) Very commonly the man alone has absolute right of divorce, putting away the woman when he likes, without assigning any reason, or on the most frivolous grounds. Theoretically this is true of some parts of China; but practically with the more advanced Chinese, as among the ancient Aztecs, the wife, under the influence of Confucius, enjoys the privilege of separation in several important contingencies; while under the existing law of Islam she has a quite limited right of divorce through purchase or by judicial decree. (5) Finally, among many rude races the woman has great liberty of divorce, leaving the man at pleasure or on the slightest pretext. The lot of the married woman among barbarous or even savage tribes is not always so dark as it is frequently painted (cf. the usages of the American Indians and others). In general, divorce among backward peoples, even where greart liberty is allowed, is far less frequent than is popularly believed. Their conservatism is remarkable. Very commonly custom frowns upon divorce after children are born. The usages regarding the legal effects of divorce are particularly enlightening. One is almost as often surprised by the reasonableness and stability of early institutions as he is shocked at their harshness or injustice. In the disposal of the children or the division of the property after the marriage is dissolved principles of natural equity and justice are frequently observed which constitute a rebuke to the laws sanctioned by some modern Christian societies. 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.
According to the spirit of the earliest Christian teaching, divorce, properly so called, is strongly condemned, though by a strict inter- 2. Earlier pretation of its letter it may not be Christian wholly forbidden. Between the first Doctrine, assertion of the new doctrine and the final triumph of the canonical theory of absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond intervenes a struggle of twelve hundred years. The various utterances of the New Testament relating to the subject are disjointed and confusing in their details (for Hebrew and Jewish customs see Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew, § 7). Many vital questions are either completely ignored or else left in such obscurity as to open the way for wide divergence of doctrine and the bitter controversies of the Reformation period. For four centuries the Bible passages were debated by the Fathers and the councils. Nearly all were agreed that divorce is forbidden except for the one cause mentioned by Matthew (v. 32); but not all conceded the equal right of the sexes in this regard. There was a like want of harmony touching the lawfulness of remarriage after divorce. Finally Augustine's interpn>tation prevailed — that adultery is the only Scriptural ground of separation; but even this does not dissolve the nuptial tie. Moreover, he reproaches those who, following the