Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 August 2010
On January 24, 1885, at 9:30 in the morning, a woman from the small rural village of Saint Laurent in East Flanders entered the Palace of Justice of Ghent. Pregnant with her eighth child, she had fled from her husband and was filing for a divorce. That morning, she was led to a small room—the office of the judge of the Regional Court—and was standing alone with four men whom she barely knew and did not understand because they spoke French. Her husband had only sent a lawyer to represent him. As the woman's “avoué” presented her complaints—abuse, threats, and finally her fear for the life of her unborn child that had forced her to leave the marital home—she could only hope he had correctly recorded her story and was representing it convincingly enough to take her case to the next level. Until then, her divorce had been a game between jurists in which she was not much more than a prop. After this reading of her complaints, however, the whole neighborhood was alerted to her failing marriage. Some neighbors even entered the courtroom with her to act as witnesses. Not only the judge, but the whole local community took up the task to decide if she had been the victim of a derailed husband, or had failed as a wife. And accordingly, it was decided if she was to become a “divorced woman,” with all the social stigmatization attached to that notion, or if she would be forced to return to her abusive husband again.
1. The Regional Court (Cour de Première Instance / Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg) was (and is) the courtroom where civil and criminal cases of a certain significance (such as divorces or felonies that could result in imprisonment of over five days) were brought forward for the first time and part of a second “layer” in the hierarchical Belgian judicial system.
2. “Avoués” were officials of the ministry who acted as representatives of parties in legal conflicts unable to pay an actual lawyer.Cornu, Gerard, Vocabulaire juridique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1987)Google Scholar.
3. During the “exposé de motifs,” the original text of the request for a divorce was read to the accused and the judge in the courtroom. During this part of the procedure, the “facts” that were considered crucial as grounds for the divorce were declared “in camera,” and names of witnesses were brought forward. The actual, public, trial with the testimonies would follow later.Servais, Jean and Mechelynck, Edouard, Les codes et les lois spéciales en vigueur en Belgique, (Brussels: Emile Bruylant, 1907),Google ScholarTitre VI, Chapitre II. The exposé de motifs. and the testimonies were two important steps in the divorce procedure. According to Meulders and Matthijs, this shift from a semi-private to a public space is an important part of the actual breaking up of the marriage. Meulders, Carine and Matthijs, Koen, “On ne se jouera pas du divorce! Echtscheiding in de negentiende eeuw in het licht van de echtscheidingspraktijk te Brugge, 1865–1914,” Belgisch tijdschrift voor nieuwste geschiedenis 3–4 (1996): 64–103Google Scholar.
4. Amelie Constance Herpelinck vs. Brunon Haverbeke, March 21, 1885. Testimony of Philomene Herpelinck.Google Scholar
5. Servais, and Mechelynck, , Les codes et les lois spéciales.Google Scholar
6. Unlike the French Civil Code, which underwent significant changes in 1848, one of which was the disappearance of divorce “par consentement mutuelle.” For an exhaustive summary of European divorce law,see Phillips, Roderick, Putting Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google ScholarFor a history of the Code Civil in Belgium,see Gilissen, John, Historische inleiding tot het recht (Antwerpen: Kluwer, 1981)Google ScholarandCaenegem, Raoul Charles Van, Geschiedkundige inleiding tot het recht. Deel I: privaatrecht (Deurne: Kluwer, 1996)Google Scholar.
7. Lynn Abrams, studying the history of divorce in West Germany, uses a similar approach, stating that “Sources of this kind offer the rare possibility to gain deeper insights into the relations between spouses, into their expectations, disappointments, and finally into the conflicts that led the marriage to collapsing.”Abrams, Lynn, “Restabilisierung der Geschlechterverhältnisse: die Konstruktion von Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit in Scheidungsprozessen des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Westfälische Forschungen 45 (1995): 13Google Scholar.
8. Farge, Arlette, Le goût de l'archive (Paris: Gallimard, 1989), 13.Google Scholar
9. Ibid., 14.
10. Archival documents:Rijksarchief, , Archief van de rechtbank van eerste aanleg van Gent. R 39 EA Gent B 1998, nr. 216–18, 245–46 and 250–52Google Scholar.
11. I am very grateful to Paul Drossens for guiding me through the archives.
12. Durkheim's theories on law are scattered throughout various publications. I rely most heavily onDurkheim, Emile, De la division du travail social: étude sur l'organisation des sociétés supérieures (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1893)Google ScholarandDurkheim, Emile, “Essai sur l'origine de l'idée de droit,” in Revue Philosophique 35 (1893): 290–96.Google ScholarFor a synthesis of Durkheim's views on legal theory,see Cotterrell, Roger, Emile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999).Google ScholarSee also Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Sozialökonomik III (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1922)Google Scholarespecially chap. 3, sec. 3). Available on-line: http://www.textlog.de/weber wirtschaft.html
13. Vago, Steven, Law and Society, 7th ed. (New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 2003).Google Scholar
14. Kuehn, Thomas, “Reading Microhistory: The Example of Giovanni and Lusanna,” The Journal of Modern History 61.3 (1989): 512–34, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kuehn, Thomas, “Reading Microhistory,” 518.Google Scholar
16. Historians of the Annales school in particular have been privileging a “social” reading of judicial sources. More recently, a more “linguistic” approach is favored for the analysis of court proceedings. More specifically for divorce documents, James Hammerton and Caroline Arni provide examples of effective use of discourse analysis for this type of documents.See Hammerton, A. James, Cruelty and Companionship. Conflict in Nineteenth-Century Married Life (London and New York: Routledge, 1992),CrossRefGoogle ScholarandArni, Caroline, Entzweiungen. Die Krise der Ehe um 1900 (Cologne and Vienna: Böhlau, 2004)Google Scholar.
17. Hespanha, Antonio Manuel, “Une ‘nouvelle histoire’; du droit?” in Storia sociale e dimensione giuridica. Strumenti d'indagine e ipotesi di lavoro, ed. Grossi, Paolo (Milan: Giuffré, 1986), 315–40, 325.Google Scholar
18. Gallant, Thomas W., “Honor, Masculinity, and Ritual Knife Fighting in Nineteenth Century Greece,” The American Historical Review 105.2 (2000): 359–82, 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Karlen, Delmar, The Citizen in Court: Litigant, Witness, Juror, Judge (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 119–35.Google Scholar
20. Gowing, Laura, Domestic Dangers: Women, Words and Sex in Early Modern London (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 220.Google Scholar
21. Suoille vs. Bouckaert, 2 June 25, 1887,Google Scholartestimony of Colette Joket.
22. Burmans vs. Rausschaert, February 17, 1887,Google Scholartestimony of Rosalie Lootens.
23. Jacobs vs. Pattyn, March 27, 1886,Google Scholartestimony of Adelaide Huysman.
24. Rouck vs. Billiet, June 11, 1887.Google Scholar
25. Linde, Charlotte, Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 16.Google Scholar
26. For an analysis of the distinction between chronicle and narrative,see Linde, , Life Stories, 72Google Scholar.
27. Burmans vs. Rausschaert, February 17, 1887,Google Scholartestimony of Victor Haenen.
28. Carroll, Noel, “On the Narrative Connection,” in New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective, ed. Willie Van Peer and Seymour Chatman (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 21–41.Google Scholar
29. Although the Belgian constitution stated that “The use of custom languages in Belgium is optional; it can only be regulated by law, and only for the actions of public authorities and judicial affairs” (art. 23), most legal proceedings were carried out in French and an official translation of legal text into Dutch was only issued in the 1960s. However, recent linguistic research shows that the supposedly francophone bourgeoisie of nineteenth-century Flanders was often bilingual and open to the usage of Flemish dialects, resulting in a situation in which every participant of a proceeding simply used her/his language of preference and only fixed formula's were put in French (as is the case in the documents used here).See Clement, Jan, Taalvrijheid en bestuurstaal in België. Een constitutionele zoektocht naar de oorsprong van het territorialiteitsbeginsel en de minderheidsrechten in de bestuurstaalwetgeving (Leuven: doctoral dissertation, 2002).Google ScholarFor an extensive overview of the use of French, Dutch, and Flemish in Flemish courts,see Goethem, Herman Van, De taaltoestanden in het Vlaams- Belgisch gerecht, 1795–1935 (Brussel: Paleis der Academieën, 1990)Google Scholar.
30. The work of Robin Lakoff has been particularly influential for research on gender, power, and language.Lakoff, Robin Tolmach, Language and a Woman's Place (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975)Google Scholar.
31. Kamensky, Jane, “Talk like a Man: Speech, Power and Masculinity in Early New England,” Gender and History 8.1 (1996): 22–47, 28CrossRefGoogle ScholarandKiesling, Scott Fabius, “Power and the Language of Men,” in Language and Masculinity, ed. Johnson, Sally and Meinhof, Ulrike Hanna (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1997), 64–66Google Scholar.
32. Coates, Jennifer, Women, Men and Language, 2nd ed. (London: Longman, 1993), 31.Google Scholar
33. Romaine, Suzanne, Communicating Gender (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999), 2Google ScholarandCoates, , Women, Men and Language, 22–27.Google ScholarRomaine bases her observations on the English language, but the same was (and is) true for French and Dutch/Flemish.
34. Zwendelaar, J. H., Code formulaire du divorce et de la separation de corps contenant le texte de la loi et un receuil complet de formulas (Brussels: Larcier, 1878), 29.Google Scholar
35. Coates, , Women, Men and Language, 31 andGoogle ScholarRomaine, , Communicating Gender, 5Google Scholar.
36. Tebbutt, Melanie, Women's Talk?: A Social History of ‘Gossip’ in Working-Class Neighbourhoods, 1880–1960 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Group, 1995), 60.Google Scholar
37. Ibid., 1–5.
38. Romaine, , Communicating Gender, 165–68.Google Scholar
39. D'Hondt vs. Segaert, May 14, 1887,Google Scholartestimony of Jeanette Moers.
40. Trantesaux vs. Donterluigne, November 4, 1885,Google Scholartestimony of Luise Verbrugghe.
41. Dauwe vs. Eekhout, Oktober 30, 1886,Google Scholartestimony of Gustaaf de Gaeve.
42. Dammekens vs. Hoste, December 11, 1886,Google Scholartestimony of Emile Lamberts.
43. Socio-linguistic research on the influence of social position on speech is heavily indebted to Marxist work, such as that of Voloshinov(NikolaevichVoloshinov, Valentin, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language [New York: Seminar Press, 1973])Google Scholarand continues to use “class” as a term, attaching various meanings to it. (Moreover, the focus on socio-economic differences as a basis for differences in speech seems to be disregarded by more recent socio-linguists.) I will use the term here in its widest sense, as a shorthand for any kind of social group that distinguishes itself from other groups on the basis of certain socio-economical and educational differences, followingGregersen, Frans, “Class and Language” in Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, ed. Mesthrie, Rajend (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001), 307–9Google Scholar.
44. Bernstein, Basil, Class, Codes and Control (London: Routledge, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Ibid., 108.
46. Ibid., 61–66, 108–17.
47. Van Gelder vs. De Rouville, January 31, 1885,Google Scholartestimony of Florimond Rousseau.
48. Vermandel vs. Vyncke, January 15, 1885,Google Scholartestimony of Adolf van Botegem. (Emphasis added.)
49. Hoor vs. Chaudon, November 30, 1889,Google Scholartestimony of Louise Billiet.
50. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Drew, Paul, Order in Court. The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings (London: McMillan, 1979), 34–65.Google Scholar
51. Les codes et les lois spéciales en vigueur en Belgique. Article 229:Google Scholar“a husband has the right to file for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery”; article 230: “a wife has the right to file for a divorce on the ground of her husband's adultery, if he houses his concubine under the marital roof; and article 231: “both spouses have the mutual right to file for a divorce on the grounds of excesses, cruelties or severe insults of one spouse towards the other.”
52. The term “double standard” was introduced into the scholarly debate on marital law by Keith Thomas. “Stated simply,” Thomas writes, “it is the view that unchastity in the sense of sexual relations before marriage or outside marriage, is for a man, if an offense, none the less a mild and pardonable one, but for a woman a matter of the utmost gravity. This view is popularly known as the double standard.” From these different standards on extra-marital sexuality, two gender-related codes of behavior emerge.Thomas, Keith, “The Double Standard,” Journal of the History of Ideas 20 (1959): 195–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53. It is important to note the difference between “marital authority” and this “right to correct.” Although the latter could be derived from the former, a husband's right to physically hurt his wife was not regarded as a necessary consequence of his function of head of the family and enjoyed far less acceptance. In his treatise on marital authority, Charles Morizot-Thibault states that “marital authority does not constitute an absolute power, but a force to protect” and, more explicitly: “The wife is physically protected, for a husband is no longer permitted to beat her.”Morizot-Thibault, Charles, De l'autorité maritale. Étude critique du code civil (Paris: Chevalier-Maresa, 1899)Google Scholar.
54. This very fundamental difference in the understanding of adultery depending on gender is not an invention of the nineteenth century. In “La répression de l'adultére,” Régine Beauthier observes that already in the early eighteenth century, “masculinity” and “guilty of adultery” was considered an oxymoron.Beauthier, Régine, La repression de l'adultère en France du XVIèime au XVIIIième siècle. De quelques lectures de l'histoire (Brussels: Emile Bruylant, 1990), 229Google Scholar.
55. Vervaet vs. Callaert, March 10, 1884,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
56. Van Lancker vs. Hooghstoel, February 1, 1883,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
57. Besides the reluctance of witnesses and litigants, most judges are not open to elaborate discussions of sexuality or even affection,Beauthier, Régine, “Le juge et le lit conjugal au XIXième siècle,” in Corps de femmes. Sexualité et contrôle social, ed. Coenen, Marie-Thérèse (Brussels: De Boeck, 2002), 39–63, 43Google Scholar.
58. Zwendelaar, , Code formulaire, 30.Google Scholar
59. Ireland, Robert, “Frenzied and Fallen Females: Women and Sexual Dishonor in the Nineteenth-Century United States,” Journal of Women's History 3.3 (1992): 95–117, 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Battan, Jesse F., “The ‘Rights’ of Husbands and the ‘Duties’ of Wives: Power and Desire in the American Bedroom, 1850–1910,” Journal of Family History 21 (1999): 165–86, 166.Google Scholar
61. D'hondt vs. Segaert, March 19, 1889,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
62. Aubertin vs. Rottiers, June 5, 1888,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
63. De Loof vs. Ghijsbrecht, January 30, 1886,Google Scholartestimony of Francois Degieter: “dat hij met ander vrouwvolk liep.”
64. Gowing, , Domestic Dangers, 195.Google Scholar
65. Laqueur, Thomas, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
66. De Vreese vs. De Clercq, April 8, 1890,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
67. Castien vs. Dossche, July 31, 1889,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
68. Ibid.
69. Denys vs. Vandermeulen, November 13, 1888,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
70. Gowing, , Domestic Dangers, 208–10.Google Scholar
71. Ferket, Nathalie, “Zwijgen als vermoord. Vrouwenmishandeling en de juridische positie van de gehuwde vrouw in België in de negentiende eeuw,” Belgisch Tijdschrift voor de Nieuwste Geschiedenis/Revue Belge d'Histoire Contemporaine 15.3 (1999): 285–304.Google Scholar
72. Ferket, , “Zwijgen als vermoord,” 289.Google Scholar
73. Ibid., 287.
74. Gerard, Pierre August Florent, Code pénale expliqué par les rapports et les discussions des deux chambres législatives, la comparaison avec les dispositions correspondantes du code pénal de 1810 et la jurisprudence qui s'y rapporte (Brussels, 1967), 141.Google ScholarArts. 398 and 413.
75. Evers, J., Cours de droit civil (Leuven, 1883)Google Scholar;Dejaer, , Cours de droit civil (Leuven, 1882–1883);Google ScholarDecoster, , Cours de droit françlais (Leuven: s.d.)Google Scholar.
76. Picard, Edmond, and d'Hoffschmidt, N., Pandectes Belges. Encyclopédie de legislation, de doctrine et de jurisprudence belges, Tome 82 (Brussels: Larcier, 1902), 131.Google Scholar
77. La Belgique judiciaire. Gazette des tribunaux belges et étrangers, Brussels. The journal was published between 1842 and 1939 and contained articles about legal problems or specific cases in Belgium and other Western nations.
78. D'Hondt vs. Impens, February 28, 1890,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
79. Castien vs. Dossche, July 31, 1889,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
80. Denys vs. Vandermeulen, November 13, 1888,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
81. Ruffranck vs. Andelhof, April 8 1889,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
82. Tebbutt, , Women's Talk, 2–8.Google Scholar
83. Gowing, Laura, “Gender and the Language of Insult in Early Modern London,” History Workshop Journal 35 (1993): 1–21, 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84. Largueche, Evelyne, Injure et sexualité: le corps du délit (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997).Google Scholar
85. Ibid., 18–22.
86. On “companionate marriage,”see Tosh, John, A Man's Place: Masculinity and the Middle-Class Home in Victorian England (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998), 27–28Google Scholar.
87. Van Heuverswijn vs. Haerens, October 7, 1890,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
88. Myny vs. Catrysse, May 10, 1887,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
89. Hooghstoel vs. Van Lancker, May 23, 1885,Google Scholartestimony of Charles Delbeke.
90. D'hondt vs. Impens, February 28, 1890,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
91. Denys vs. Vandermeulen, November 13, 1888,Google Scholarexposé de motifs.
92. See also Gowing, , “Gender and the Language of Insult,” 3, andGoogle ScholarAbrams, Lynn, “Whores, Whore-Chaser and Swine: The Regulations of Sexuality and the Restoration of Order in the Nineteenth-Century German Divorce Court,” Journal of Family History 21.3 (1996): 267–80, 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
93. Castien vs. Dossche, March 8, 1890,Google Scholartestimony of Louis van Lerberge.
94. Douwe vs. Eeckhaut, January 29, 1887,Google Scholartestimony of Mathilde De Paepe.
95. Blart vs. Bourlay, November 27, 1886,Google Scholartestimony of Stéphanie Vande Sompele.
96. Les codes et les lois spéciales en vigueur en Belgique, article 212:Google Scholar“both spouses owe each other fidelity, help and assistance”; article 213: “a husband owes his wife protection, a wife her husband obedience”; and article 214: “a wife is obliged to live with her husband, and to follow him to wherever he decides to reside; a husband is obliged to receive her, and to furnish her with all that is necessary, according to his possibilities and standing.”
97. See, e.g., Tosh, John, A Man's Place.Google ScholarMore specifically on companionate marriage in the history of divorce:May, Elaine Tyler, Great Expectations: Marriage and Divorce in Post-Victorian America (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar.
98. Hammerton, , Cruelty and Companionship.Google Scholar
99. The divorce procedure of the Code Napoleon was notoriously long.
100. Thiry, Victor, Cours de droit civil (Liège: Vaillant-Carmanne, 1892), 317.Google Scholar
You have
Access
