Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/304

 284

The Green Bag

been that at the time the marriage was con tracted their operation could have been clearly foreseen and that the marriage was inherently bad. The knot may not only have been unloosed, it may not have been properly tied in the ﬁrst place. Divorce is one form of laxity of the matrimonial bond, but palpably ill-mated or unﬁt marriages are another form not less important. If it were shown that an increasing divorce rate were counterbalanced by a gradual im provement in the quality of marriages, the growing laxity of the one might then by oﬁset by the growing wholesomeness of the other. In other words, the threefold increase in the divorce rate has signiﬁcance only with refer ence to the fundamental postulate that marriages are no better than they were forty years ago, no less recklessly and imprudently entered into, no more restrained by parental authority and by the supervision of church or state, and no more satisfactory as regards the age and other circumstances of the contracting parties. The opinion may be ventured that there is a difference in this respect between contemporary conditions and those of forty years ago. It may not be a great difference, but it would be strange if the increased pressure of competition in the

industrial ﬁeld had not reacted upon the family in such a way as to tend toward the transformation of marriage into an institution better able to maintain the well-being of the entire family, in a state of closer solidarity. It would be natural to expect, therefore, that marriage is nowa days usually contracted with a deeper sense of its responsibilities and upon the foundation of a more intelligent and sympathetic attach ment, and that even though divorce may have increased threefold, the increase must have come about largely because of the increased willingness with which divorce is resorted to, whereas the proportion of good marriages to bad as a matter of fact may have increased rather than diminished. It seems to us, therefore, that the author

should have prefaced his sociological investi gation of divorce with an investigation of the tendency toward or away from real as opposed to legal marriage, just as he has recognized a distinction between real and legal divorce. The result would doubtless have led him to modify slightly his views regarding the increase of real divorce. He might also with advantage, before proceeding to consider

the causation of divorce, have embarked upon the inquiry as to how far the subject resolves itself into that of a growing popular disposition to make use of legal remedies. Dr. Lichtenberger does clearly recognize the distinction between the growth of the evil itself and the growing use of the remedies invoked to redress it. He however postpones to a later part of his book matter which would preferably be put ﬁrst. In the four chapters which treat of the general causes of the increase, he is lumping together factors which operate directly upon the permanence of marriage and those which merely affect the motives which lead the aggrieved parties to have recourse to litigation. Obviously the former process is that which demands chief attention; the increased popularity of the action of divorce may well serve to introduce the main topic, but should not be confused with it. We would then suggest that Dr. Lichten berger, like a great proportion both of the lay and expert writers on divorce, so far falls victim to confused processes of reasoning that he makes himself out somewhat of an alarmist over conditions which are not so signiﬁcant, either ethically or sociologically, as is often supposed. Data are scarcely obtainable to conﬁrm this conclusion, but we think there is good reason to suppose that the growing laxity of the marriage bond. of which divorce is one symptom, has been partly offset‘ by an improvement in what might be called the initial stability of marriage. Moreover, when we have also considered the popularization of law in general, on which Professor Willcox lays stress as one of the causes of divorce, and the popularization of the action of divorce in particular, and in addition a multitude of other causes, economic. social and religious, which have made it easier for people to seek remedies for evils that formerly were suffered to remain un redressed, we see that the supposed increase of true divorce must be still further oﬁset by eliminating the purely remedial aspects of the subject. The consequence is that instead of a threefold increase in real divorce. the rate of increase during the past forty years must actually have been much smaller. Such a manner of approach would present to the reader a correct perspective at the outset instead of allowing him at best to acquire it piecemeal in the course of a round about treatment. It is impossible not to