(Sale's Koran ; Lane's Modern Egyp tians ; Hamilton's Hedaya, and the Mish cat ul-Masdbih ; Seldenrs Uxor Ebraica ; and see the case of Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. 216, before Lord Stowell.) Among the Hindoos, and also among the Chinese, a husband may divorce his wife upon the slightest grounds, or even without assigning any reason. Some of the rules mentioned by the Abbe Du bois, as laid down in the Padma Puma,' one of the books of highest authority among the Hindoos, show their manner of thinking concerning the conduct of their wives. "In every stage of he* life, a woman is created to obey. At first she yields obedience to her father and mother ; when married, she submits to her husband and her father and mother in-law ; in old age, she must be ruled by her children. During her life she can never be under her own control. If her husband laugh, she ought to laugh ; if he weep, she will weep also ; if he is disposed to speak, she will join in con versation. When in the presence of her husband, a woman must not look on on side and the other ; she must keep her eyes on her master, to be ready to receive his commands. When he speaks, she must be quiet, and listen to nothing be sides. When he calls her, she must leave every thing else, and attend upon him alone." And in the Hindoo code it is said, " The Creator formed woman for this purpose, viz., that children might be born from her." The reasons for which, according to the Brahmanic law, a man may divorce his wife, may be seen in Colebrooke's Digest of Hindoo Law, vol. ii. p. 414, &c., 8vo. edit.; and Kalthoff, Jus Matrintonii veterum Indorum (Bonn. 1829, 8) p. 76, &c.
The laws in the several Grecian stain, regarding divorce were different, and in I some of them men were allowed to put away their wives on slight occasions. The Cretans permitted it to any man who was afraid of having too great a number of children. Among the Athenians either husband or wife might take the first step to wards dissolving the marriage. The wife might leave the husband, or the husband might dismiss his wife. Adultery on the part of the wife was apparently in itself a divorce ; but the adultery, we may lire• sume, must have been legally proved first. The Spartans seldom divorced their wives ; indeed the ephori fined Lysander for repudiating his wife. Aria ton (Herod. vi. 63) put away his second wife, but it seems to have been done rather to have a son, for his wife was barren, than according to the custom of the country. Anaxandrides (Herod. v. 39) was strongly urged by the ephori to divorce his barren wife, and on his not consenting, the matte: was compounded by his taking another wife : thus he had two at once, which Herodotus observes was contrary to Spartan usage.
The common Roman term for Divorce is Divortium. It is said that the word
Repudium, corresponding to which we have the word " repudiate," applied only to the dissolution of a contract of mar riage (sponsalia), and not to an actual merrier (.Dig. 50, tit. 16, s. 101): but Divortium ana Repudium are sometimes used indifferently. Plutarch states (Ro mulus, c. 22) that originally the husband alone had the power of effecting a di vorce, which may be true, but it was not so in the late period of the Republic and under the Empire. When the with was in manu obi, a technical term that im plied she was in the relation of a daughter to her husband, it is not easy to conceive how the wife could effect a divorce. In other cases, it is easily conceivable. The essence of the nature of a Roman mar riage was abiding consent, and if either party expressed a dissent to the union, followed that it was at an end. The first instance of a divorce at Rome, ac cording to Gellius (iv. 3), was the case of Sp. Cervilins Ruga, who put away his wife because she was barren. As to this story, see Savigny, Zeitschrift der Ges chichthe Rechtswissenschaft, v. 269. Di vorces were common at Rome in the time of Cicero, as we may collect from his writings ; and Cicero himself divorced his aged wife Terentia and took a young wife in her place. The portion (dos) which the wife brought with her to sup port part of the matrimonial expenses, was as a general rule returned to the wife when she was divorced by the husband, or when they separated by consent : this condition tended somewhat tc check a husband from divorcing his wife on light grounds.
As the children of a Roman mar riage were in the power of the father, and belonged to him alone, there was no difficulty in divorce as to this point. Whether the marriage continued to sub sist or not, the children were alone at the disposal of the father. But a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian empowered a competent judge to declare whether the children should stay with the father or with the mother (Cod. v. tit. 24). In some cases, where the wife was to blame. as for instance if she had committed adultery, a sixth part of the dos might be retained by the husband.
As to the form of divorce, it was neces sary that there should be some distinct declaration of the intention of the husband or wife, or of both, to separate. In some cases, a written notice was delivered. The Lex Julia de Adulteriis required seven witnesses to the divorce, and a freed man of the person who made the divorce. One object of the Lex Papia et Poppma, which, as well as the Lex Julia de Adia teriis, was passed in the time of Augustus, was to impose some restraint on divorces. The practice of divorce continued under the Christian Emperors, but subject to the observance of certain forms, and cer tain penalties.