The article examines the peculiarities of the process of divorce due to the inability to cohabitate in marriage in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. Based on an analysis of church and secular laws, as well as the opinions of lawyers of the late 19th – early 20th centuries, we established what was meant by “inability to cohabitate in marriage” and justified the inclusion of this problem in the list of permitted reasons for divorce. The main source of the research was the files of the funds of the Tobolsk, Tver and Yaroslavl spiritual consistories preserved in regional archives, as well as the fund of the Office of the Holy Governing Synod. Such a parallel study of one problem in different territories remote from each other made it possible to most thoroughly and fully study the questions posed, to identify common and distinctive features of the divorce process in the center of the Russian Empire and on its periphery. Since spiritual consistories were state institutions, the stages of paperwork in them were identical, and members of the panels strictly followed the law. The time frame for completing cases also turned out to be equally long, it took years to resolve cases positively; a period of up to a year was rather an exception. The time for processing rejected cases depended on the reasons for the refusal and ranged from several days if the documents were incorrectly completed to several months if the illness was not proven. A minority of those who applied, who were mostly women, were able to obtain a divorce. Refusal in half of the cases occurred due to the discovery of the ability to cohabitate in marriage. According to archival documents and the statements of contemporary lawyers, it was much easier to get a divorce for this reason than for the most common one – adultery because the only evidence was the results of a medical examination, the testimony of witnesses was not required, there was no court settlement, admonition took place without unnecessary pressure. However, it cannot be argued that it was easy to get a divorce because, firstly, persons conducting the examination and employees of the consistories and the Synod were quite subjective in assessing the ability to cohabitate in marriage; secondly, shortcomings in the legislation limited applicants in the types and manifestations of the inability itself; thirdly, there were errors when submitting documents and paying fees due to the illiteracy of the population. In Tobolsk Governorate, the eparchy authorities practically deprived poor people of the opportunity to get a divorce for this reason, prohibiting examination by district doctors.
Read full abstract