The process of dissolution of a Muslim marriage. Divorce (talaq). Do not say three times ... so as not to cry later. Divorce in Islam Westminster Confession of Faith on Remarriage
We have collected in it reliable theory and answers to practical questions. Learn from other people's mistakes, not your own.
One Muslim family we know is in a difficult situation. The husband, during a family quarrel, said the divorce formula (talaq) three times in a row. Can he get his wife back?
As for the case when three divorces are given at the same time, then “during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), then during the reign of Abu Bakr and during the two years of the reign of 'Umar, the triple [one-time] talaq was considered one [that is, if the husband immediately pronounced the divorce formula three times, it was counted as one time]”. Ibn ‘Abbas, who narrated this hadith, quotes after him the words of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab: calm, reasonable and thoughtful approach]. And if we complete this (put a signature under this) [make sure that three voiced talaqs are counted as three; in order to wean people from this addiction?! Let them think before saying such things]” Ibn ‘Abbas ends his narration with the words: “He did so. [That is, he ordered three talaks spoken at a time to be counted as three]” .
In the realities of modern religious illiteracy and, unfortunately, the thoughtless emotional use of the words of divorce in family quarrels, I believe that the canonical practice of the times of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him), the period of the reign of Abu Bakr and the first two years of the reign of 'Umar is the most priority, that is, three talaqs spoken at the same time should be counted as one. Especially taking into account the general context of the Koran and the Sunnah, which call on us to create families and protect them, while maintaining intra-family harmony, mutual understanding and integrity.
I note that at the end of the verse, which tells about the stages of divorce, when talaq is given one after another once a month, there are the words:
“These are the boundaries set for you by Allah (God, Lord), do not cross them! Whoever crosses the borders, those are sinners (oppressors, tyrants) ”(see).
Based on this verse, some Muslim scholars have concluded: “Three talaq divorces at a time are haram (forbidden and unacceptable).”
It is also narrated that during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), one man divorced his wife, saying three divorces-talaq at a time. The Prophet Muhammad stood up and angrily said: “He is playing with the book of Allah (God, Lord) [distorting what is written in it], and this is when I am among you?! [That is, how dare he give three divorces at a time, when the Qur'an clearly says about phasing, and with the presence of certain conditions]”. The displeasure of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was so great that one of the companions stood up and exclaimed: “O Messenger of God, should I kill him?”
The twenty-year practice of working as an imam of a mosque (since 1997) and communicating with parishioners has repeatedly confirmed and confirms to me the correctness of exactly the option that was practiced during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) - a one-time triple talaq should be counted as one, and only so. The words of divorce should be spoken only in a calm, conscious state with the appropriate intention, and not in a fit of uncontrolled anger.
Shamil, I recently divorced my wife, but now I want to get her back. When I decided to divorce her, I came to her father's house and in front of witnesses (two men) said: “I'm divorcing you. I'm breaking up with you. I'm divorcing you." Now, at the insistence of relatives, I want to return it back. Is it possible? If yes, what should be done to get it back?
A one-time triple divorce can be counted as one, and therefore if three months have not passed (from the moment you announced it), you can return it without special procedures. But if they have passed, then you will have to conduct a new marriage and give your wife a new one. wedding gift(mahr).
And let me remind you that after the third final divorce, the spouses can no longer get back together. This is practically impossible, except under certain conditions.
The opinion of ‘Umar was adopted by almost all Muslim scholars. See, for example: al-Nawawi Ya. Sahih Muslim bi sharh an-nawawi [Collection of hadiths of Imam Muslim with comments by Imam al-Nawawi]. In 10 volumes, 18 hours. Vol. 5. Part 10. S. 70–72.
However, I dare say that this is their opinion, and not the direct text of the verse or hadith. And it (the opinion) of the last centuries (I don’t know how it was in those days, more than 1000 years ago, when scientists agreed with the words of ‘Umar and gave the corresponding fatwas) has an obvious harm to family life, and not good. I will assume criticism in my address regarding the argumentation of the opinion of the majority of scientists, and therefore I will immediately note that it is indirect, in contrast to the earlier hadith.
Collection of hadiths of Imam Muslim. See: an-Naisaburi M. Sahih Muslim [Code of Hadith of Imam Muslim]. Riyadh: al-Afkyar ad-davliya, 1998. S. 590, hadith No. 15–(1472); al-Nawawi Ya. Sahih Muslim bi sharh al-Nawawi [Collection of hadiths of Imam Muslim with comments by Imam al-Nawawi]. In 10 volumes, 18 hours. T. 5. Part 10. S. 70–72, hadith No. 15–(1472) and an explanation to it; al-Munziri Z. Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim. S. 246, hadith no. 850; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya. A'lam al-muwaqqi'in 'an rabb al-'alamin. In 4 volumes. Beirut: al-Kitab al-‘arabi, 1996. V. 3. S. 30, 31.
I note that there is an opinion not to consider such an innovative (bid‘ah) form of divorce as a divorce, to ignore and not take it into account. For more details about this opinion and its argumentation, see, for example: al-Nawawi Ya. Sahih Muslim bi sharh an-nawawi [Collection of Hadith of Imam Muslim with comments by Imam al-Nawawi]. In 10 volumes, 18 hours. T. 5. Part 10. S. 70; al-Kurtubi M. Al-Jami ‘li ahkyam al-kur’an [Code of establishments of the Koran]. In 20 vols. Beirut: al-Kutub al-‘ilmiya, 1988, vol. 18, p. 101.
See: as-Sabuni M. Mukhtasar tafsir ibn kasir [Abbreviated tafsir of Ibn Kasir]. In 3 volumes. Beirut: al-Kalam, [b. G.]. T. 1. S. 207.
The degree of authenticity of the hadith is low, but it is true in meaning, Muslim theologians took it into account. See: an-Nasai A. Sunan [Collection of Hadith]. Riyadh: al-Afkyar ad-davliya, 1999. S. 359, hadith No. 3401, “da‘if”; al-Sabuni M. Mukhtasar tafsir ibn kasir [Abbreviated tafsir of Ibn Kasir]. In 3 volumes. Beirut: al-Kalam, [b. G.]. T. 1. S. 207.
Funny jokes about divorce
- I I almost divorced my wife yesterday.
Why "slightly"?
- We had a fight, she said she was leaving, but before leaving she put on makeup for so long that she forgot where she was going ...
- Z Why are you buying your wife a new dress if you are going to divorce her?
- And in the old one she does not want to go to court!
R two get divorced. The judge asks the husband why he decided to divorce. He answered, hiding his eyes:
- Yes, she was a cold woman.
The wife, unable to bear this, shouts:
- I'm not a cold woman, just where I'm hot you can't get it.
- AT Are you happy in your family life?
- Oh yeah! We love each other so much that we've put off divorce three times already!
P yany husband returns home and yells:
- That's it, you got me! Divorce!
Wife, with a snake smile:
- Well, my dear, now I'll just go for the key!
- What?
- DIVORABLE!!!
- M I don't think my wife wants to divorce me.
- Why do you think so?
She brought her friend home yesterday!
- So what?
You have no idea how beautiful she is!
M You got divorced because of one of my phrases. During the scandal, Volodya threatened to spoil my life, and I told him that he could only spoil the air ...
FROM a divorce case is pending. Referee:
- Petitioner, explain why you want to dissolve the marriage?
- The fact is that my husband went out to buy cigarettes a year and a half ago in the evening, returned last week and gave me a row because of a cold dinner. . .
B cancerous process. The husband demands a divorce because of his wife's endless infidelities. The wife's lawyer advises her:
- Our strategy should be like this. You are a faithful wife. Deny everything, ask again every question and pretend that you are at all
you don't understand what it's about. I will give you signs.
Wife:
- I got it.
At the court. The husband's lawyer gets up and asks the question:
- Is it true that on June 12 of this year, in the pouring rain, you had sexual intercourse with a midget Giacomo from the Amaretto circus on a motorcycle moving along the main street at a speed of 100 km / h?
The wife's lawyer gives her an imperceptible nod.
Wife:
- I don't understand anything. What number do you say?
AND ena:
- I demand that we be divorced: my husband, without my knowledge, sold all the pans, and drank the money away.
Husband:
- I also ask you to separate us: the wife noticed the loss of pots only on the sixteenth day!
P After the divorce, my wife and I divided our house equally: she got the inside of it, and I got the outside.
- P why do people get divorced?
- Because weddings are played! And family life is not a toy!
- TO How did the Johnson divorce end?
- As expected. The husband got the car, the wife got the kids, and the lawyer got everything else as a fee.
P about statistics, a quarter of all divorces occur because the husband spends too little time with his wife; three quarters - because he spends too much time with her ...
To what The best way get rid of 70 kg of excess fat?
Get a divorce.
- P According to statistics, more than half of marriages end in divorce.
- What about the rest?
- Well, death.
- Mom, I don't want to get married!
BUT lawyer asks:
- What would you like to get after a divorce?
- I would like to have children, an apartment, a car and ... my ex-husband.
M The young couple applied to the judge for a divorce.
“But there was something about your husband, signora, that you liked.
Wife: It was, Signor Judge, it was! But I've spent everything!
BUT Alexander Druz is divorcing his wife. He asks: "Are you going to change your last name?" Wife: "No, better let's stay Friends"!
- P Why did you decide to divorce your wife, Mr. Jones?
- For humanitarian reasons, Your Honor.
- ???
- If I live with her for at least one more day, I will definitely strangle this bitch !!!
- P ap, when did you lose more money - during the last crisis, or the year before?
- During the divorce from your mother!!!
By the way, then I still did not understand why it is called DIVORCE ...
P divorce divorce, after the fifth, is no different from ...
P Before a wedding, you think that it can’t be better, before a divorce, that it can’t be worse. And every time you are wrong!
B cancerous process. The husband is asked:
- What is the reason for your divorce?
- We have different interests. She is interested in men, and I am interested in women!
- AT All your arguments are not sufficient for dissolution of marriage. You should
reconcile with your wife.
- This is too severe punishment, Mr. Judge.
- BUT Do you know what Seryoga did in the apartment? Linoleum glued to the ceiling. I stuck the wallpaper with the back side out. The walls in the bathroom were carpeted. And all in good conscience.
Has his roof been blown off?
- He's getting divorced. And this apartment goes to my wife and mother-in-law.
To the lawyer is approached by the client with a request to take over the conduct of the marriage and divorce proceedings.
- Why do you want to break up? the lawyer asks.
- I can't take it anymore. My wife has a bad habit of going to bed in the morning.
- What does she do all night?
- Waiting for me!
- P Why do you want to divorce your husband? the judge asks.
- We have different religious views.
- And more specifically?
- He does not recognize me as a goddess.
- P why do women get married?
- Lack of life experience.
- Why are they getting divorced?
- Lack of patience.
Why are they getting married again?
- Lack of memory.
P TV shows an interview with an elderly couple who recently celebrated their golden wedding. TV reporter asks grandfather a question:
- Tell me, have you ever had the thought of divorce during your life together?
- What are you, young man, how could you think such a thing! About murder - it happened more than once, but about divorce - never!
AND ena - husband:
I'm tired of being your maid! I'm filing for divorce!
- No, you're fired!
BUT Angelina Jolie is crazy! Imagine, she is divorcing Brad Pitt to adopt him.
AND A woman from the village came to file for divorce.
- Completely fucked me up! And give him at night, and in the morning, and after dinner... My strength is gone!
- Okay, we'll consider your appeal.
- Yes, she is so swollen that there is nothing to look at!
FROM the elastic couple bought a greenhouse, a stern uncle delivered it to the site. Husband asks:
- How long to collect it?
The stern uncle replies:
- My partner and I will collect in 6 hours, and you (gave them a look) - from two days to a divorce.
AND Jenna files for divorce.
- And what is your reason for divorce? the judge asks.
He makes me eat whatever I cook for him...
H Are you afraid to go to the side? What if the wife finds out? She's just a beast!
Deep breath:
- At best, file for divorce.
- I'm even afraid to ask what is the worst case.
- At worst, he won't.
90% people who send SMS to find out what awaits them: love, sex or divorce, learn another meaning of the word "divorce".
- T ebya, what, the wife in the sexual plan does not arrange?
- Arranges.
Why are you getting divorced then?
- So she not only suits me in this regard.
H the effervescent man always cleans the sugar bowl before putting in new sugar, the butter dish before putting in fresh butter, and diluting before bringing in a new woman.
H married unexpectedly. It turned out that getting divorced unexpectedly for oneself would not work.
- FROM listen, girlfriend, why are you getting divorced for the seventh time? Do some bastards come across?
- Not. I just love weddings.
P After a divorce from his wife, Seryoga single-handedly brings up and raises a beer belly. And on weekends, he even rides him on carousels and roller coasters.
NEW LITERARY REVIEW No. 112 (6/2011)
The work is a revised version of an article published in Italian in: Europa Orientalis. 2010. No. 29.
Anna is not to blame for the fact that she loves, but for the fact that, having opposed her love to society, at the same time she wants society to recognize her.
V. Shklovsky. "Lev Tolstoy"
One of the greatest mature creations of L.N. Tolstoy, "Anna Karenina" is not only a family and moral-philosophical, but also a social novel, reflecting the changes in Russian society in the second half of the 19th century. The changes that occurred as a result of the Great Reforms (the liberation of the peasants from serfdom, the crisis of the nobility as an estate, urbanization, the emergence of new professions, etc.), accompanied by the desire for Europeanization, the ideals of which penetrated society through romantic literature, as well as the development of women's education, led to the irreversible "breaking" of the institution of marriage, which, with the advent of a new class - the bourgeoisie - has undergone fundamental changes. Having played a role in these changes, literature turned - among other things - to describe the decay of the marriage institution and the emergence of new models of the family. There was a constant mutual exchange between literature and society, the “static character” of realism, understood as an accurate reflection of the surrounding reality, was overcome, and the “power effect” of literature over reality was created:
“The second half of the 18th and the first half of the 19th century gave women a special place in Russian culture, and this was due to the fact that the female character in those years, more than ever, was shaped by literature.”
This statement is especially true for Russia of the 19th century, where civil society has not yet developed as in other European countries, and social initiatives and movements have not been able to significantly influence public opinion; thus, the sphere of influence of fiction turned out to be very wide.
Institute of arranged marriage
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, tensions were concentrated in the family between the Orthodox Church, state power and the cultural elite, who realized that it was the family that was most important. effective tool to maintain social relations on which tsarist Russia rested. As a lawyer of the time wrote:
“Marriage is an institution made up of many elements - physical, moral, economic and legal communication of spouses.<...>Marriage is the main cell of the state, future citizens are brought up in marriage; disorder in the family is a sure harbinger of public and state disorder.
The model of marriage described in the novel Anna Karenina is captured at the time of the crisis experienced by this institution in the second half of the 19th century. We are talking about marriage by agreement, and not by mutual consent of the young, arranged by two families as a result of a trade deal or political alliance between them, sealed by marriage:
“In the first place at the conclusion of marriage were not the feelings or even the interests of the bride and groom, but the interests of two families, since marriage was an agreement not of two people - the bride and groom, but of two families, two clans. This approach to marriage was typical of the nobility, from the poor to the titled and imperial persons.
It was according to these rules that Anna's marriage was concluded, as we learn from the lips of her brother, Stepan Arkadyich:
“- I'll start over: you married a man who is twenty years older than you. You married without love or without knowing love” (T. 18: 449).
One of the articles of the Civil Code stated that the future spouse is chosen by the family: “6. It is forbidden to marry without the permission of parents, guardians and trustees.
In Anna Karenina, the essence of marriage of convenience is revealed in the words of Karenin, when he mentally prepares for a conversation with his wife, having learned about her betrayal:
“And in the head of Alexei Alexandrovich, everything that he would now say to his wife was clearly formed.<...>“I must say and express the following: first, an explanation of the meaning of public opinion and decency; secondly, a religious explanation of the meaning of marriage; thirdly, if necessary, an indication of a misfortune that could occur for the son; fourthly, an indication of her own misfortune ”” (T. 18: 152-153).
The novel offers detailed description marriage contract, which was in force among the Russian nobility, through various forms of the same model of marriage on the example of three couples: Dolly and Oblonsky, Kitty and Levin, Anna and Karenin. External differences between the first married couple and the second should not be misleading: if Dolly and Oblonsky literally embody the contractual model of marriage, then Kitty and Levin represent nothing more than its “ideal” version, which is just as dominated by patriarchal laws that define Levin's way of life and thinking, which Kitty passively accepts. The relationship between Anna and Karenin represents the final milestone, the turning point and the irretrievable departure from this form of marriage. In all cases, we are talking about a patriarchal family, the head of which is the pater familias: it is the main "dispositive" for maintaining and maintaining power in political, economic and cultural terms.
The significance of the marriage institution is fixed by strict ceremonial. It includes the rules of matchmaking, the meeting of the bride and groom, betrothal, marriage ceremony, dowry delivery. For these ceremonies, special places are provided where future marriages are arranged, balls are real “bride fairs”, which are characterized by a very complex ritual based on the real “grammar of the ball”. Each dance corresponds to certain types of small talk - it is not for nothing that Kitty expects her love dreams to come true in a mazurka:
“Vronsky went through several waltz rounds with Kitty. After the waltz, Kitty went up to her mother, and had hardly had time to say a few words to Nordston when Vronsky had already come to fetch her for the first quadrille. During the quadrille, nothing significant was said, there was an intermittent conversation. But Kitty didn't expect more from a quadrille. She waited with bated breath for the mazurka. It seemed to her that everything should be decided in the mazurka” (T. 18: 86).
During the ball, the main “staging” of the evening is played out, however, its characters are not the characters that the reader is waiting for, but Anna and Vronsky:
“Kitty, what is it? said Countess Nordston, walking silently across the carpet to her. - I do not understand this.
Kitty's lower lip trembled; she got up quickly.
Kitty, don't you dance the mazurka?
No, no,” said Kitty in a voice trembling with tears.
He called her to the mazurka in front of me,” Nordston said, knowing that Kitty would understand who he and she were ”(T. 18: 88).
Literary discourse could not ignore the wedding ceremony, and, consequently, it was assigned a significant place in the novel of the 19th century. Tolstoy, in describing the wedding of Kitty and Levin, gives such an abundance of details that this description occupies chapters I - VI of the fifth part of the novel. Here are just the highlights:
“Having decided to divide the dowry into two parts, a large and a small dowry, the princess [Shcherbatskaya] agreed to make the wedding before Lent. She decided that she would prepare a small part of the dowry all now, but she would send a large part later, and was very angry with Levin because he could not seriously answer her whether he agreed to this or not ”(T. 19: 3) .
“On the wedding day, Levin, according to custom (the princess and Darya Alexandrovna strictly insisted on the fulfillment of all customs), did not see his bride and dined at his hotel with three bachelors who accidentally gathered to him” (T. 19: 9).
“The whole of Moscow was in the church, relatives and friends. And during the ceremony of betrothal, in the brilliant illumination of the church, in a circle of dressed-up women, girls and men in white ties, tailcoats and uniforms, a decently quiet conversation did not stop, which was mainly started by men, while women were absorbed in observing all the details so always sacrament affecting them” (T. 19:21).
This rite goes deep into the past, according to it, the wedding of Kitty's mother was already performed:
“The princess herself got married thirty years ago, according to the courtship of her aunt. The groom, about whom everything was already known in advance, arrived, saw the bride, and they saw him; the matchmaker's aunt recognized and conveyed the mutually produced impression; the impression was good; then, on the appointed day, the expected proposal was made to the parents and accepted. Everything happened very easily and simply. At least, so it seemed to the princess ”(T. 18: 48).
Nevertheless, the first symptoms of the crisis of the traditional customs of the Russian nobility under the influence of European life make themselves felt. Other times have come, and the preparation of the daughter's wedding seems to pose new problems for Princess Shcherbatskaya:
“Today they don’t marry off like they used to,” thought and said all these young girls and all even old people. But how they get married now, the princess could not find out from anyone. The French custom - parents decide the fate of their children - was not accepted, condemned. The English custom - the perfect freedom of a girl - was also not accepted and impossible in Russian society. The Russian custom of courtship was considered something ugly, everyone laughed at it, including the princess herself. But no one knew how to marry and give in marriage” (T. 18: 49).
The patriarchal principle underlies this rite and the very institution of marriage of convenience.
patriarchal family
The laws regulating patriarchal intra-family relations were based on the power of the head of the family, on the institution of majorat, on the intervention of church jurisdiction in the regulation of marriage and family legal norms, and defined this form of family in the categories of authoritarianism, obedience, filial and daughter duty, and parental responsibilities. Legislation delimited the spheres of activity of men and women, entrusting the social, economic and socio-administrative spheres of family life to the man, and the home and household spheres to the woman. In fact, marriage transferred a woman from subordination to an arbitrary father to subordination to an arbitrary husband: her lot was the role of a faithful wife and a virtuous mother, unquestioningly fulfilling the will of her husband. Article 107 of the Civil Code reads:
“A wife is obliged to obey her husband, as the head of the family, to remain with him in love, respect and in unlimited obedience, to show him all pleasing and affection, as the mistress of the house.”
The law defines the role of the pater familias, whose duties include the care and maintenance of the family:
"106. The husband is obliged to love his wife as his own body, live in harmony with her, respect, protect, excuse her shortcomings and alleviate her infirmities. He is obliged to provide his wife with food and support according to his condition and ability.
Referring to these articles, the historian P.V. Bezobrazov says:
“The tone changes when the legislator passes from the husband to the wife, and this is not surprising: the cited articles of the current Code of Laws [of the Russian Empire] represent an almost literal repetition of the ancient law of Catherine’s times, which in turn bears clear traces of Byzantine views and the views of Domostroy” .
The significance of the family as a cell of power for tsarist Russia is confirmed by the norms of the judicial system, which, until 1917, classifies actions against the family (adultery, disobedience of children, arbitrariness and arbitrariness of parents) as criminal offenses.
Another important nuance is that the education system in Russia was poorly developed compared to the West; the function of upbringing and education was completely delegated to the family. This led to the fact that the family became an increasingly powerful and effective "disciplinary" tool. Both secular and ecclesiastical authorities pursue the same goal: to ensure the stability of the family; the state, recognizing marriage as a sacred sacrament, transfers the issues of marriage and divorce to the jurisdiction of the church, which, through the Holy Synod, decides on the possibility and timing of granting a divorce.
Termination of the marriage union thus becomes practically impossible, especially since Article 103 of the Civil Code obliges spouses to live together under the same roof, which makes it impossible to actually terminate cohabitation, mainly for a woman, even in cases of violence and abuse of her. Divorce by mutual consent of the spouses is recognized as contrary to the dogmas of the Christian religion, as well as harmful to public moral principles, and Article 46 of the Civil Code imposes a final ban on it:
“Unauthorized dissolution of a marriage without a trial, by mutual consent of the spouses, is in no case allowed. Equally, no obligations or other acts between the spouses are allowed, which include the condition for them to live in separation, or any other tending to break the marital union.
Russian law provides for a few grounds for divorce, notably adultery, the prolonged absence of one of the spouses, the presence of physical disabilities and, therefore, the inability to cohabit and exile in Siberia, as clearly stated in the dialogue between Karenin and his lawyer:
“Divorce under our laws,” he [the lawyer] said with a slight hint of disapproval of our laws, “is possible, as you know, in the following cases ...
<...>physical defects of the spouses, then an unknown five-year absence, - he said, bending a short finger overgrown with hair, - then adultery (he uttered this word with visible pleasure). The divisions are as follows<...>: physical defects of a husband or wife, then adultery of a husband or wife ”(T. 18: 387-388).
Even if adultery took place, the Holy Synod tried in every possible way to avoid dissolution of the marriage. This explains the fact that during the two decades preceding the abolition of serfdom, the Holy Synod granted only 11 divorce applications out of 35 per year, and also that after the reforms the number of divorces remained extremely low. Often, an alternative to divorce was separation, in which the spouses lived separately, officially married. But not only the legal normative code fiercely prevented divorce - the moral code helped him in this. The combination of these codes defines the life and behavior of Karenin. The betrayal of his wife puts him before a choice: a duel or divorce. Since he cannot boast of Vronsky's military dexterity, Karenin chooses the second option, but the fact that divorce is allowed only if the perpetrators of adultery are convicted at the crime scene jeopardizes his honor and leads him to refuse divorce as well:
“Having discussed and rejected the duel, Alexei Alexandrovich turned to divorce.
<...>In his own case, Aleksey Alexandrovich saw that it was impossible to achieve a legal divorce, that is, such a divorce, where only the guilty wife would be rejected. He saw that the difficult conditions of life in which he was, did not allow the possibility of those rough evidence that the law required to expose the criminality of his wife; I saw that the certain refinement of this life did not allow the use of these proofs, if they existed, that the use of these proofs would lower him in public opinion more than hers.
An attempt at divorce could only lead to a scandalous process, which would be a godsend for enemies, for slander and humiliation of his high position in the world ”(T. 18: 296-297).
Alexey Alexandrovich decides in favor of maintaining the status quo. Accepting the unwritten rules of marriage of convenience, which allowed one of the spouses to commit adultery, provided that he hides from society, Karenin decides to invite his wife to stop extramarital relations:
“I must announce my decision that, having considered the difficult situation in which she has placed the family, all other solutions will be worse for both parties than the external statu quo, and that such I agree to observe, but under a strict condition of execution on her part, my will, that is, the termination of relations with a lover ”(T. 18: 298).
It is at this moment that Anna's "shamelessness" manifests itself, which violates generally accepted behavioral norms, thereby asserting a new morality based on feelings, and refuses her husband's proposal. In the same way, she will subsequently refuse the divorce proposed by Karenin.
The plot role of divorce, which Anna initially refuses and which she subsequently longs for so much, which at first generously offers her Karenin and which he then decisively refuses to her, reflects not only the balance of power between the spouses, but also the real pressure that social order puts on mentality and life of people. Even the fearless Anna, in the face of society, is forced to give up her ideas and beg for a divorce, which becomes for her “a matter of life and death,” as is clear from the conversation between Karenin and Oblonsky:
“She gives everything to your generosity. She asks, begs for one thing - to get her out of the impossible situation in which she is. She no longer asks for a son. Alexey Alexandrovich, you kind person. Step into her position for a moment. The issue of divorce for her, in her position, is a matter of life and death ”(T. 19: 302).
However, the attitudes of the patriarchal society are so firmly rooted in Karenin's mind (especially after meeting with Lidia Ivanovna) that he does not live up to Anna's expectations: "The next day he [Oblonsky] received a positive refusal from Alexei Alexandrovich to divorce Anna" (T. 19: 318 ).
It is no coincidence that the theme of divorce has a special place in Tolstoy's novel; we are talking about a topical issue that affected the entire Russian society of that time and became the subject of heated discussions in the press. Lawyers of various persuasions took direct part in them; representatives of the liberal direction demanded the complete secularization of divorce.
Reforms and changes
The gradual disappearance of large private landholdings after the emancipation of peasants from serfdom, urbanization, the growth of handicraft production, the emergence of new professions, the emergence of the women's question, the modernization of the education system, the ideals of sentimentalism and romanticism, populist and radical ideas of the sixties and seventies - all these factors served as an impetus for profound social change.
The institution of the family was “infected” with new liberal ideals, which led to an increase in the number of divorces and separations. Economic growth and the emergence of women in the labor market have brought with them demands for greater independence for women outside the family and greater respect for her in the family circle; as a result, women start filing their husbands with the police, accusing them of drunkenness and abuse. The transformation of morals is also manifested in the methods of obtaining a divorce: adultery was often staged with bribery of eyewitnesses, or deceitful acts were committed, such as the fictitious disappearance of one of the spouses; all this went against the traditional noble morality.
Social transformations also affected the legal sphere. From now on, lawyers do not have to be large landowners from the nobility, they have a special professional education and require reform of the judicial system and the Civil Code:
“Civil law was an important link for the development and implementation of […] various ideological attitudes. The rules of family law and the rules governing property and inheritance rights were most suitable for this purpose in view of the specific and tangible role they played in the political, social and economic life of Russia.
The first significant change occurred in 1864 as a result of the reform of the judiciary, which really encroached on the foundations of Russian autocracy. The establishment of an independent judiciary, a court representing all sections of society without exception, the systematization of criminal proceedings, the creation of the institution of magistrates, the narrowing of the functions of the prosecutor's office in terms of oversight - all these innovations limited the absolute power of the state to some extent. The changes that have taken place in the judicial system have required rethinking, including the family way of life. Thus, the legislators sought to organize and streamline a new model of the family, which would more fully meet the requirements of the emerging class - the bourgeoisie, which was more and more noticeably guided by the "ideal of feelings":
"Now the family is seen as a union of individuals, in which mutual feelings and the nature of relationships determine a certain combination of individual rights and mutual duties."
The attitude towards a woman is changing, who can now start a professional activity without the consent of her husband, and the attitude towards children, who, having reached the age of majority, enjoy greater freedom than before, is also changing. Illegitimate children may finally be legalized, although the problem of children born out of wedlock remains a heavy burden on Russian society at the end of the 19th century.
This problem was also reflected in Anna Karenina. The daughter, born from the connection between Anna and Vronsky, will bear the surname Karenina, which causes disappointment and despair of the father and puts the issue of divorce on the agenda:
“We have a child, we may have more children. But the law and all the conditions of our position are such that there are thousands of complications, which she now, resting her soul after all sufferings and trials, does not see and does not want to see. And this is understandable. But I can't help but see. My daughter, by law, is not my daughter, but Karenina. I don't want this cheat! he said with an energetic gesture of denial, and looked gloomily inquiringly at Darya Alexandrovna.
She [Daria Alexandrovna] did not answer anything and only looked at him.
He continued:
And tomorrow a son will be born, my son, and according to the law he is Karenin, he is not the heir to either my name or my fortune, and no matter how happy we are in the family and no matter how many children we have, there is no connection between me and them . They are Karenins. You understand the burden and horror of this situation! (T. 19: 202).
The backwardness of the judiciary forced many lawyers to look for new family models; We find confirmation of this judgment in the words of the liberal Mikhail Filippov:
“The family union is the basis of the public and state: the state of members receives from it, the good and public peace depend on its perfection; in a word, the family union is the cornerstone of the state.
That is why, continues Filippov, legislators should strengthen the rights and obligations that naturally follow from family relations. Paradoxically, the lawyer's defense of divorce is aimed at strengthening the institution of the family, he is firmly convinced that the marriage bond, based on feelings and mutual respect, becomes stronger if the right to separation and separation of spouses is allowed by law:
“Admission of divorce, in our opinion, is a guarantee of marital morality, a measure to force both parties to fulfill their duties sacredly and inviolably.<...>Such an important institution as marriage, in which many of the most important rights and duties of a person lie, in which most of his spiritual forces are concentrated, requires meek laws, based on love and mercy.
Russian lawyers turn to the experience of their Western colleagues, who oppose authoritarianism, disregard for feelings, and promiscuous sex life outside of marriage with a more orderly model - the bourgeois one. Equality and mutual love should reign in the new union. The introduction of a new element into the model - feelings between spouses - is accompanied by a call for normalized sexuality, which henceforth should be realized exclusively within the family and which is carefully studied and controlled by specialists in the field of medicine, pedagogy, criminology and law, who are trying to radically transform its essence and functions. . Behind the liberalization shift that followed the reforms lie transformations aimed at establishing new power relations.
In particular, the heated debate between liberal, populist, and conservative jurists, although proceeding from different points of view, reveals a commonality of intentions: the institution of marriage as such is not the subject of attack. On the contrary, representatives of the opposing trends are concerned about the possibility of weakening this institution and are striving to improve legal norms so that the marriage institution becomes more stable and stronger. In order to facilitate the transition to the new model, progressive and populist jurists insist on facilitating the process of separation and dissolution of the marital union. The reaction that followed the assassination of Alexander II was manifested, among other things, in the fact that the state, the church and conservative lawyers fought to maintain the status quo, fearing a violation of social and political stability as a result of family reform. During the reign of Alexander III, the main ideologists with influence in government circles were Konstantin Pobedonostsev and Mikhail Katkov, editor of the Russkiy vestnik, champion of centralized and unlimited autocracy. With their help, a number of counter-reforms were carried out aimed at eliminating the consequences of judicial reform. Pobedonostsev's views on marriage issues are reflected in his "Course civil law»; Katkov, through his journal, spreads ideas that, after the Polish uprising of 1863, become more and more conservative.
Despite the slowdown caused by pressure from above, the process of modernization and secularization of law is progressing thanks to the activities of the Minister of Justice Dmitry Nabokov, who is carrying out the reform of the Civil Code, adhering to the reformist program formulated in 1864, and embarking on the reform of the Criminal Code (completed in 1903). In 1884, the State Council instructs the Ministry of Justice to revise the divorce laws, and in 1897, the commission to reform the Civil Code presents new project, which, although it does not completely eliminate all vestiges of the patriarchal way of life, but significantly undermines the absolute power of the pater familias. The presented draft discusses the issues of divorce and separation, but does not address the issue of their secularization. So, back in 1909, the lawyer Vasily Maksimov states:
"Representatives of the most diverse parties and trends agree that, of course, it is necessary to remove the divorce process from the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts and that the grounds for divorce provided for in modern legislation are insufficient and do not meet the requirements of life."
This opinion is also shared by lawyer Viktor Dobrovolsky, who comes to the conclusion that the proposed reform project is far from simplifying divorce proceedings and only aggravates its inconsistency with the requirements of reality:
“If anyone expected that the projected reform would facilitate divorce, he would be bitterly disappointed: on the contrary, apparently, the drafters of the project not only do not facilitate the possibility of divorce, but try to make it unattainable.”
Only beginning in 1905 did a new political period begin, accompanied by a cultural upsurge. Pobedonostsev leaves the stage, and the Holy Synod adopts the draft reform, which he so zealously opposed. Again, we can only talk about the incomplete success of the liberals, since the final version of March 12, 1914 still rejects the term “separation or separation” and uses the following wording: “a law on certain changes and additions to existing laws on the personal and property rights of married women and about the relationship of spouses to each other and to children. However, the abolition of the legal provision that a woman could not have a passport and therefore could not obtain a residence permit without the consent of her husband makes it possible to end cohabitation and separate the spouses by mutual consent. At the same time, the law of 1914 was a partial defeat for liberal and secular forces, since it still recognized that the family rests on church principles, and the Orthodox faith continued to serve as the basis of secular power.
On the way to the bourgeois family model
A child of the social upheavals of the second half of the 19th century, Tolstoy's novel predicts a transition from marriage of convenience to marriage of love, which will occur at the turn of the century, when the patriarchal family type is replaced by a model of a small family, gradually recognizing the individuality of its members. Historian and lawyer Maxim Kovalevsky defines this model as a family core, which is governed by the duties and mutual feelings of the spouses, and not by the unlimited and absolute power of the father:
“The restriction of paternal and marital arbitrariness, the expansion of the rights of the wife and the protection of children's interests, by no means serving to the death of the family, only raised its moral level. Everywhere it has either already become, or is striving to become an arena for the manifestation of our most noble and sublime feelings.
New model marriage is designed to satisfy the sphere of feelings and puts into practice completely new arrangements, such as the “dispositive of sexuality” (as defined by M. Foucault):
"It can be assumed that sexual relations in every society they gave place to a kind of arrangement of the matrimonial union: the system of marriage, the establishment and expansion of family ties, the transfer of names and property.<...>Modern Western societies have invented and put into use, especially since the 18th century, a kind of new device that is superimposed on the first and, without abolishing it, contributes to a decrease in its significance. This is the dispositive of sexuality.”
If the “dispositive of marital union” pursues mainly the goal of reproducing the game of relationships and maintaining the laws that govern them, then for the “dispositive of sexuality” the main ones are “bodily sensations, the quality of pleasures, the nature of impressions”. Feelings and desires can now find expression in the family circle, which becomes the "theatre" of new confrontations.
“This coupling of the arrangement of matrimony and the arrangement of sexuality in the form of a family makes it possible to understand a number of facts: that the family has become, since the 18th century, the place of the obligatory presence of affects, feelings and love.”
This does not mean that the emotional and sensual side of marital relations freed family members from any form of contract: it only changed its conditions. Feelings and pleasures have been added to family relations, and all this is guided by a new logic of power.
“The family is the point of exchange between sexuality and matrimony: it transfers the law and the dimension of the juridical into the arrangement of sexuality; and it also transfers the economics of pleasure and the intensity of sensations into the routine of marriage.
Marriage of convenience did not include birth control; abortion was punishable under the Criminal Code. This phenomenon occurs only with new form families; in the following conversation between Anna and Dolly, the first “sprouts” of a new female worldview are observed:
“Well, and the most legitimate thing is that he [Vronsky] wants your children to have a name.
What are the children? said Anna, not looking at Dolly and screwing up her eyes.
Annie and the future...
He can be calm, I will not have more children.
How can you say that it won't?
It won't, because I don't want it.
And, despite all her excitement, Anna smiled, noticing the naive expression of curiosity, surprise and horror on Dolly's face.
The doctor told me after my illness...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Can't be! Dolly said, opening her eyes wide. For her, this was one of those discoveries, the consequences and conclusions of which are so enormous that at the first minute it is only felt that it is impossible to figure everything out, but that a lot and a lot will have to be thought about.
This discovery, which suddenly explained to her all those families incomprehensible to her before, in which there were only one and two children, aroused in her so many thoughts, considerations and conflicting feelings that she could not say anything and only looked with wide eyes in surprise. to Anna. It was the very thing she had dreamed of even today, dear, but now, having learned that it was possible, she was horrified. She felt that it was too simple a solution to a too complex issue.
N'est ce pas immoral? - she only said after a pause ”(T. 19: 213-214).
Anna anticipates an era in which the worldview and behavior of women is changing, their attitude towards children becomes different: the number of newborns is decreasing, the number of illegitimate births is increasing, women are beginning to oppose family life with their private life. They get the right to choose their future spouse or choose another path, like the heroine of Chekhov's story "The Bride" (1903), who, choosing between marriage and studying at the university, prefers studying.
Thus, with more than a century delay compared to Western Europe, in Russia at the turn of the century, new family with new functions, with new external and internal connections. Members of this family are connected by mutual feelings, relations between spouses take precedence over their relations with relatives and society, she is less patriarchal and authoritarian, more emancipated in matters of sex (which is increasingly being done “within” marriage) and birth control, she is more attentive to children - this is a "private" and not a "public" family, while remaining the point of intersection of various power relations.
Literature and society
These changes raise questions. What role did literature play in the process of transformation and, above all, to what extent did the novel Anna Karenina contribute to the birth of the bourgeois model of the family? To what extent did the novel influence the withering away of marriage of convenience, and to what extent did the decline of this institution cause Anna's suicide? How did Anna's words facilitate the transition to love marriage, and how did her betrayal undermine the foundations of arranged marriage?
A fruitful exchange between literature and society has long dominated Russian culture. As in Western Europe, in Russia the idea of a family based on feelings first penetrated society through romantic literature. According to Yu.M. Lotman, novels “break into” everyday life and reality, influencing the way of thinking and mores of society:
“It was not the reality of the West that acted as a “European enlightenment”, but ideas inspired by novels.
We are hungry to know life in advance,
And we recognize it in the novel.
Thus, novelistic situations invaded that Russian way of life, which was recognized as "enlightened" and "Western".
It is through literature that a woman imperceptibly enters society and acquires a special, in comparison with a man, role.
In the thirties of the 19th century, a new female image enters Russian society through the works of George Sand and influences the formation of the mentality of new generations: “Georgesand's idealization of a woman and the apotheosis of love had a beneficial effect on softening our feelings and family relations,” says the historian of that time. Poets (A. Maikov, N. Grekov, A. Fet, Y. Polonsky) sing odes of romantic love, contributing to the formation of a new ideal of a family based on feelings. The literature of the forties and fifties raises the women's question: "The novelists were the first to give the women's question the right of citizenship in literature and popularize it in society." Such works as the novel by A. Herzen "Who is to blame?" (1847), the stories of A. Druzhinin "Polenka Saks" (1847) and Leon Brandi (pseudonym L. Mechnikov) "The Bold Step" (1863) have a great influence on the generally accepted way of thinking of Russian society.
The formation of Anna's personality also takes place against the background of acquaintance with new literature: we read about this already in the early edition of the novel, in which Tolstoy clarifies that the heroine "was not reading novels ... but fashionable serious books." In its final version, Anna reads fundamental works, such as The Origin of Modern France by Hippolyte Taine. Knowledge of these writings could be one of the reasons for her rebellion, her "shamelessness."
In the literary-centric Russian society, the mutual exchange between literature and non-literary reality becomes a kind of movement in a circle in which it is almost impossible to distinguish cause from effect. Literary discourse breaks into the minds of readers and penetrates into studies that offer a new vision of the marriage contract and a new role for women, and at the same time enriches itself and “multiplies” through stories about adulterous wives.
This is evidenced by the heated discussions that accompanied the publication of Anna Karenina. The publication of the novel in separate issues incites controversy, which becomes more and more fiery and reaches its climax with the release of its last part. It is not published, like the previous ones, in the Russkiy vestnik, but comes out as a separate edition due to Tolstoy's refusal to make changes to parts of the text relating to the question of the war in Serbia, and Katkov's refusal to publish the eighth part of the novel in his journal.
Anna Karenina becomes the literary event of the year. Critics unanimously declare that “the largest of the literary facts of the past year is, without a doubt, the new, yet unfinished novel of Count L.N. Tolstoy"; “Since the appearance of War and Peace, almost all reading Russia has been looking at gr. Tolstoy as our first writer - and it is not surprising that each of his new words is expected with excitement and is met with delight ”; “There hasn’t been such a fuss in conveying this literary news [“Anna Karenina”] to readers in our journalism for a long time.”
The novel becomes one of the main topics of salon discussions; it is evaluated from liberal and conservative positions. Liberals and populists disapprove of Tolstoy, as he turned to the idyll of high secular society after the innovative coverage of history and the primary role of the people in War and Peace, conservatives are disappointed by the novel's worldly theme, Tolstoy's anti-Slavophile stance, and the lack of philosophical depth in the main theme. Even progressive critics do not catch the novelty in the novel, which consists in the exposure of the social institution of marriage, condemned to disappear, called to give way to a new reality. In particular, the populist revolutionary P. Tkachev publishes two articles in the journal Delo devoted to Anna Karenina, in the first of which, following the publication of the first two parts of the novel, he sharply criticizes Tolstoy for inattention to the social movements of his time and excessive focus on personal, family and sexual relationships:
“The creator of Anna Karenina, who, according to his artistic and philosophical theory, does not see any interest in the general phenomena of life that go beyond sexual, personal and family relations, feeds his work only with these latter, because they alone, in his opinion, are the initial and ultimate goal of existence.
Tkachev blames the writer for describing the noble environment, occupied exclusively with love affairs: “Everything that goes beyond the limits of the sexual sphere is for them something external, formal, not connected by any internal connection with their life.” He does not realize that Tolstoy exposes the cracks that have formed in the noble family structure, and, denying the truth of Vronsky's feelings, he does not notice that it is precisely in them that the break with the past consists and that Vronsky's love for Karenina is not an ordinary passion to which society is accustomed. that time:
“Everyone, his [Vronsky's] mother, his brother, everyone found it necessary to interfere in his heart affairs.<...>“If it was an ordinary vulgar secular connection, they would leave me alone. They feel that this is something else, that this is not a toy, this woman is dearer to me than life.<...>No, they need to teach us how to live. They have no idea what happiness is, they don’t know that without this love for us there is neither happiness nor unhappiness - there is no life, ”he thought” (T. 18: 193).
In this triumph of feelings, the critic sees not a sign of a new era, but exclusively the egoism and stupidity of the Russian nobility. In the following article, published after the publication of the novel in a separate edition, Tkachev calls it a frivolous work in which the only life character is Levin, and all other characters are ghostly puppets, obeying the requirements of the plot, built around the voluptuous love of Anna and Vronsky in order to please the tastes of the salon public; in this case, Tkachev turns out to be the spokesman for all contemporary populist and liberal criticism.
Despite the fact that the topic of adultery, at first glance, is not at the center of the discussion, in all reviews one can feel the desire to give a moral assessment of Anna. She is unanimously recognized as the personification of passion, feelings that deprive her of reason, and her actions are disapproved, they are reconciled with them only because, thanks to the skill of the author, Anna becomes the greatest female image:
“What kind of woman Anna is, what individual qualities her nature is made up of, cannot be determined. She is all - direct charm, direct passion, not giving anyone an account and inconsistent in its manifestations.<...>And why should you judge? Let Anna, with her sin, with her charming frivolity, her terrible absurd death, remain a mystery to us, like any human being we meet in life.<...>The image of Anna left behind all the female figures created by other artists, with the only exception, perhaps, of Goethe's Margaret.
In the end, adultery fades into the background, and the skill of the author comes to the fore, who portrayed “his” Anna in tones that evoke the sympathy of readers. Moralizing criticism will henceforth be heard in an undertone until the appearance of the Kreutzer Sonata, when a wave of indignation will fall upon Tolstoy (mainly from the Orthodox Church). The image of Anna enters the collective imagination, becomes a subject for reflection of the entire Russian society.
Prose revolving around the theme of adultery reaches its peak in the 19th century, when the illusion of the possibility of combining calculation and feelings is crushed by the duality of love and passion. In fiction, a number of images of hero-lovers appear ("Elective Affinity" by Goethe, 1809; "Madame Bovary" by Flaubert, 1857; "The Scarlet Letter" by Hawthorne, 1850), who renounce virtue, from family, from marriage of convenience in favor of feelings . Philosopher D. de Rougemont argues that the crisis of the marriage institution provides food for literature, and asks the question: “If adultery did not exist, then what would happen to all our literature?” Mikhail Abrashkevich, not without annoyance and disappointment, says:
“In modern literature, reflecting such a sad life, it is difficult to find a work that would not touch, one way or another, on the issue of adultery. The most eminent of the latest novelists, publicists, psychologists, philosophers of all trends and shades tirelessly exercise their strength and refine their wit on this living but sick subject, rotating it in all directions, illuminating it from all sides, recommending directly or indirectly various methods of resolution this growing problem.
Tolstoy follows closely French literature, which, beginning with the epistolary novel Les Liaisons Dangerous by Choderlos de Laclos (1782), has carefully studied the subject; Anna Karenina refers repeatedly to Rousseau and French prose of the two decades prior to its writing; in France, the novel is perceived as part of an autochthonous literary tradition. But Tolstoy follows not only prose, but also essays, it was during the years of writing the novel that he read the book by Alexandre Dumas Jr. (Dumas the son) “Man-woman, answer to d'Ideville” (1872), an essay on the issue of adultery, in which the death penalty is proposed as punishment for this crime, and which becomes a source of deep reflection for Tolstoy. At the same time, it is known that the idea of "Anna Karenina" was born under the influence of a re-read passage from Pushkin's story "Guests came to the dacha ...". In a letter to N.N. Tolstoy tells Strakhov:
“There is an excerpt “The guests were going to the dacha ...”. I involuntarily, inadvertently, without knowing why and what would happen, conceived faces and events, began to continue, then, of course, changed, and suddenly it started so beautifully and coolly that a novel came out ... "
Tolstoy's novel belongs to the layer of prose of the 19th century, reflecting the decomposition of marriage bonds and the reduction of male power, it notes the emergence of new relations between the sexes. "Anna Karenina" is at the crossroads of two cultures: European and Russian, from an ordinary family romance it becomes a "seismograph" of the institution of marriage and contributes to a real turning point in the Russian worldview.
Per. from Italian. L. Beskrovnoy
________________________________________
1) The work is a revised version of an article published in Italian in: Europa Orientalis. 2010. No. 29.
2) Lotman Yu. Women's World // He. Conversations about Russian culture. SPb.: Art-SPb., 1994. S. 64.
3) Zagorovsky A. Course of family law. M.: Mirror, 2003. S. 75-76. For a bibliography of the evolution of the family in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, see: Veremenko V. Spousal relations in noble families in Russia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries: stages of evolution // Social History (2008). St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2009. S. 47-66; Goncharov Yu. Urban family of Siberia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Barnaul: Publishing House of Altai University, 2002 (http://new.hist.asu.ru/biblio/gon1/ (07.05.2010)).
4) Mironov B. Social history of Russia in the period of the Empire (XIX - early XX century). St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1999. T. 1. S. 259.
5) The novel "Anna Karenina" is quoted by: Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. cit.: In 90 volumes. Reprint of the edition of 1928-1958. M.: Terra, 1992. T. 18-19. Subsequent references to this edition are given in the text by volume and page.
6) Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (1910). T. 10. P. 1 (http://civil.consultant.ru/reprint/books/211 (21.03.2010)).
7) Lotman Yu. Matchmaking. Marriage. Divorce // He. Decree. op. pp. 103-122. Wed See also: Pushkareva N. Private life of a Russian woman: bride, wife, mistress (X - early XIX century). M.: Ladomir, 1997. S. 148-173.
8) Lotman Yu. Bal // He. Decree. op. S. 91.
9) The rules of the ceremony were so strictly defined that Strakhov wrote to Tolstoy in order to point out to him two errors in the description of the wedding and betrothal of Kitty and Levin (Gudziy N. The history of writing and printing "Anna Karenina" // Tolstoy L.N. Decree op. T. 20. S. 620-621).
10) Regarding the “history of women” in Russia, we refer to the works of N.L. Pushkareva and the bibliography given in them: Pushkareva N. Women in Russian History. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1997; And these sins are evil, mortal ... / N. Pushkareva, L. Bessmertnykh. Comp. M.: Ladomir, 2004. Book. 3; Pushkareva N.L. Russian woman: history and modernity. M., 2002; She is. The private life of a Russian woman.
11) Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. T. 10. S. 12.
12) Ibid.
13) Bezobrazov P.V. On the rights of women. M.: Dawn, 1895. S. 2.
14) Goncharov Yu. Social development of Russia in the XVIII - early XX century // Family in the perspective of social knowledge. Barnaul: Azbuka, 2001. P. 29. On the legislation governing the issues of adultery, see: Abrashkevich M. Adultery from the point of view of criminal law. Historical and dogmatic research // And behold sins are evil, mortal ... Book. 3. S. 383 - 504.
15) Mironov B. Decree. op. T. 1. S. 265 - 266.
16) From the time of Peter I and until 1805, decisions related to divorce issues were made by the diocesan authorities; since 1805, all cases of divorce were submitted to the Synod for consideration and approval. The Charter of the Spiritual Consistory of 1841 and the Decree on Marriage Matters of 1850 define the rules of church jurisdiction over marriage matters and the limitations of secular jurisdiction in this regard (see: Pobedonostsev K. Course of civil law. St. Petersburg: Tip. A. Kraevsky. 1871. T. 2. S. 75).
17) Bezobrazov P.V. Decree. op. pp. 3-8.
18) Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. T. 10. S. 5.
19) See Article 45 of the Civil Code (Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Vol. 10, p. 5); For divorce, see: Sposobin A. About divorce in Russia. M.: Type. M.N. Lavrova, 1881; Kavelin K. Ethnography and jurisprudence. Part IV. Civil Code // He. Sobr. op. T. 4. S. 1066-1083; Zagorovsky A. On divorce under Russian law // And these are evil, mortal sins .... Book. 3. S. 7-330; Zagorovsky A. Decree. op.; Kulisher M. Divorce and the status of women. SPb.: Type. B. Wolf, 1896.
20) “According to the charter of our spiritual consistories, the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses must be recognized as the main evidence of the crime [adultery].<...>. In essence, all the evidence admitted in the consistory court is currently reduced to one evidence - the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses ”(Kulischer M. Decree. Op. P. 84).
21) Wagner W. Marriage, Property, and Law in Late Imperial Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. P. 69.
22) Mironov B. Decree. op. T. 1-2; Engel B. Between the Fields and the City. Women, Work, and Family in Russia, 1861-1914. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Ransel D. The Family in Imperial Russia. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978.
23) If in the period from 1841 to 1850 the church gave about 77 divorces a year (the total Orthodox population was then about 43 million people), then after the reforms, in the period from 1867 to 1886, the approximate annual number of divorces increased to 847 ( see: B. Mironov, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 176). See also the data given in: Belyakova E. Church marriage and divorce in Russia in the 19th century. // Motherland. 2002. No. 7. (http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=1329&n=72 (26.3.2010)).
24) If in 1867 the number of divorces due to adultery was 2%, then in 1886 it increased to 12.7%, and in the period from 1905 to 1913 - up to 97.4% (Veremenko V. op. op. C .63). On the practice of obtaining a divorce through perjury, see Trokhina T. Piquant situations: some reflections on divorce in Russia at the end of the 19th century. // Family in the perspective of social knowledge. pp. 82-96.
25) Wagner W. Op. cit. P. 13-36. In this work, discussions of lawyers about family and marriage are reproduced in detail (pp. 101-137).
27) Filippov M. Judicial reform in Russia. SPb.: Type. Tushnova, 1871-1875. T. 1-2; Popova A. The Judicial Reform of 1864 and the Development of Civil Society in the Second Half of the 19th Century // Social Sciences and Modernity. 2002. No. 3. (http://www.ecsocman.edu.ru/images/pubs/2004/04/23/0000155978/8'POPOWA.pdf (26.3.2010)).
28) Wagner W. Op. cit. P. 103.
29) In St. Petersburg in 1867, 4305 illegitimate births (22.3% of newborns) were registered, in 1889 they become 7907 (27.6%) (see: Belyakova E. op. cit.; see also: Mironov B op. op. vol. 1, pp. 182-183).
30) Filippov M. A look at Russian civil laws // Sovremennik. 1861. No. 3. S. 265.
31) Ibid. pp. 552-553.
32) See: Engelstein L. The Keys to Hapiness. Sex and Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siècle Russia. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1994.
33) Pobedonostsev K. Decree. op. T. 2. S. 10-109. This three-volume work is a course of lectures delivered by Pobedonostsev at Moscow University. The first volume, devoted to patrimonial rights, was published in 1868, seven years later the second was published, devoted to family, inheritance and testamentary rights, and in 1891 the third, entitled "Contracts and Obligations."
34) The reforms of these codes, begun under Alexander III, were suspended by Nicholas II.
35) See: Dobrovolsky V. Marriage and divorce. St. Petersburg: Typography "Trud", 1903. S. 232-238.
36) Laws on divorce of Orthodox and non-Orthodox confessions and on separation spouses / V. Maksimov. Comp. M.: Lawyer, 1909. S. 9. The process of developing this project is described in detail in: Gessen I. Separate residence of spouses. Law March 12, 1914 ... St. Petersburg: Pravo, 1914. S. 1-14.
37) Dobrovolsky V. Decree. op. S. 242; a similar opinion is expressed by V. Maksimov (Laws on Divorce ... p. 13).
38) Gessen I. Decree. op. S. 15.
39) The law of 1914 states: “Married women, regardless of their age, have the right to receive separate residence permits without asking for the consent of their husbands” (Ibid., p. 153).
40) Ibid. pp. 11, 50-53, 153-160; The rights of married women // Women's Bulletin. 1914. No. 4. S. 116.
41) Wagner W. Op. cit. P. 138-205.
42) Kovalevsky M. Essay on the origin and development of family and property. M.: KomKniga, 2007. S. 123.
43) Foucault M. The Will to Truth: Beyond Knowledge, Power and Sexuality. Works of different years. M.: Castal, 1996. S. 207.
44) Ibid. S. 208.
45) Ibid. S. 210.
46) Ibid. It must be clarified that Foucault's analysis, according to which the family is one of the most important "disciplinary" institutions in Western Europe, does not take into account Russian reality. For the application of Foucault's model to the history of sexuality in Russia, see: Engelstein L. Op. cit.
47) “But the time has come, I realized that I can no longer deceive myself, that I am alive, that I am not guilty, that God made me such that I need to love and live” (T. 18: 308 - 309).
48) Lawyer Abrashkevich states: “Marriage is an institution organized by the state in its own, state interests; the strength and strength of the state is based on the firmness of family principles; it is important for him to maintain the integrity of the family. Adultery is an encroachment on the foundations of the marriage union ”(M. Abrashkevich, decree. Op. P. 498).
49) Historian L. Stone describes a similar situation in England as follows: “After 1780 romantic love and the novel develop simultaneously, and it is impossible to establish which of them was the cause and which was the effect. We can only say that for the first time in history, romantic love is becoming a serious motive for marriage among the wealthy, and novels literally filled the libraries of England - novels devoted to the very theme of love "(Stone L. Famiglia, sesso e matrimonio in Inghilterra fra Cinque e Ottocento, Torino: Einaudi, 1983, pp. 315 - 316).
50) Lotman Yu. Matchmaking. Marriage. Divorce. P. 104. See also: Pushkareva N. Private life of a Russian woman. pp. 174-190.
51) Shashkov S. Essay on the history of Russian women. SPb.: Publishing house Shigin, 1872. S. 214. See also: Ogorovich Ya. Woman in law. SPb.: Ed. Kantorovich, 1900. S. 83 - 86.
52) Shashkov S. Decree. op. S. 218.
53) Ibid. pp. 214-228.
54) Zhdanov V., Zaydenshnur E. The history of the creation of the novel "Anna Karenina" // Tolstoy L. Anna Karenina. A novel in eight parts. M.: Nauka, 1970. S. 829.
55) “She sat in the living room, under the lamp, with the new book of Taine and read” (T. 19: 244). Since the first part of the work devoted to the historical origins of modern France, under the title "L'Ancien Régime", was published in 1876, and Tolstoy worked on the sixth chapter of the novel at the end of 1876, it is generally accepted that it is this work that is discussed in the novel ( See: V. Zhdanov, E. Zaidenshnur, op. cit., p. 829).
56) Due to the fact that in this article we are not able to provide an exhaustive bibliography on the topic of adultery in European literature, we will mention the following fundamental works: De Rougemont D. L "Amour et I" Occident. Paris: Plon, 1972; Tanner T. Adultery in the Novel: Contract and Transgression. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.
57) The novel was published in Russkiy Vestnik in 1875-1877; the last part of it appeared as a separate issue in the summer of 1887. AT next year almost simultaneously, two editions of the novel in three volumes are published, the only ones that will be printed during the author's lifetime (Gudziy N. Preface to the eighteenth and nineteenth volumes // Tolstoy L.N. Complete collection of works. P. 7-9; He. The history of the writing and printing of Anna Karenina, pp. 635-643; V. Zhdanov, E. Zaidenshnur, op. cit., p. 832). The reflection of Tolstoy's disputes with the editors of the "Russian Messenger" is found in the writer's letters: Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. op. T. 62. S. 329-332.
58) Avseenko V. Literary review // Russian Bulletin. No. 1. 1876 // Russian critical literature about the works of L.N. Tolstoy / V. Zelinsky (comp.) M .: type. Vilde, 1912. S. 209.
59) Solovyov Vs. Modern Literature // Russian World. 1876. No. 46. // Russian critical literature about the works of L.N. Tolstoy. pp. 213-214.
60) Z. Z. Z. [C. Gertso-Vinogradsky] Literary and social notes // Odessa Bulletin. 1875. No. 69 // Russian critical literature on the works of L.N. Tolstoy. S. 71.
61) These discussions are meaningful and interesting, but they cannot be reflected in this article. However, we set ourselves the task of studying this issue in a separate study. The most important articles published between 1875 and 1876 were collected by V. Zelinsky; for others, see: Count L.N. Tolstoy in literature and art / Yu. Bitovt (comp.) M .: Type. tv-va I.D. Sytina, 1903, pp. 126-133.
62) Markov V. Artistic and conservative novel // He. Towards. St. Petersburg: Tipo-lit. A.E. Landau, 1878, pp. 404-449; The casual reader. Thoughts on the current literature // Birzhevye Vedomosti. 1875. No. 77 // Russian critical literature on the works of L.N. Tolstoy. pp. 62-70.
63) Sine ira [Soloviev Sun]. Our magazines // St. Petersburg Vedomosti. 1875. No. 65. // Russian critical literature about the works of L.N. Tolstoy. pp. 84-93.
64) Dostoevsky F.M. Writer's diary. 1877 // He. Sobr. cit.: In 15 vols. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1995. T. 14. S. 227-263; Katkov M. What happened after the death of Anna Karenina // Russian Bulletin. 1877. No. 7. S. 448-462.
65) Nikitin P. [Tkachev P.] Critical feuilleton // Delo. 1875. No. 5. S. 27.
66) Ibid. S. 28.
67) Nikitin P. [Tkachev P.] Decree. op. pp. 37-39.
68) He is. Salon art // Delo. 1878. No. 2. S. 346-368; 1878. No. 4. S. 283-326.
69) Golovin K. Russian novel and Russian society. SPb.: Ed. A.F. Marx, 1904. S. 374-375.
70) “My Anna bored me like a bitter radish. I deal with her as with a pupil who turned out to be of a bad character; but don’t talk bad about her to me, or, if you like, then with ménagement, she is still adopted ”(L.N. Tolstoy. Letter to A.A. Tolstoy dated March 8 - 12, 1876 // He. Full. collected works T. 62. S. 257).
71) De Rougemont D. L'amore e l'Occidente. Eros, morte e abbandono nella letteratura europea. Milano: Rizzoli, 1998. P. 61.
72) Abrashkevich M. Decree. op. S. 492.
73) Meyer P. How the Russians Read the French. Madison. Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 2008. P. 152-209.
74) Among the works that influenced Tolstoy, one should include the unfinished epistolary novel by J.-J. Rousseau "Emile et Sophie ou Les solitaires Paris" (written in 1762) and, of course, G. Flaubert's novel "Madam Bovary", which Tolstoy mentions in a letter to his wife dated April 19, 1892: "...Flaubert M-me Bovary has great dignity and not for nothing is famous among the French ”(L.N. Tolstoy. Letter dated April 19, 1892 // He. Complete. Collected works. T. 84. P. 138).
75) See: Eikhenbaum B. Works about Leo Tolstoy. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2009. S. 641. 76) See: Ibid. pp. 635-640; Shklovsky V. Leo Tolstoy // Collected. cit.: In 3 volumes. M.: Fiction, 1974. V. 2. S. 389-393. The theme of adultery in the novel "Anna Karenina" deserves a separate study.
77) Tolstoy L.N. Letter to N.N. Strakhov dated March 25, 1873 // He. Full coll. op. T. 62. S. 16.
A PHOTO Getty Images
The hundreds of love stories I listened to while writing The Secret Lives Of Wives keep reminding me of how thin the line is. eggshell, shares love and hate. I also know what it takes to stay married. Flying saucers, tears of loneliness, too much wine, and looking for old boyfriends on Facebook at 3am. Who stays in a marriage and who doesn't is often not a matter of love or commitment. It's a matter of endurance.
I am especially asked this question by young wives who are learning to cope with many things in their lives at the same time, moving from honeymoon to real-time relationships. It is no coincidence that the peak of divorce decisions falls on the first 2-3 years of marriage.
A new and rather significant part of those who ask me about this are women about 80 years old. That's a hell of a long time to spend with one person.
Who stays in a marriage and who doesn't is often not a matter of love or commitment. It's a matter of endurance
While writing the book, I interviewed many women, including the wife of former US Vice President Al Gore, who left him after 40 years of marriage and who, as it turned out, was the envy of many of the remaining marriages. I've heard so many incredible stories that I'm probably not surprised by anything.
Adultery and triple alliances. A venerable wife at the age of 61, a husband a renowned surgeon who lectures all over the world, and their gardener. They are still together, like the couple where the husband managed to discover his new facets of sexuality in conversations with ... the pastor. I can no longer be shocked by anything that happens behind behind closed doors bedrooms. This is not what shocks me - it surprises me how many apparently prosperous couples think about divorce, if not every week, then once a month for sure.
Yet most of them remain on this side of the thin shell. One such woman said that she “constantly asks herself questions, but has not yet despaired.” This continues for 25 years of her married life. There is no violence in their relationship. They have good sexual compatibility, and her husband is by no means a miser. She is saddened by something else: “I am tired. I'm tired of him. I want passion. But I stay with him out of inertia, I know that the new path is fraught with many unknowns.
Divorce decisions peak in the first 2-3 years of marriage
All these women who are hesitant to stay married have one thing in common. They don't suffer in marriage for some serious reason. Living under the same roof with one person for a very long time, that's what makes them lose strength. This is a small and monotonous daily work, routine (but at the same time stability) makes them think: “Is that all? I want more. I want adventure. I want change."
Some marriages must surely break up if there is humiliation and violence in them. I only remind those who unexpectedly overtook " real love at the office cooler and they are now ready for anything, about one thing. I tell them what it is new love and everything new inevitably becomes old at some point.
Marriages that undermine your self-confidence do not need to be artificially resuscitated. But boredom is not a good enough reason for divorce.
I want passion. But I stay with him by inertia, I know that the new path is fraught with many unknowns.
Those who managed to live together for many years did not ask themselves the question: “Is that all?” They knew they were in charge of their own happiness and had a close circle of friends to travel with, go shopping, and drink a bottle of wine. They did not expect that the husband would open the whole world to them and replace all the close people.
My husband and I raised four children and went through fire and water. And I know for sure that we would not have made it if it were not for my sister and close friends.
Weddings are wonderful. Brides seem to be the most beautiful and full of hope. But if you want to stay together, you need to learn to accept imperfection.
I know from those who have gone through a divorce that they discovered a lot of surprises while spending their days with new relatives and trying to build relationships with the children of new partners.
You cannot love your marriage all the time. But if you love him more than you hate him, even if it's 51 to 49 percent, that's better. than to start a new adventure with a stranger whose flaws you have yet to discover.
Iris Krasnoff is a professor of journalism at American University in Washington DC and a best-selling author on couples.
"Get out, do you hear? I don't want to see you! Get out of my life! You're divorced, you hear?! I divorced you three times! I divorced you! I divorced you! I divorced you!" Such fiery speeches can often be heard at the destruction of Muslim families. Probably more terrible expressions come out, but this is not the place for their voicing. However, when saying such phrases, a man sometimes does not even suspect what serious words came out of his mouth and how much he may regret what he did.
Among many Dagestani Muslims, and Russian ones too, there is an opinion that in order to divorce your wife, you need to tell her three times: “I divorced you!” or "I gave you a divorce!" In fact, this is a big mistake, leading to big problems and big male tears. Because after such words, in order to return to her husband, a woman needs to marry another person, enter into a relationship with him, divorce, wait out the iddah period, and only then can she remarry her former spouse. Because of this, men with long tongues bite their elbows, which they cannot keep behind their teeth. The cause of all these problems and experiences is simple ignorance. But there is a way of divorce, after which a woman is not at all obliged to marry someone in order to suddenly reconcile and return to her husband. In addition, a one-time three-fold divorce is prohibited by Sharia.
Many men today do not know the simple Sharia rules related to family life. They do not know what they are obliged to do according to Sharia and what they can demand from their wives. A wife is thought to have many more responsibilities than a husband. When they go to an Islamic shop, for some reason they look for a book called "How to Become a Righteous Wife" and not "How to Become a Righteous Husband." Also, spouses know little about the divorce process, except that you need to say something three times or something else. Who is to blame?
The spouses themselves are also to blame, because they did not get acquainted with their religion properly before starting a family. Many imams of mosques are to blame (not all), who almost do not conduct lessons in them and do not explain to people the rules of Sharia. You are also to blame (a), because you did not explain (a) to your friends and acquaintances what they do not know from religion. But this is solvable. It is only necessary to devote a little time to the study of Sharia, and everything will fall into place.
In this article, with the permission of Allah, we will briefly talk about what divorce is, what position it has in Islam, and that it is not at all necessary to repeat the words three times in order to divorce your wife.
Divorce in Islam
Allah Almighty says: “Divorce is allowed twice, after which you must either keep your wife on reasonable terms, or let her go kindly. You are not allowed to take anything from what he has given unless both parties fear that they will not be able to keep the limits of Allah. And if you fear that they will not be able to keep the restrictions of Allah, then both of them will not commit a sin if she atones for a divorce. These are the limits of Allah. Don't transgress them. And those who transgress the limits of Allah are the wrongdoers. If he divorced her for the third time, then he is not allowed to marry her until she marries another. And if he divorces her, then they will not commit a sin if they reunite, believing that they can keep the restrictions of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He explains them for people who know” (Sura Al-Baqarah, 229-230).
The basis of marriage, according to Shariah, is constancy. A Muslim does not marry a girl to live with her for a month or a year. Marriage for a Muslim is a fortress that he builds together with his wife, who will protect them both from the passions of this world. Through marriage, Muslims continue and increase the Islamic ummah, build a healthy society, strengthen interethnic and inter-clan ties.
But there are times when spouses can't go on life together. Maybe they did not get along, or a terrible quarrel left wounds on their hearts, and now they do not want to be together. What's more, they can't take it anymore. Such situations are not uncommon. There must be a way out of them, and there is one. This is a divorce.
Divorce in Islam is a permissible but undesirable action, as it is considered the most disliked action for Allah. From Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, it is transmitted that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “The most disliked (infuriating) permissible action for Allah is divorce (talaq).” Narrated by Abu Dawud, Ibn Maja and Al-Hakim. However, as we have already said, this action is permitted, and further we will learn how to properly divorce.
How to get divorced?
Divorce in Islam is done by a man. Every man, having married, has three attempts to give talaq (divorce). To divorce your wife, you need to tell her ONCE: "I'm giving you a divorce!" This will divorce your wife, but she will not yet become a stranger to you, and you will still have the opportunity to return her!
Islam has established a rather wise method of divorce. Divorce words such as “I am divorcing you” should be said to the wife during the period of absence of haida (menstruation), in which the spouses did not have sexual intercourse. If you think about it, you can understand the greatest wisdom hidden in this form of divorce. Most divorces occur at a time when a quarrel flares up between spouses and, in a fit of anger, the husband throws unnecessary words. If he had waited until the time when it was better to give a divorce, then in most cases he would hardly have divorced his wife, because his anger may stop and he may be reconciled with her.
If, however, the husband nevertheless firmly decided to divorce and, after waiting for the period of absence of the Haida from his wife, in which they did not have sexual intercourse, he gave her one talaq, she will not be completely freed from the bonds of marriage. From this moment, the woman's iddah begins. This is three periods of menstrual cleansing for women with a menstrual cycle and three months for those women who have stopped it. During the iddah period, a man has the right to return his wife. Such an action is called "ruj'a" in Shariah. He tells his divorced wife: "I'm bringing you back," and she again becomes his full-fledged wife. However, the man will now only have two divorce attempts, since he has already used one attempt. Consider the wisdom of this method. If the resentment and anger of the man did not pass during the time while he was waiting for the moment of the absence of the haid, then after the first talaq he is given time in the amount of three months to think over and weigh his decision. This is a decent time, and it is enough to forget everything that happened between the spouses and return to normal life.
If the husband does not return his wife during the iddah, then their marriage is terminated. She becomes a free woman and can marry another man. But remember well: a man can marry her again after this period has ended, only by entering into a new marriage contract. It should also be remembered that, even if he marries her again, he will still have only two divorce attempts, because he has already used one attempt.
A new quarrel can occur between them, and he can again give her one divorce and she will again begin the period of iddah, and he can return her again, but now he will have only one attempt at a divorce, after which the woman will have to marry another, to return to her former husband.
Almighty Allah gives Muslims three divorce attempts, in which a man can return his wife twice and live with her the same life. This period is provided in order to think, gather thoughts, weigh all the pros and cons and make the right decision. But if a man divorces his wife endlessly, then he will be subjected to a great test by Sharia - his wife will have to marry another man, and then get a divorce in order to return to him. Nobody wants this normal person. It is foolish to close for yourself all the ways of returning your wife and give three divorces at once!
Almighty Allah, by limiting the divorce to three attempts, thereby put more responsibility into the words of a man regarding divorce, so that he could not play with the feelings of a woman and mock her. However, due to ignorance, not paying attention to the norms of Sharia, many men themselves create unnecessary problems for themselves.
Conclusion
You don't need to divorce your wives over trifles or because of emotions. First of all, try to find ways to resolve family problems. Look for reasons in 
themselves and try to eliminate them. But if you can no longer live in a marriage and decide to get a divorce, give one talaq, and do not give three at once, so that you do not have to regret it later. In addition, divorce three times at one time is not in accordance with the Sunnah and is prohibited by Shariah.
It was narrated from Mahmoud ibn Labid, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was told about a man who gave his wife three divorces at once. He stood up in anger and said, “Is it possible to play with the Book of Allah while I am still among you?!” (An-Nasai, 3348).