Josephus interpreted the Jewish divorce law as follows: “He who wishes to be separated from his wife for any reason whatever—and many such are occurring among men—must affirm in writing his intention of no longer cohabiting with her.”
The ancient Jewish law made of woman a chattel and a marriage derelict at her husband’s pleasure, but it gave the woman no right to divorce her husband for any cause.
The poet, John Milton, in the least worthy of his writings, relied upon the Mosaic law in his specious argument in favour of unlimited divorce.
St. Augustine contended that the question of divorce is not clearly determined by the words of Jesus, but there can be no mistake concerning the theological attitude of the Roman Catholic Church of to-day on this subject. It positively holds that no human power can dissolve a marriage when ratified and consummated between baptized persons.
If one is prepared to concede the principal dogma of Roman Catholicism, namely, the infallibility of the Church, there is no lack of logic or authority in such an attitude, even though it differs or varies from the Mosaic law or the sayings of Jesus.
We must remember, however, that modern divorce law is not founded on theological dogmas or theories, but upon practical social science and humanity.
In most countries there is no distinction between the husband and the wife as to grounds of divorce. The Mohammedan law of Egypt and the statute laws of Belgium and England being conspicuous exceptions to the rule. Usually the domicile of the husband is the place where the action must be instituted, but in the United States of America a wife may acquire a separate domicile from that of her husband if he has given her cause for divorce.
Divorces of domiciled foreigners are granted in several countries of Europe, provided the cause relied on is a cause for divorce in the native country of the parties, and in most continental countries divorces of natives are granted, whether domiciled in their native country or not, the foundation of jurisdiction being nationality, not domicile. Practically in all countries the exercise of jurisdiction for divorce is not affected by the fact that marriage was celebrated in or out of the country.
The causes for divorce are varied in kind and in number. In some countries of Europe mutual consent is a sufficient cause under certain restrictions. The number of causes for divorce in Europe vary from one in England to twelve in Sweden.
The dream of the academic lawyer is for an international law of marriage and divorce, but the differences between the existing judicial systems of the various great commonwealths of the world are much too great to make a universal law on the subject practicable. In one country only the civil marriage is legal and in another only the ecclesiastical alliance is valid; in one country divorce is allowed, and in another it is denied; in one, difference in religion between the parties is an impediment to marriage, and in another it is not; in one the canon law is controlling, and in another the civil law regulates all questions of matrimonial rights. Even in the matter of age and capacity the greatest variableness exists. As, for instance, the minimum age for marriage. In England it is fourteen for males and fifteen for females; in Germany, twenty-one for males and sixteen for females; In Austria, fourteen for both; in Russia, France, Holland, Switzerland and Hungary, eighteen for males and sixteen for females; in Spain and Greece, fourteen for males and fifteen for females; in Denmark and Norway, twenty for males and fourteen for females; in Sweden, twenty-one for males and seventeen for females; in Finland, twenty-one for males and fifteen for females; in Servia, seventeen for males and fifteen for females.