Click the button to go to Divorce: being a correspondence between Horace Greeley and Robert Dale Owen (1860), a free book on Google Play. An exchange of editorials on the topic of the liberalization of divorce laws in Indiana between Horace Greeley and Robert Dale Owen. Greeley attacks Owen's efforts to liberalize divorce. Owen defends himself against Greeley's attack calling divorce moral degeneracy.
|
"Divorce Reform - A Letter to the Editor of the New York
Times" The New York Times
July 23, 1899. Proquest Historical Newspapers. Web.
[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60B16F73E541B728DDDAA0A94DF405B8985F0D3]
This letter was written to the editor of the New York Times to argue (or perhaps complain) that the woman’s perspective was always favored in divorce cases, that men “were always in the wrong” and that it was unjust. This letter shows that socially prescribed gender roles affected society to the extent where the male sex was considered to be the only possible wrong-doer. When reflecting that the Times is also a culprit in the practice of this male condemnation, the writer exclaims “Oh Times, how can you be so cruel?” He raises the idea that women are capable of being abusive to their husbands just the same, and accuses the Times of overlooking this fact. This letter exemplifies the power that the press had over the way that society understood itself, by exaggeration and omission, to maintain status quo. [RJ]
[http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60B16F73E541B728DDDAA0A94DF405B8985F0D3]
This letter was written to the editor of the New York Times to argue (or perhaps complain) that the woman’s perspective was always favored in divorce cases, that men “were always in the wrong” and that it was unjust. This letter shows that socially prescribed gender roles affected society to the extent where the male sex was considered to be the only possible wrong-doer. When reflecting that the Times is also a culprit in the practice of this male condemnation, the writer exclaims “Oh Times, how can you be so cruel?” He raises the idea that women are capable of being abusive to their husbands just the same, and accuses the Times of overlooking this fact. This letter exemplifies the power that the press had over the way that society understood itself, by exaggeration and omission, to maintain status quo. [RJ]
"The Divorce Question." Hartford Daily Courant 23 July 1881: 2. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web.
11 Feb. 2014.
This article, written in response to a paper by Waldorf H. Phillips, works to argue in favor of divorce as a necessary part of a modernizing American culture. Within the first paragraph of the article, the author cites Phillips in his alignment of marriage to a business agreement in which “it is the best policy to admit a dissolution of the contract when it is evident that the parties cannot derive from it the benefits for which it was instituted…” This sentiment is a truly secular and progressive view of divorce. Phillips’ essay and, consequently, this article, present one answer to the divorce question. Their thesis is wholly persuasive; disproving conservative propaganda that ultimately suggests the divorce phenomenon will snowball devaluing marriage all together.
"Divorce Cases Heard: Misfortunes of Nine Married Couples Told In Court." Hartford Daily Courant 19 June 1897: 4. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
This article, published in 1897, describes the last nine divorce cases heard throughout Connecticut by the superior court. After this, the court systems would reallocate divorce to the district courts. Each of the nine cases is retold in detail and all describe what today would be considered more than adequate grounds for divorce, including desertion and domestic abuse. It is interesting to think about how bad marriages persevered before the change in divorce laws in America, and how many husbands and wives were perhaps estranged as a result of poor relations.
Abernathy, Thomas J., Jr., and Margaret E. Arcus. "The Law and Divorce in Canada."The Family Coordinator 26.4 (1977): 409-13. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
This article provides an interesting insight into how America’s neighboring nations were handling divorce in the mid 1800’s and how that differed from American change in the way marriage was viewed. Quite along the same lines as the US, a national leniency came to fruition concerning divorce in Canada at this time. Prior to the mid nineteenth century, marriage could only be dissolved by Parliament. This article, which details the settlement of Canada and the origins of its marriage laws through the eighteenth century and the national move towards secularization, provides a nice counter point to similar domestic issues.
Basch, Norma. "Relief in the Premises: Divorce as a Woman's Remedy in New York and Indiana, 1815-1870", Law and History Review, Vol. 8, No. 1
(Spring, 1990): 1-24. JSTOR. Web.
Norma Basch, an associate professor of History at Rutgers University, examines divorce cases during the early stages of legalization (1815-1870) where women’s testimonies were included, looking for specific cases where divorce was seen as a ‘remedy’ for women’s subjugation in marriage. While the author seems in favor of the idea that divorce can be a woman’s assertion of autonomy, in research she discovers many issues regarding alimony and the vast differences in state divorce laws not in the female favor. The author concludes that using divorce as a ‘woman’s remedy’ was not practical in most divorce cases, and since alimony was uncommon, it would be difficult for a divorced woman to support herself. This essay’s research was funded by many institutions, such as Wellesley and NYU, and was part of a larger work on divorce by the author. As Basch is writing for the academic field of History, the article provides an accurate historical backdrop to the question of divorce in late 19th century literature. [R.J.]
Brittanicus. "Divorce in America and England." The North American Review 190.646 (1909): 296-307. JSTOR. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
This article cites the change in marriage laws of the nineteenth century as having a “reflex action upon American womanhood, upon domestic life and upon the general position of marriage in the scheme of American society.” What follows from this article, published in the North American Review in 1909, is a look at relationship dynamics in America through the eyes of the novelist and how this kind of specialized scope of dealing with a national phenomenon like divorce is simultaneously beneficial and detrimental. As it seems, each relationship is different and nuanced in its failures and its successes, but when either success or failure become a widespread, it is clear there is a need for a wider scoped examination due to the uniformity of the epidemic.
Freed, Doris Jonas, and Henry H. Foster. "Divorce American Style." Divorce American Style Progress inFamily Law 383 (1969): 71-88. JSTOR. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
This article is particularly interesting as it describes another shift in divorce that comes later than the era that our class has been studying. The notion that the culture of the early twentieth century necessitated even further change to a fairly young amendment highlights how truly iron clad marriage was perceived to be in a less secular nineteenth century America. Some of the issues of the early 1900’s included divorces only being granted to injured parties, or by consent of the offender. In this way, it becomes clear, even as late as 1940, marriage laws and divorce restrictions still favor men.
Griswold, Robert L. "Law, Sex, Cruelty, and Divorce in Victorian America, 1840-1900". American Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Winter, 1986), pp. 721-745.
JSTOR. Web. Feb 20 2014.
In this essay, Robert L. Griswold, a history professor from the University of Oklahoma explains that the reason why cruelty was the most common reason for divorce from 1860 to 1880, was that it was directly influenced by the higher demands spouses placed on each other due to the new ideas of companionate marriage and changing sex roles. Griswold’s audience is meant to be scholars of History, but his research is also important to those studying late 19th century literature, as it offers much information on the changing of the marital relationship from that of economic or morally based to that of personal and psychological. [RJ]
Griswold, Robert L. "The Evolution of the Doctrine of Mental Cruelty in Victorian American Divorce", 1790-1900. Journal of Social History, Vol. 20, No. 1
(Autumn, 1986), pp. 127-148. JSTOR. Web. Feb 20 2014.
In his examination of the evolution of Victorian marital laws, Griswold finds three distinct phases in the 19th century regarding divorce court decisions. These phases reveal that justifications for divorce gradually changed from moral and economic standpoints to those on medical and/or psychological bases. The phases are as stated: first, in the early 19th century, marriage was believed to be the backbone of society, so divorces were not granted easily except in cases of proven cruelty; second, in the mid-19th century, new ideas about gender roles and family values emerged, so laws stated that any harsh behavior that hurt the victim’s health could be seen as cruelty; and third, in the late century, mental cruelty could incite divorce even when it did not affect the victim’s health. In this case, Griswold states that in the eyes of the law, independence took precedence over traditional values, despite the risk of social disorder. [RJ]
Madsen, Carol C. ""At Their Peril": Utah Law and the Case of Plural Wives, 1850-1900." The Western Historical Quarterly 21.4 (1990): 425-43. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.
Carol Madsen’s article, “At Their Peril”: Utah Law and the Case of Plural Wives, 1850-1900, provides insight on the federal governments attempt to legislate restrictions on Mormon Polygamy in Utah during the latter half of the 17th century. As it seems, the Utah probate courts slowed these mandates considerably. The article raises an interesting question on the role of the Mormon female and how that might become a hot button issue for the rest of the country in a time of female radicalism. The issue of Mormon polygamy in the American culture of this time period is further problematic as it devalues conventional marriages. In the same way, a national rejection of polygamy practices works to, in some ways, reinstate a conservatism that simultaneously limits religious freedom.
Ruggies, Steven. "The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the Inited States, 1880-1900."Demography 34.4 (1997): 455-66. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
The author of this article uses the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series to examine the effect of a steadily evolving workforce concerning gender equality and labor conditions on marriage instabilities of the late 1800’s. In the case of this article, the study is compartmentalized by race; that is, how better employment opportunities for black women despite an inactive black male workforce might have affected divorce and separation in lower income, urban communities versus the move away from farm labor, which would have affected rural communities and it’s subsequent marriages.
11 Feb. 2014.
This article, written in response to a paper by Waldorf H. Phillips, works to argue in favor of divorce as a necessary part of a modernizing American culture. Within the first paragraph of the article, the author cites Phillips in his alignment of marriage to a business agreement in which “it is the best policy to admit a dissolution of the contract when it is evident that the parties cannot derive from it the benefits for which it was instituted…” This sentiment is a truly secular and progressive view of divorce. Phillips’ essay and, consequently, this article, present one answer to the divorce question. Their thesis is wholly persuasive; disproving conservative propaganda that ultimately suggests the divorce phenomenon will snowball devaluing marriage all together.
"Divorce Cases Heard: Misfortunes of Nine Married Couples Told In Court." Hartford Daily Courant 19 June 1897: 4. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
This article, published in 1897, describes the last nine divorce cases heard throughout Connecticut by the superior court. After this, the court systems would reallocate divorce to the district courts. Each of the nine cases is retold in detail and all describe what today would be considered more than adequate grounds for divorce, including desertion and domestic abuse. It is interesting to think about how bad marriages persevered before the change in divorce laws in America, and how many husbands and wives were perhaps estranged as a result of poor relations.
Abernathy, Thomas J., Jr., and Margaret E. Arcus. "The Law and Divorce in Canada."The Family Coordinator 26.4 (1977): 409-13. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
This article provides an interesting insight into how America’s neighboring nations were handling divorce in the mid 1800’s and how that differed from American change in the way marriage was viewed. Quite along the same lines as the US, a national leniency came to fruition concerning divorce in Canada at this time. Prior to the mid nineteenth century, marriage could only be dissolved by Parliament. This article, which details the settlement of Canada and the origins of its marriage laws through the eighteenth century and the national move towards secularization, provides a nice counter point to similar domestic issues.
Basch, Norma. "Relief in the Premises: Divorce as a Woman's Remedy in New York and Indiana, 1815-1870", Law and History Review, Vol. 8, No. 1
(Spring, 1990): 1-24. JSTOR. Web.
Norma Basch, an associate professor of History at Rutgers University, examines divorce cases during the early stages of legalization (1815-1870) where women’s testimonies were included, looking for specific cases where divorce was seen as a ‘remedy’ for women’s subjugation in marriage. While the author seems in favor of the idea that divorce can be a woman’s assertion of autonomy, in research she discovers many issues regarding alimony and the vast differences in state divorce laws not in the female favor. The author concludes that using divorce as a ‘woman’s remedy’ was not practical in most divorce cases, and since alimony was uncommon, it would be difficult for a divorced woman to support herself. This essay’s research was funded by many institutions, such as Wellesley and NYU, and was part of a larger work on divorce by the author. As Basch is writing for the academic field of History, the article provides an accurate historical backdrop to the question of divorce in late 19th century literature. [R.J.]
Brittanicus. "Divorce in America and England." The North American Review 190.646 (1909): 296-307. JSTOR. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
This article cites the change in marriage laws of the nineteenth century as having a “reflex action upon American womanhood, upon domestic life and upon the general position of marriage in the scheme of American society.” What follows from this article, published in the North American Review in 1909, is a look at relationship dynamics in America through the eyes of the novelist and how this kind of specialized scope of dealing with a national phenomenon like divorce is simultaneously beneficial and detrimental. As it seems, each relationship is different and nuanced in its failures and its successes, but when either success or failure become a widespread, it is clear there is a need for a wider scoped examination due to the uniformity of the epidemic.
Freed, Doris Jonas, and Henry H. Foster. "Divorce American Style." Divorce American Style Progress inFamily Law 383 (1969): 71-88. JSTOR. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
This article is particularly interesting as it describes another shift in divorce that comes later than the era that our class has been studying. The notion that the culture of the early twentieth century necessitated even further change to a fairly young amendment highlights how truly iron clad marriage was perceived to be in a less secular nineteenth century America. Some of the issues of the early 1900’s included divorces only being granted to injured parties, or by consent of the offender. In this way, it becomes clear, even as late as 1940, marriage laws and divorce restrictions still favor men.
Griswold, Robert L. "Law, Sex, Cruelty, and Divorce in Victorian America, 1840-1900". American Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Winter, 1986), pp. 721-745.
JSTOR. Web. Feb 20 2014.
In this essay, Robert L. Griswold, a history professor from the University of Oklahoma explains that the reason why cruelty was the most common reason for divorce from 1860 to 1880, was that it was directly influenced by the higher demands spouses placed on each other due to the new ideas of companionate marriage and changing sex roles. Griswold’s audience is meant to be scholars of History, but his research is also important to those studying late 19th century literature, as it offers much information on the changing of the marital relationship from that of economic or morally based to that of personal and psychological. [RJ]
Griswold, Robert L. "The Evolution of the Doctrine of Mental Cruelty in Victorian American Divorce", 1790-1900. Journal of Social History, Vol. 20, No. 1
(Autumn, 1986), pp. 127-148. JSTOR. Web. Feb 20 2014.
In his examination of the evolution of Victorian marital laws, Griswold finds three distinct phases in the 19th century regarding divorce court decisions. These phases reveal that justifications for divorce gradually changed from moral and economic standpoints to those on medical and/or psychological bases. The phases are as stated: first, in the early 19th century, marriage was believed to be the backbone of society, so divorces were not granted easily except in cases of proven cruelty; second, in the mid-19th century, new ideas about gender roles and family values emerged, so laws stated that any harsh behavior that hurt the victim’s health could be seen as cruelty; and third, in the late century, mental cruelty could incite divorce even when it did not affect the victim’s health. In this case, Griswold states that in the eyes of the law, independence took precedence over traditional values, despite the risk of social disorder. [RJ]
Madsen, Carol C. ""At Their Peril": Utah Law and the Case of Plural Wives, 1850-1900." The Western Historical Quarterly 21.4 (1990): 425-43. JSTOR. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.
Carol Madsen’s article, “At Their Peril”: Utah Law and the Case of Plural Wives, 1850-1900, provides insight on the federal governments attempt to legislate restrictions on Mormon Polygamy in Utah during the latter half of the 17th century. As it seems, the Utah probate courts slowed these mandates considerably. The article raises an interesting question on the role of the Mormon female and how that might become a hot button issue for the rest of the country in a time of female radicalism. The issue of Mormon polygamy in the American culture of this time period is further problematic as it devalues conventional marriages. In the same way, a national rejection of polygamy practices works to, in some ways, reinstate a conservatism that simultaneously limits religious freedom.
Ruggies, Steven. "The Rise of Divorce and Separation in the Inited States, 1880-1900."Demography 34.4 (1997): 455-66. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
The author of this article uses the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series to examine the effect of a steadily evolving workforce concerning gender equality and labor conditions on marriage instabilities of the late 1800’s. In the case of this article, the study is compartmentalized by race; that is, how better employment opportunities for black women despite an inactive black male workforce might have affected divorce and separation in lower income, urban communities versus the move away from farm labor, which would have affected rural communities and it’s subsequent marriages.
B.V.A., “Indiana Divorces”, The American Law Register (1852-1891), 18, 12, New Series Volume 9 (Dec., 1870), 721-728.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3303767
This is in the nature of an apologist tract contesting Indiana’s reputation as a “divorce mill”. It outlines some of the specific rules of Indiana Divorce Law circa 1870 and gives some the the legal, societal and governmental justifications therefor. WPL
Podcast. Indiana
Public Media. “The Divorce Mill of the
Midwest” 2011. (I will need to determine the appropriate
method of citation for this and revise.)
http://indianapublicmedia.org/momentofindianahistory/divorce-mill-midwest/
This podcast from Indiana Public Media, in cooperation with the Indiana Magazine of History, provides a concise delineation of how Indiana earned its reputation as the “Divorce Mill of the Widwest. WPL
http://indianapublicmedia.org/momentofindianahistory/divorce-mill-midwest/
This podcast from Indiana Public Media, in cooperation with the Indiana Magazine of History, provides a concise delineation of how Indiana earned its reputation as the “Divorce Mill of the Widwest. WPL
Schwartzberg, Beverly. "Lots of Them Did That": Desertion, Bigamy, and Marital Fluidity in Late-Nineteenth-Century America. Journal of Social History. 37.3: (2004): 573-600. Web. March 2014. Article Stable URL: http://0-www.jstor.org.www.consuls.org/stable/3790154
Beverly Schwartzberg defies the myth of the harmonious Victorian family with an investigation into Civil War pension claims that offer compelling evidence of a large number of marriages dissolved outside of legal divorce. Most often (but not always) the result of a deserting husband, these “fluid marriages,” as Schwartzberg terms them, resulted in one or both parties remarrying and forming new families. Couples split up for the typical reasons: discontent with each other, family pressures, or relocation of the husband due to military service or employment. Strict divorce laws (including the requirement that one party be assigned guilt) discouraged legal separations, and social pressures often enticed the deserted wife to carry on as if still married, or conversely, to give up her absent husband for lost and remarry. For the departing spouse, establishing an new identity and taking on a new wife was relatively simple in the age before Social Security numbers and reliable communication. [DS]
Beverly Schwartzberg defies the myth of the harmonious Victorian family with an investigation into Civil War pension claims that offer compelling evidence of a large number of marriages dissolved outside of legal divorce. Most often (but not always) the result of a deserting husband, these “fluid marriages,” as Schwartzberg terms them, resulted in one or both parties remarrying and forming new families. Couples split up for the typical reasons: discontent with each other, family pressures, or relocation of the husband due to military service or employment. Strict divorce laws (including the requirement that one party be assigned guilt) discouraged legal separations, and social pressures often enticed the deserted wife to carry on as if still married, or conversely, to give up her absent husband for lost and remarry. For the departing spouse, establishing an new identity and taking on a new wife was relatively simple in the age before Social Security numbers and reliable communication. [DS]
Griswold, Robert L. "The Evolution of the Doctrine of Mental Cruelty in Victorian American Divorce, 1790-1900." Journal of Social History. (2001): 127-148. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.
Griswold’s essay examines mental cruelty and pain in Victorian Era divorce proceedings. In the early 1820s, mental cruelt and the reprocussions were not taken seriously by the courts, who merely recommended counceling and religious guidance to help solve most cases. By the 1870s, mental cruelty began to hold more significance in divorce proceedings. Initially, cruelty that was actually allowed to be used as grounds for divorce was very specific; it did not include mental cruelty or marital sexual violence. However, doctors began emphasizing the frailty of women in order to promote that they were more quickly and easily harmed in abusive marriages. As social order began to change, so did definitions of acceptable cruelty within a marriage. Marital cruelty began to include any kind of physical harm and even began to consider emotional and mental cruelty as issues and consequently as grounds for divorce. As social issues of class and gender played out, there were marked repercussions for the legal status of marriage and divorce. The progressive times created better legal precedent for such proceedings. [Lovell]
Griswold’s essay examines mental cruelty and pain in Victorian Era divorce proceedings. In the early 1820s, mental cruelt and the reprocussions were not taken seriously by the courts, who merely recommended counceling and religious guidance to help solve most cases. By the 1870s, mental cruelty began to hold more significance in divorce proceedings. Initially, cruelty that was actually allowed to be used as grounds for divorce was very specific; it did not include mental cruelty or marital sexual violence. However, doctors began emphasizing the frailty of women in order to promote that they were more quickly and easily harmed in abusive marriages. As social order began to change, so did definitions of acceptable cruelty within a marriage. Marital cruelty began to include any kind of physical harm and even began to consider emotional and mental cruelty as issues and consequently as grounds for divorce. As social issues of class and gender played out, there were marked repercussions for the legal status of marriage and divorce. The progressive times created better legal precedent for such proceedings. [Lovell]
Griswold, Robert L. "Law, Sex, Cruelty, and Divorce in Victorian America, 1840-1900." American Quarterly. 38.5 (1986): 721-745. Web. 25 Feb. 2014
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712820
Griswold’s essay discusses the issue of the rights of women in divorce cases, particularly in the case of abuse. The essay details court rulings that dealt with cases of abuse and their outcomes. In the early 1800s, there were instances of actual abuse being chalked up to the progressive behavior of the abused wives, rather than the abusive behavior of the husbands. Towards the later 1800s, the court cases began to look at abuse and cruelty more closely. These cases began a focus on marital relationships, sexual relationships, and the expectations of being in a married relationship. Court rulings began to pay particular attention to the idea of sexual cruelty, where judges began to reconsider how to respond to cases which demonstrated elements of sexual cruelty or sexual indiscretions. Partners in the relationship, particularly women, became very attuned to what they felt they should be able to expect out of a marriage and when those expectations were violated. As marriage expectations rose, so did the number of court cases expressing issues stemming from the disparities between these expectations and reality. Domestic abuse and cruelty finally began to hold precedence in court cases as the expectations of marriages changed. Divorce law began to change in order to accommodate the change in marital expectations that were becoming prevalent. [Lovell]
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712820
Griswold’s essay discusses the issue of the rights of women in divorce cases, particularly in the case of abuse. The essay details court rulings that dealt with cases of abuse and their outcomes. In the early 1800s, there were instances of actual abuse being chalked up to the progressive behavior of the abused wives, rather than the abusive behavior of the husbands. Towards the later 1800s, the court cases began to look at abuse and cruelty more closely. These cases began a focus on marital relationships, sexual relationships, and the expectations of being in a married relationship. Court rulings began to pay particular attention to the idea of sexual cruelty, where judges began to reconsider how to respond to cases which demonstrated elements of sexual cruelty or sexual indiscretions. Partners in the relationship, particularly women, became very attuned to what they felt they should be able to expect out of a marriage and when those expectations were violated. As marriage expectations rose, so did the number of court cases expressing issues stemming from the disparities between these expectations and reality. Domestic abuse and cruelty finally began to hold precedence in court cases as the expectations of marriages changed. Divorce law began to change in order to accommodate the change in marital expectations that were becoming prevalent. [Lovell]
"The Law of Divorce." London Times 23 May 1853, 5th ed.: n. pag. Victorian Contexts. PB Works, 2008. Web. 8 Mar. 2014.
Three Western Washington University undergraduate students posted a newspaper article from the mid nineteenth century detailing twenty-one adjustments to divorce laws by the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, doing so as part of a class project for a class entitled “Love and Money in the Nineteenth Century British Novel,” addressing an English professor assumedly. While one may question the reliability of undergraduate research, the three students’ citing of verifiable academic sources should lay these worries to rest, although small grammatical and spelling mistakes raise the issue of their scholarliness. The article divides reasons for divorce into two categories. Citing the students’ explanation, “Divorce mensâ et thoro: was a divorce ‘from bed and board,’ and was granted by the ecclesiastical courts, but involved parties could not get remarried. This form of ‘divorce’ is roughly equivalent to modern day separation. Divorce à vinculo matrimonii: was a divorce "from the bonds of marriage" and could only be granted by parliament. If this form of divorce was obtained, both parties could legally remarry.” Under the former category, according to the newspaper article, one may obtain a divorce on the grounds of “conjugal infidelity and gross cruelty” as well as desertion, for whichthe harmed party may receive alimony (London Times). The article details grounds for divorce under the latter category for only one reason: adultery, though the husband could more easily bring this matter to court than the wife, demonstrating the bias of the legal and divorce system towards husbands. Though not specifically mentioned by the article, the students note that one of the main goals of the Commission was not to change divorce laws, but where these matters could be tried, suggesting a transfer from local ecclesiastical courts to two secular ones located in London. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 did enact some of these suggestions, including the creation of the secular Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, which though it intended in part to address gender inequality as detailed above, failed to do so. (KB)
Three Western Washington University undergraduate students posted a newspaper article from the mid nineteenth century detailing twenty-one adjustments to divorce laws by the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, doing so as part of a class project for a class entitled “Love and Money in the Nineteenth Century British Novel,” addressing an English professor assumedly. While one may question the reliability of undergraduate research, the three students’ citing of verifiable academic sources should lay these worries to rest, although small grammatical and spelling mistakes raise the issue of their scholarliness. The article divides reasons for divorce into two categories. Citing the students’ explanation, “Divorce mensâ et thoro: was a divorce ‘from bed and board,’ and was granted by the ecclesiastical courts, but involved parties could not get remarried. This form of ‘divorce’ is roughly equivalent to modern day separation. Divorce à vinculo matrimonii: was a divorce "from the bonds of marriage" and could only be granted by parliament. If this form of divorce was obtained, both parties could legally remarry.” Under the former category, according to the newspaper article, one may obtain a divorce on the grounds of “conjugal infidelity and gross cruelty” as well as desertion, for whichthe harmed party may receive alimony (London Times). The article details grounds for divorce under the latter category for only one reason: adultery, though the husband could more easily bring this matter to court than the wife, demonstrating the bias of the legal and divorce system towards husbands. Though not specifically mentioned by the article, the students note that one of the main goals of the Commission was not to change divorce laws, but where these matters could be tried, suggesting a transfer from local ecclesiastical courts to two secular ones located in London. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 did enact some of these suggestions, including the creation of the secular Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, which though it intended in part to address gender inequality as detailed above, failed to do so. (KB)
Vicinus, Martha. "Lesbian Perversity and Victorian Marriage: The 1864 Codrington Divorce Trial." Journal of British Studies 36.1 (1997): 70-98. JSTOR. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
Vicinus, the English department chair at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, raises the question of asexual female, or homosocial, relationships in 19th century Victorian-era America and England. Using Lillian Faderman’s Surpassing the Love of Men (1982) and other texts, Vicinus agrees that the 19th century was a “golden age” for asexual romantic friendship in that the era saw the practice more. Vicinus disagrees, however, as her title asserts, that such bonds were widely accepted. Vicinus argues that defining lesbianism is more complex in the mid-nineteenth century because women in homosocial and full-on lesbian relationships lived in a “shadow” (71) world, an “eloquent silence” (71) except for the gossip about “mannish women” (71) by social elites where the continuum of response to either of these types of relationships ranged from disparaging humor to outrage (71) and defining lesbianism was more complex than even at the end of the nineteenth century because of disagreements of how one should define these relationships of “misandry” (72).
Vicinus contextualizes the ongoing debate over changes in marriage and divorce laws, principally between the growing feminist movement, those who favored husbands’ hegemony, and those with more radical proposals, such as the importing of 750,000 unmarried women into America to marry singles. The divorce trial of Admiral Henry James Codrington and Helen Jane Smith Codrington, Vicinus concludes, played out quite publically in Victorian newspapers, which portrayed Mrs. Codrington stereotypically as a product of her Italian upbringing, suggesting, according to British views of Italy since the Renaissance, sexual deviance (78). Reading more like a modern tabloid, the trial detailed offenses including adultery, keeping the late company of married men and women, evening trysts (79), “wild language” (80), rape (82), stolen desks, intimate letters, cohabitation (by both James parties) with a Miss Faithfull, ironically, and denial of sexual intercourse. In fact, the latter years after the trial painted Mrs. James at fault for the divorce as a result of her deviant homosexual attraction to Miss Faithfull; because James was older, it was she, not Faithfull, who was “perverse” (87) and corrupting. It also showed how the upper class’ dominant views on traditional marriage and the view of wives as subject to male dominance still ruled the time, despite growingly divergent views brought about, in part, by feminists. Not surprisingly, Mrs. James lost the trial, incurred heavy legal costs, and lost both her two children and her father, who abandoned her after siding with her estranged husband. By quoting Miss Faithfull’s “masterly performance” (82) against her former friend, Mrs. James, Vicinus indirectly characterizes the trial as slanderous, rife with lies, and fallaciously misleading.
The latter part of the article notes how Faithfull, haunted by the trial, goes on to publish a fictional, yet clearly autobiographical novel, about a woman named Tiny who prefers a secret relationship with a woman instead of her husband. Gossip among socialites after the trial paint Faithfull’s ironic mendicant performance on the trial stand in increasingly harsher terms. One gossip who had come to possess a “smoking gun” (91) letter definitively confirmed Faithfull’s lesbianism, but interestingly challenged society’s notion of closeted homosexuality, saying if everyone knew about it (i.e. her relationship with Helen), how closeted is it really? (92), possibly suggesting a criticism of Victorian society in which homosexuality was treated as a necessary secret and yet, to use a paradox, spoken of in secret circles. Even feminists treated lesbianism with a veil of secrecy. It is this recurring theme, that of silence in the face of what is widely known, that best summarizes Vicinus’s point. Silence about a well-known and often spoken of phenomenon in sexuality and collusion among the hegemonic male class denigrated and stigmatized female sexuality. The Codrington trial served to briefly expose the “specter” (96) of an otherwise open secret. (KB)
Vicinus, the English department chair at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, raises the question of asexual female, or homosocial, relationships in 19th century Victorian-era America and England. Using Lillian Faderman’s Surpassing the Love of Men (1982) and other texts, Vicinus agrees that the 19th century was a “golden age” for asexual romantic friendship in that the era saw the practice more. Vicinus disagrees, however, as her title asserts, that such bonds were widely accepted. Vicinus argues that defining lesbianism is more complex in the mid-nineteenth century because women in homosocial and full-on lesbian relationships lived in a “shadow” (71) world, an “eloquent silence” (71) except for the gossip about “mannish women” (71) by social elites where the continuum of response to either of these types of relationships ranged from disparaging humor to outrage (71) and defining lesbianism was more complex than even at the end of the nineteenth century because of disagreements of how one should define these relationships of “misandry” (72).
Vicinus contextualizes the ongoing debate over changes in marriage and divorce laws, principally between the growing feminist movement, those who favored husbands’ hegemony, and those with more radical proposals, such as the importing of 750,000 unmarried women into America to marry singles. The divorce trial of Admiral Henry James Codrington and Helen Jane Smith Codrington, Vicinus concludes, played out quite publically in Victorian newspapers, which portrayed Mrs. Codrington stereotypically as a product of her Italian upbringing, suggesting, according to British views of Italy since the Renaissance, sexual deviance (78). Reading more like a modern tabloid, the trial detailed offenses including adultery, keeping the late company of married men and women, evening trysts (79), “wild language” (80), rape (82), stolen desks, intimate letters, cohabitation (by both James parties) with a Miss Faithfull, ironically, and denial of sexual intercourse. In fact, the latter years after the trial painted Mrs. James at fault for the divorce as a result of her deviant homosexual attraction to Miss Faithfull; because James was older, it was she, not Faithfull, who was “perverse” (87) and corrupting. It also showed how the upper class’ dominant views on traditional marriage and the view of wives as subject to male dominance still ruled the time, despite growingly divergent views brought about, in part, by feminists. Not surprisingly, Mrs. James lost the trial, incurred heavy legal costs, and lost both her two children and her father, who abandoned her after siding with her estranged husband. By quoting Miss Faithfull’s “masterly performance” (82) against her former friend, Mrs. James, Vicinus indirectly characterizes the trial as slanderous, rife with lies, and fallaciously misleading.
The latter part of the article notes how Faithfull, haunted by the trial, goes on to publish a fictional, yet clearly autobiographical novel, about a woman named Tiny who prefers a secret relationship with a woman instead of her husband. Gossip among socialites after the trial paint Faithfull’s ironic mendicant performance on the trial stand in increasingly harsher terms. One gossip who had come to possess a “smoking gun” (91) letter definitively confirmed Faithfull’s lesbianism, but interestingly challenged society’s notion of closeted homosexuality, saying if everyone knew about it (i.e. her relationship with Helen), how closeted is it really? (92), possibly suggesting a criticism of Victorian society in which homosexuality was treated as a necessary secret and yet, to use a paradox, spoken of in secret circles. Even feminists treated lesbianism with a veil of secrecy. It is this recurring theme, that of silence in the face of what is widely known, that best summarizes Vicinus’s point. Silence about a well-known and often spoken of phenomenon in sexuality and collusion among the hegemonic male class denigrated and stigmatized female sexuality. The Codrington trial served to briefly expose the “specter” (96) of an otherwise open secret. (KB)
Davis, Noah. “Marriage and Divorce.” The North American Review. 139.322 (July 1884): 30-41. JSTOR. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Davis writes a surprisingly complex article in which he examines the “true” nature of marriage and divorce within America in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Taking a very radical approach, Davis argues, in the first portion of his article, marriage should be viewed as a contract, both in the legal sense, and in a moral sense as well. Individuals should be free to enter into marriage without interference from the State, and on their own religious terms. He goes on to relate the terms on which parties should not be allowed to marry: minors, alcoholics, and the mentally infirm, but also believes that clergy who do not know both individuals would not be permitted to perform the ceremony. The article’s second half is fully dedicated to the more radical aspect of his paper with its discussion of morality and how marriage is crucial to the survival of the nation. Davis even goes so far to advocate that couples should require the State’s permission to seek a divorce and lambastes states like Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana that have recently passed liberal divorce laws. The article is very well-written, articulate, and strong in its rhetoric without becoming overly shrill in tone. Any scholars curious about marriage and divorce in the late nineteenth century will benefit from Davis’ rhetorically strong article. (DC)
Davis writes a surprisingly complex article in which he examines the “true” nature of marriage and divorce within America in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Taking a very radical approach, Davis argues, in the first portion of his article, marriage should be viewed as a contract, both in the legal sense, and in a moral sense as well. Individuals should be free to enter into marriage without interference from the State, and on their own religious terms. He goes on to relate the terms on which parties should not be allowed to marry: minors, alcoholics, and the mentally infirm, but also believes that clergy who do not know both individuals would not be permitted to perform the ceremony. The article’s second half is fully dedicated to the more radical aspect of his paper with its discussion of morality and how marriage is crucial to the survival of the nation. Davis even goes so far to advocate that couples should require the State’s permission to seek a divorce and lambastes states like Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana that have recently passed liberal divorce laws. The article is very well-written, articulate, and strong in its rhetoric without becoming overly shrill in tone. Any scholars curious about marriage and divorce in the late nineteenth century will benefit from Davis’ rhetorically strong article. (DC)
davisdivorce.pdf | |
File Size: | 1315 kb |
File Type: |
Uba, George R. “Status and Contract: The Divorce Dispute of the ‘Eighties and Howells’ A Modern Instance. Colby Library Quarterly. 19.2 (June 1983): 78-89. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
Uba begins his article with interesting historical context as pertaining to changing attitudes towards divorce and divorce law during the 1870s and 1880s in the United States. Some of the most interesting aspects of the article stem from the historical sources Uba incorporates into the paper—divorce statistics and notes a 300% increase in the quantity of articles/books written about divorce in the first half of the1880s. Uba argues changes in civil law increasingly focused on individuals and their rights and moved away from law applied broadly to family units, as had traditionally been the case. After discusses the historical background, Uba weaves the history into an examination of divorce and individual agency in A Modern Instance, where he argues many of the characters are representative of contractual relationships, and explores in great detail many of the major and minor relationships found within the novel. Uba does not attempt to incorporate Howells’ personal beliefs of divorce into the article, but instead believes the novel acts as a backdrop of 1880s society, reflecting the zeitgeist rather than an author taking a particular stand. Students interested in studying Instance will appreciate the historical overtones which are deftly blended into a complex literary argument. (DC)
Uba begins his article with interesting historical context as pertaining to changing attitudes towards divorce and divorce law during the 1870s and 1880s in the United States. Some of the most interesting aspects of the article stem from the historical sources Uba incorporates into the paper—divorce statistics and notes a 300% increase in the quantity of articles/books written about divorce in the first half of the1880s. Uba argues changes in civil law increasingly focused on individuals and their rights and moved away from law applied broadly to family units, as had traditionally been the case. After discusses the historical background, Uba weaves the history into an examination of divorce and individual agency in A Modern Instance, where he argues many of the characters are representative of contractual relationships, and explores in great detail many of the major and minor relationships found within the novel. Uba does not attempt to incorporate Howells’ personal beliefs of divorce into the article, but instead believes the novel acts as a backdrop of 1880s society, reflecting the zeitgeist rather than an author taking a particular stand. Students interested in studying Instance will appreciate the historical overtones which are deftly blended into a complex literary argument. (DC)
unamoderninstance.pdf | |
File Size: | 1118 kb |
File Type: |