Note. I had originally intended to give this little essay to a reputable journalist. On reflection, I realised my work was too long to be included in a periodical, so I am publishing it separately. Here is the letter I wrote.
TO THE EDITOR OF .......
SIR,
You are a good patriot, a keen defender of the People, and I ask you, in anticipation, to insert in your paper some ideas on divorce. This question has lately been discussed, and I jotted down these remarks. Today the new order, champion of justice and morality, is once more concerned with the same subject. I have just been surprised to learn that the intrepid Tibeaudeau approves of divorce. Oh, Tibeaudeau! Be wary of deserting the proper side. Now there are two blots on your reputation: your coming out against de Tarbé's report, who, fired up with saintly virtue, eloquently laid into vice; and your advocacy in favour of divorce. I shall focus on the latter, and challenge it with the weapons that have served me hitherto, in proof of which I present my unrevised writing. May you approve it, and publish it in your excellent Journal.
Compliments and greetings,
AUGUSTE LABOUISSE, aged 18 years.
REMARKS
AGAINST
DIVORCE
FINE writers have written about divorce, some for, others against: without pretending to measure up to them, let me throw my ideas into the ring.
Illustrious philosophers have maintained that, before man became civilised, he wandered the forest like other animals; that he lived alone, feeding on acorns, or some other such uncultivated product of the earth; that he drank fine clear water, and gratified his carnal desires whenever a female happened to cross his path. Having satisfied his needs, he left her never to return: living apart, he was unable to find her again.
Others opposed this hypothesis. Pointing to man's helplessness at birth, they showed how the union of the two sexes was necessary, not only for man's creation, but also for his preservation.
Indeed, experience demonstrates that, almost the moment animals are born, they walk, swim, fly, eat, etc. Man alone continues to need care for a significant period of time; therefore, in order for the earth to be populated, man had to forge a partnership with woman, and to remain with her as her support. Marriage, therefore, is an institution of nature2, and, as such, to wreck it with divorce is to thwart the will of this great mother3.
To convince me of the validity of divorce, they tell me of terrible marriages, whether through incompatibility, coquetry, violence, jealousy, gambling, prodigality, or perhaps all of the above. A compelling argument. To answer, I need only to recall the remedy provided by the old laws, and those of all peoples—separation. Let no one cry injustice; for nothing is more just than to punish with celibacy4 those who have not been able to endure the bond of marriage, after freely entering into it. Would you permit one who rejects concord and amity to disturb the peace of another? They are not both guilty, of course, but who is to judge which of the two is really to blame?
How, then, dare people ask the law, which should be uncorrupted, to approve this infamous prostitution, which divorce will encourage? A libertine will bind himself, with the sweetest of ties, to a modest virgin; defile her charms; wither that flower, which he was not worthy to pluck; then repay her with desertion.
Ah! you must have a heart, you law makers! Look, now, at this enchanting sex, the dearest part of ourselves; see how it fades, as the rose succumbs to the heat of the sun; how its charms alter and feelings turn to disgust; how it is forsaken, cut off. Men make a game of seduction and deception, and then take pleasure in betrayal.
Monstrous notion of divorce: why don't you flee our land, and all civilised nations?
A debauched woman will take into her bed a man whom she intends to discard in a week, in order to take another whom she will as readily cast aside. What a disgrace! This conduct will be open, approved, protected by law. If an example were necessary the experience of our day would furnish thousands; but I will not unfurl before the eyes of the multitude that scroll of black depravity, incredible even to the observer who is well acquainted with the human heart.
I am therefore of the opinion that divorce is not admissible in a proper constitution; I believe it is only good for perverting morals, and that it now only finds proponents in these disgusting men, given up to the most heinous lust.
Confronted with the thought that the child born of this publicly sealed union must be abandoned, who could not be moved? and who could not deplore divorce?
With separation, these vulnerable offspring do not need to fear being totally deserted by their parents. Watched over and cared for, they will grow in the bosom of their protection. If everyone marries as they please, can you assure me that a stepfather,5 alien from the child's beginning, will take pains to make them happy; or that a stepmother will support them through the vagaries of youth, to the detriment of her own progeny?
These considerations, and a thousand more which it would take too long to expound, condemn the law of divorce. Hasten to retract, law makers; follow your heart's promptings, they will never lead you astray. Yes, you want the people to be happy: mend as quickly as possible the harm that has been done by licentiousness; it is great, but with patience, perseverance and good will, you will prevail.
