One married couple celebrated their divorce with a ball. It's a thin line between marriage and divorce. Westminster Confession of Faith on Remarriage

The 50th anniversary of their life together is celebrated today by a married couple Tretyak from the village of Cherchichi, Kremyanitsky village council. Irina Iosifovna and Cheslav Boleslavovich (pictured) go hand in hand all their lives, dividing joys and hardships in half.

“We are happy spouses, because for half a century we have lived together not only in love and harmony, but also in true friendship, in respect for each other,” says the head of the family, throwing a warm look towards his wife. - Either our meeting was prepared by God, or an accident brought us together. Or maybe it was love at first sight. It has been going on for us since our first date.
So your first meeting was something special?
- Everything is like in the movies, - Cheslav Boleslavovich continues the conversation. - Irina lived in the village of Bagdi, Volkovysk district, through which our cars loaded with peat went. I then worked as a driver in the collective farm "Druzhba". Stopped at the village store to buy a snack. That's where I spotted a beautiful girl. In order to somehow attract her attention, he pulled her braid. I still remember those frightened, but very kind
eyes.
Soon the youth of two neighboring districts gathered in Kremyanitsa on Sunday to plant a poplar alley. Seeing from afar that dark-haired beauty, Cheslav did not miss the opportunity to work with her in a pair.
“I couldn’t forget a tall, slender guy with a calm voice and a radiant smile,” recalls Irina Iosifovna. - Very quickly, we both realized that our feelings are more than friendship.
Events developed rapidly, and on the first day of October, the newlyweds exchanged gold rings as a sign of love and fidelity. According to tradition, they got married in the church. But the wedding was played on New Year. Cheslav brought his young wife to his parents' house. From the first days of their life together, the mother-in-law became a true friend for the young family and a second mother for Irina. Albina Stanislavovna took care of the housework, made sure that the house was warm and comfortable, prepared hot meals while the children were at work. My labor activity Tretyakov devoted agriculture. Irina Iosifovna has worked on a pig farm for more than 20 years. The working days of Cheslav Boleslavovich passed at the wheel of a milk truck. The driver was awarded the title of "Honored Collective Farmer", more than once was awarded the Certificates of Honor of the district executive committee and the board of the Progress collective farm (now the Knyazevo branch), was nominated as a deputy of the district Council of Deputies.
- If you think that life was easy for us, then you are deeply mistaken. After all, there is always a lot of things to do in the village: you need to cultivate the garden plot and manage the housework, - the owner of the house frankly admits. – And I also liked working with wood – carpentry, carpentry. However, it is still my favorite pastime. The wife was engaged in needlework, cooked deliciously, often pleased with fragrant pies.
- What is the most important thing in a family? Mutual respect and understanding, - Irina Iosifovna complements her husband. And, of course, helping each other. In our youth, we did not divide household chores into "yours" and "mine." The first person to come home from work is the owner. And the second only remained how to thank and praise. Therefore, we advise our children: “Do not skimp on affectionate and kind words. Know how to remain silent when the husband speaks. Know how to give in, if the wife is not right. The trials and illnesses that befell us, we also endured together. Maybe that's why they managed to save love.
The golden wedding is a holiday of holidays, the anniversaries believe. Irina Iosifovna and Cheslav Boleslavovich will share the joy of the celebration with their children - daughter Alla came from Minsk, son Anatoly - from Volkovysk. The Tretyakov couple have 3 grandsons and one granddaughter, who also hurried to visit their grandparents. And, perhaps, the most touching moment of the 50th anniversary will be the wedding of the couple during the Sunday service in the church of St. George in the village of Kremyanitsa.
Ludmila POPKO.

Sexual need and fornication compiled by Nika

Divorce for adultery

Divorce for adultery

Before the Law of Moses, adultery was punishable by death or corporal punishment.

Dmitry Rostovsky (Chronicle, ch. Events in the 6th century of the 4th millennium): “Adultery in the Old Testament was not honored with pardon and forgiveness and could not be cleansed by any sacrifices: this is not mentioned in the Book of Leviticus, which describes what sacrifices must be made for what sins. There was no sacrifice or cleansing for adultery, but what? - the death penalty, and in no other way this sin was exterminated and cleansed in the people of God, as soon as the death penalty. The following is written in the Books: "A man who commits adultery with a married wife, let both the adulterer and the adulteress die the death" (Lev. 20:10); and again: "If a man dares to lie with a manly woman, let them both kill him with the manly woman and the one who lies with her, so that they take away the evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22). So great is the sin of adultery, that no one receives pardon from anyone! ... In the law of Moses it was commanded to stone a husband and wife convicted of adultery (John 8, 5). If any wife was suspected of adultery by her husband, then water was given to her by the priest to drink, inducing a curse, as it is written about in the Book of Numbers, in the fifth chapter; and if she was guilty of sin, then her womb was tormented (Num. 5, 27). - Among the ancient pagans there was also a law - to burn the adulterer and the adulteress. With this ancient pagan law, which was before the law of Moses, Judah, the son of Jacob, condemned his daughter-in-law Tamar to be burned. Opilius (also known as Macrinus), the Roman king, commanded the adulterer and adulterer to be bound together and thrown into the fire. Augustus Tiberius, Domitian, Severus and Aurelius established the following punishment for adultery: to bend the tops of two trees, tie a person guilty of sin to them by the legs and then let the trees go! They did the same with the guilty wife, tying her by the legs to two inclined trees. Thus the body of a sinner or a sinner was torn to pieces. Other Roman kings allowed with impunity a husband, when he caught his wife committing adultery with another, to kill both, the adulterer and the adulteress. The ancient Greek king Senedius issued a law - with an ax to cut off the head of a husband and wife taken at the place of adultery. He showed an example of such a judgment in his son, who fell into this sin, and did not spare his blood. In Arabia and Parthia, adulterers were punished by death. The Saxons, who were still in idolatry, persuaded the adulterer that she herself, having tied a rope around her neck, hanged herself and strangled herself, and then they burned her corpse and hung the adulterer over her fire. Other peoples, although they did not put such sinners to death, did not leave them without cruel punishment. The Egyptians beat the adulterer with iron, inflicting a thousand wounds on him, and cut off the nose of the adulterer. The Cumans, having put their wife naked on a donkey, drove her around the city and beat her. Brazilians those wives who were found in the place of adultery, or killed, or sold as slaves. In other places they cut off the nose and ears of wives, and the chops of adultery on husbands. Many other severe punishments for adulterers were in various countries.

Now let's talk about divorce. In the Old Testament, divorce was permitted by the following commandment: “If anyone takes a wife and becomes her husband, and she does not find favor in his eyes, because he finds something nasty in her, and will give it into her hands, and let her go out of the house her husband, and she will marry another husband, but this last husband will hate her and write her a divorce letter, and give it to her, and let her go from his house, or this last husband of hers, who took her to his wife, will die - then her first husband, who let her go, cannot take her again as his wife after she has been defiled, for this is an abomination before the Lord (your God) ... ”(Deut. 24, 1-4).

In the New Testament, one reason for divorce is named adultery. Why such a difference in relation to the same divorce?

Isidore Pelusiot (Letters, item 166):“Why did the legislator allow the book of absolution to be given to wives hated by their husbands? (Deut. 24:1) "... Not because it should expel wives who did not violate the marriage law, but in order to reduce the greater and graver evil, he did not legitimize, but only allowed the lesser evil, not only giving preference to an obvious second marriage over secret adultery, which husbands would dare to commit (because they would not be slow to use each other's wives), but also deeming it better that wives be driven out of the house, and not slain in the house. Therefore, he separated those who could not live together.

Evfimy Zigaben (Interpretation according to the Ev. from Matthew):“The ancient law ordered that the one who hates his wife for some reason should not hold her back, but let her go, giving her a letter of divorce, so that murder would not happen. The Jews were almost irreconcilable not only in relation to wives, but also to children. Therefore, Christ said to them: “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives” (Mt. 19:8), but give a letter of divorce, so that later, when the released woman marries another, the one who let go could not take her again as his own. wife, and that no disorder or strife should arise from here. Teaching with the above words to be more meek, Christ now commands not only not to let the wife go, “only through the fault of adultery”, ... but also does not allow the let go to marry another husband. Whoever releases his wife not for the guilt of fornication makes her adulterous if she is united with another husband; but whoever marries a woman released to another, he commits adultery with a stranger. By legitimizing this, He also made the wife more prudent. Hearing that no one will take a freed woman as a wife, she will love her husband and please him. Thus, reminding of the guilt of adultery both to the one who lets go of his wife without a reason, and to the one who marries the one released to another, He strengthened the peace of spouses and took care that adultery was not allowed. Who does not let go and loves his own, he will not wish someone else's. And the one who is forbidden to marry the one released to others will not let his own.

So, adultery divorce is expressly permitted by the Lord, but for greater clarity, we will consider this permission in detail.

“In the proper sense, adultery can be a moral reason for divorce: “except for the guilt of adultery” (Matthew 5:32). This is the most important thing that allows divorce and at the same time confirms the severity of marital relations! But, generally speaking, in Orthodoxy, marital divorce should not be. Why? Because, firstly, the husband and wife are “one flesh”, two halves of a whole human being, so that the first couple (Adam and Eve) were assigned one name “man”: “and God created man ... a man and a woman” (Gen. 1:27). Then, Christian spouses bear the banner of the union of Christ with the Church, which is never terminated. And, finally, divorce always harms and responds with a heavy insult to the weakest half, which, no doubt, is the wife. Therefore, “what God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Divorce would then be tolerable or useful in the form of a temporary measure, if people did not understand the unity of the husband and wife according to the flesh and according to the spiritual mystery of marriage, if, due to their ignorance, they would not recognize universal human rights for a woman, they would be close in their rudeness to that to take the lives of their wives. Such was the ignorant state (hardness of heart) of the Jews (and even then in a later time) (Deut. 10, 16), for whom the law of Moses permitted divorce. “But at first (before the fall) it was not so (Matt. 19:8). ... Marital infidelity, at least the first known experience of it, does not excuse divorce and will not be useful. The gospel teaching: “except for the guilt of adultery” is not yet an indispensable law for divorce, but only its permission or justification. A husband will no doubt sin if he does not accept a wife who repents and promises to be faithful. If the first infidelity in the marital bed is not forgiven and reasonable measures are not taken against this infidelity on the part of another person who remains innocent: then with divorce many infidelities will be repeated. It is known about the ancient prophet Hosea that he married a harlot, but then completely corrected his wife. ... In short: Christian marriage is so morally high that whether the husband is depraved or only stupid and lazy, whether the wife becomes drunk or just unattractive in her appearance, she only extremely annoys her husband with her obstinate character - all this the spouses must sacrifice to another higher goal of marriage about which the Apostle speaks: “This mystery is great; but I speak in Christ and in the Church” (Eph. 5:32). And so the divorce Christian marriage should not be “through any fault” (Matt. 19:3), that is, for the sake of every trouble or arbitrarily. Thus, in the full sense or decisively, adulterers are considered both the one who, having dismissed or removed his wife, takes on another female person for cohabitation, and those who live with exiled wives, so is the wife, after a divorce from her husband, living dishonestly. (Mark 10:11-12). And in the Old Testament there was such a punitive law this time: if a wife, expelled by her husband, was again expelled by another husband who adopted her, or if after that the second husband was widowed, the first husband, even feeling pity for her or needing cohabitation with her, had no right to bring her back to him (Deut. 24:2-4). And so it is best not to be divorced between the Orthodox. And if there is a legitimate or valid reason for it, then it cannot happen arbitrarily, but only with the permission of the same Christ's power that combined it. Neither the priest can give anyone the so-called "letter of divorce", nor the entire local church authority (excluding divorces through exile and unknown absence) solves divorce issues by itself. The solution of these issues belongs to the highest spiritual authority (Holy Synod) (Ust. D. Cons., Ch. 6).”

In those cases, if the spouse decided to divorce, not through “the fault of adultery”, but “for any reason” (Mt. 19:3), then the Lord says that “whoever divorces his wife not for adultery and marries another, he commit adultery." The Holy Fathers explain this commandment separately for men and women as follows:

John Chrysostom (vol. 3, conversation: “Praise to Maxim and about what wives should take”):“If you see that he (the apostle) grants you the power to reject one wife, when you find in her one of these defects (a wife who is malicious, deceitful, drunken, slanderous, insane, or has some other similar defect), and take another, then be merciful, getting rid of all danger; and if he does not allow this, but commands a wife who has all other faults, except for adultery, to love and keep in her house, then guard yourself so that you are ready to endure all the malice of the wife. If it is hard and difficult, then do everything and take all measures to take a wife that is good, well-behaved and obedient, knowing that there must be one of two things, or, having taken a bad wife, endure her malice, or, not wanting this and rejecting her, to be guilty of adultery. “But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, he gives her an occasion to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Having discussed this well before marriage, and having learned these laws, let us try in every possible way to first take a wife with good mood and according to our mores; when we take one, we will not only receive the benefit that we will never reject it, but we will love it with great power - just as Paul commanded. ... As in our bodies, when a disease occurs, we do not cut off a member, but we destroy the disease, so let us do with the wife. If there is any vice in her, then do not reject the wife, but destroy this vice.

John Chrysostom (vol. 3, conversation on the words: “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains like that” (1 Cor. 7 :39–40)): “What is this law that Paul gave us? "A wife," he says, "is bound by law." So, she should not separate from a living husband, take another spouse, or enter into another marriage. And notice with what precision he uses the expressions themselves. He did not say: let him live with her husband while he is alive, but what? “A wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives,” so that even if he gave her a record of absolution, even if she left the house and went to another, she is bound by the law, she is an adulteress in this case. Therefore, if the husband wants to reject his wife, or the wife to leave her husband, then let him remember this saying and present Paul as inherent, who, condemning her, broadcasts: “the wife is bound by law.” Like runaway slaves, although they leave the master’s house, they also chains, so even wives, even if they leave their husbands, have a law instead of chains, which condemns them, accuses them of adultery, condemns those who take them, and says: the husband is still alive, and this is adultery. "A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives." And "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). When, you say, will it be possible for her to enter into a second marriage? When? When she is freed from her chains, when her husband dies. Explaining this, the apostle did not add this: when her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, but: "she will die" (will rest) - as if comforting her in widowhood and inspiring her to remain with the former and not unite with the second spouse. Your husband is not dead, but asleep. Who does not expect a sleeper? That is why he says: “If her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants.” He did not say: let her marry, so that it does not seem as if he is forcing and forcing; he does not prevent those who want to enter into a second marriage, and does not force the unwilling, but said the law is this: "free to marry whomever she wants." Calling her free after the death of her husband, he expressed that before that, during his lifetime, she was a worker ; and, being a servant and subject to the law, even if she received a thousand times the record of forgiveness, she is guilty of adultery according to the law. It is permissible for slaves to change living masters, but it is not permissible for a wife to change husbands while her husband is alive, because this is adultery. Do not point me to the laws decreed by outsiders, which allow you to give a record of absolution and divorce. Not according to these laws God will judge you in that day, but according to those which He himself decreed. And worldly laws allow this not simply and not without limitation, but they also punish this deed, so that it can be seen from this that they look unfavorably at this sin, because they deprive the culprit of a divorce of property and let go without everything, and the one who gives a reason for divorce, is punished with a monetary loss; and they, of course, would not do so if they approved of this matter.

It should be said that the Church has identified several reasons for the dissolution of marriage.

Fundamentals of the social concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:“In 1918, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the “Determination on the reasons for the termination of the marriage union, consecrated by the Church” recognized as such, in addition to adultery and the entry of one of the parties into a new marriage, also the falling away of a spouse or spouse from Orthodoxy, unnatural vices, inability to to marital cohabitation that occurred before marriage or was the result of intentional self-mutilation, illness with leprosy or syphilis, a long obscure absence, condemnation to a punishment combined with the deprivation of all rights of the state, encroachment on the life or health of a spouse or children, daughter-in-law, pandering, profiting from indecency spouse, incurable severe mental illness and malicious abandonment of one spouse by another. Currently, this list of grounds for dissolution of marriage is supplemented by such reasons as AIDS, medically certified chronic alcoholism or drug addiction, abortion by the wife with the disagreement of the husband.

Other reasons for divorce will be discussed in more detail in the topic “On Love in a Christian Family”, and now let’s talk about divorce due to the physical incapacity of one of the parties.

Moral Theology (Sins against the 7th commandment, sin is unauthorized divorce):“... one of the spouses may legally start a divorce case for reasons either physical or moral. The physical side here is the physical inability to conjugal cohabitation, if, however, this inability by nature and before marriage remained hidden (St. Law 10, part 1, art. 46–49), and did not occur in the marriage itself, as a misfortune . But even here, whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate” (Mt. 19:12), that is, the best sacrifice to God on the part of the offended person would be the determination not to demand a permitted divorce, but to remain married for one friendship and mutual help: the elderly live together husband and wife who no longer have a carnal relationship with each other and may also never have had children. In the sense of a physical reason for divorce, one can accept a reference of this kind, when the guilty person is deprived of all the rights of the state or irrevocably refers: another (innocent) person, of course, cannot be charged with a moral obligation to bear the same fate. (If a husband or wife remains without a trace, then it is also possible, by indulgence, to divorce this marriage after 5 years (Ust. cons. p. 231-237); and in the case of an unknown absence from the war (the husband has gone far and does not notify himself) or capture (on the way to the outskirts somewhere, the infidels took the wife from the husband and dragged her into their own borders), in these cases, since they give more hope for the return of the unknown person, the period for dissolution of the marriage is supposed to be double, or 10 years ( (Uk. sin. 1855). But even with the most irrevocable link, with a visible dissolution of a marriage, the marriage is not always dissolved internally. Under favorable circumstances this time, the marriage can be resumed, for example, if the exile is unexpectedly forgiven or turns out to be innocent, and the spouse who remained at home earlier did not legally seek a divorce."

It has already been said above that after a divorce (for any reason), a Christian or a Christian must remain single until the death of the former spouse.

Basil the Great (Letter to Amphilochius about the rules (second epistle, p. 48)):“Abandoned by her husband, in my opinion, should remain celibate. For when the Lord said: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32): then, calling her an adulterous woman, he thereby forbade her was guilty as the author of adultery, but the wife is innocent, being called by the Lord an adulteress for having intercourse with another husband?

In the "Shepherd" Ermas says that the husband should remain alone. But again, Basil the Great has a teaching in which a man is given indulgence if his wife leaves him.

“Wives, however, are commanded by custom to keep their husbands, although they commit adultery and are in fornication. Therefore, I do not know whether a woman living with a husband who has been abandoned by her wife can be called an adulteress directly: for here the accusation falls on the one who left her husband, for what reason she departed from marriage. For if because she was beaten, and could not endure the blows, then she should have endured, rather than be separated from her partner; or because she could not bear the loss of the estate, and this pretext is not worthy of respect. If, however, because her husband lives in fornication, we do not observe this in church custom, but the wife is not commanded to be separated from an unfaithful husband, but to stay with him, for unknown reasons, what will follow. “How do you know if you can save your husband?” (1 Cor. 7, 16) Therefore, a wife who left her husband is an adulteress if she passed to another husband; but the husband who is left is worthy of indulgence, and the one who cohabits with him is not condemned.

But if the husband himself leaves his wife, he has no mercy.

Basil the Great (Letter to Amphilochius about the rules, (first message)):“But if a husband, departing from his wife, has another, then he himself is an adulterer, because he commits adultery with her, and the adulteress who lives with him; because she drew someone else's husband to her.

As for divorce due to infertility, then:

Blessed Augustine (Matrimony and Lust):"... the highest law does not allow leaving a childless spouse and marrying another woman - a fertile one."

I would also like to note that Christians have different reactions to these commandments and teachings, ranging from repentance to self-justification and unwillingness to fulfill them. Here is what John Chrysostom says about those who lamented their sin:

John Chrysostom (vol. 3, Conversation: praise to Maxim and about what wives should take):“Indeed, when we spoke much to you about marriages, proving that to reject wives or take rejected ones during the life of their former husbands, it means, undoubtedly, to commit adultery, and read the law of Christ, which says: “Whoever divorces his wife, except guilt of adultery, he gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery "(Matt. 5: 32), - then I saw many, bowing their heads, hit themselves in the face and could not get up, - then I also , looking up to heaven, he said: Blessed be God, that we do not preach to dead ears, but our words reach the souls of the listeners with great power. It is much better not to sin at all; but it is also important for salvation that the sinner should repent, condemn his soul, and punish his conscience with great care; such condemnation is part of justification and certainly leads to no more sinning. Therefore also Paul, when he had done sorrow to sinners, rejoiced, not that he had made them sad, but that he had corrected them through sorrow. “Now I rejoice,” he said, “not because you were sad, but because you were sad to repentance; for they were saddened for God's sake, so that they suffered no harm from us. For Godly sorrow produces unchanging repentance unto salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:9-10). Therefore, whether you grieved about your own or about other people's sins then, you are worthy of countless praises. Whoever mourns for strangers shows apostolic compassion and imitates the saint who says: “Who is exhausted, with whom would I not be exhausted? Who is offended, for whom would I not be kindled?” (2 Corinthians 11:29). And who is tormented for his sins, he is delivered from the punishment for the deeds already done, and in the future becomes safer through this sorrow. That is why I, seeing those who bowed their heads, sighed and hit themselves in the face, rejoiced, imagining the fruits of this sorrow.

And here is an exhortation to those who do not want to fulfill these commandments.

Plato, Met. Moscow (vol. 2, Word when visiting the churches of God in Tver pasta):“Be faithful in your holy marriage, and love each other mutually, as Christ loved his church. But fornication and every lawless carnal pleasure, turn away. For it is painful for the conscience, and dangerous for salvation, to break the oath given before the face of the altar, witnessed by God and His angels.

Moral Theology (sins against the 7th commandment, sin is unauthorized divorce):“Spouses living in an unauthorized divorce from whichever side! Why do you remain opponents of the Christian law? If you want to be among the true Christians, then hasten to fulfill the commandment of God, which applies to you: “But if (a wife) is divorced, then she must remain celibate, or be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7, 11), i.e. yes "reconcile". And if you don’t want to return to your previous marriage, which one of you arbitrarily terminated, that is, if you know outsiders: where is your faith in such a case, where is your respect for the name of a Christian? After this, do not force the priest, as a spiritual father, coming to him for confession and demanding permission for your sins and permission to proceed to the holy mysteries. Leave the vain self-justification that “you involuntarily become adulterous sinners, because your heart boils at the mere thought of insults on the part of the person with whom you decided to divorce, and because at the same time you cannot refrain from lawless copulation.” The Lord God never puts a person in such a state that a person would certainly sin with grave sins. If you do not want to humble yourself before each other, both the grieved and the grieved side, and at the same time do not keep yourself chaste: then we repeat to you the law on the correct divorce. Ask for a divorce, sincerely revealing your reasons. But if the Church does not recognize your reasons as valid, then you no longer have a way out in your position, how to return to your previous marriage, and in any case leave an extraneous relationship, or only temporarily the sin of adultery. Oh, for God's sake, for the sake of your soul, correct your life!

If Christians do not want to remain single and live with their former spouses, then both of them need to undergo penance.

Basil the Great (Letter to Amphilochius about the rules (second epistle, v. 26)):“Fornication is not marriage, and not even the beginning of marriage. Therefore, those who have copulated through fornication, it is better to separate, if possible. If, nevertheless, they hold on to cohabitation, then let them accept the penance of fornication: but let them remain in marriage cohabitation, so that it will not be worse.

From the book Ten Commandments under attack by Finley Mark

The problem of adultery The origin of the word "adultery" is associated with a verb expressing the meaning of diluting wine with water, which means to counterfeit or falsify, "replace with something less valuable or littered by adding an inappropriate

From the book Divorce and Remarriage in the Church author Inston Brewer David

Return after adultery But if you have already stumbled? Is there a way out of the abyss of adultery? It is not new that a person who tries to live up to God's standards fails. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," but verse 24 continues,

From the book Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great (311 - 590 A.D.) author Schaff Philip

"Except for the guilt of adultery" Not everyone accepted this new kind of divorce. The disciples of Rabbi Shammai (Hillel's rival who often disagreed with him) said that Hillel misinterpreted the Scriptures and that the phrase "for any reason of sexual promiscuity" meant nothing.

From the book Philokalia. Volume I author Corinthian Saint Macarius

From the book of the Bible. Modern translation (BTI, per. Kulakov) author bible

The twelfth word About wine 1. Sacrament of wine. (It is an image) of human nature (or a person) who wants to meet God (to please God) and in order to keep his work whole in purity, so that God will accept it (the work) with joy.2. A vessel (for wine) is pitched with proper

From the book Volume V. Book 1. Moral and ascetic creations the author Studit Theodore

About new wine and old wineskins 18 On another occasion, when John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, people came to Jesus and asked Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the Pharisees’ disciples fast, but yours don’t?”19 Jesus answered them, “How can they fast guests at the marriage feast in

From the book Cookbook-calendar of Orthodox fasts. Calendar, history, recipes, menu author Zhalpanova Liniza Zhuvanovna

Aversion from Adultery 15. Learning about these iniquities, the man, who became like Jesus Christ and, as much as possible, always clearly fulfilled all righteousness and cared for the people of his own tribe with fatherly sympathy, mourned, was indignant in himself and mourned for the universal

From the book Lavsaik, or the Narrative of the Life of the Holy and Blessed Fathers author Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis

Wine wafers Ingredients Flour - 1/2 cup, butter - 50 g, white wine - 300 ml, chopped almonds - 1 cup, apple or pear puree - 1 cup, sugar - 100 g. Method of preparationWhite wine is mixed with flour and 50 g Sahara. Forms for baking the cachets are lubricated

From the book Cathedral Yard author Shchipkov Alexander Vladimirovich

From the book We meet Easter. Traditions, recipes, gifts the author Levkina Taisiya

About God, Wine and Sober Christians 1994, January. The full text is published for the first time. Partially published: Church and Public Bulletin, No. 24, October 2, 1997 (Supplement to Russian Thought No. 4191) The Germans consider wine drinking, and more recently the wine trade, to be their favorite pastime

From the book Sexual Need and Fornication author compiled by Nika

Veal tongue in wine 3 veal tongues (1 kg), 1 glass of dry red wine, ? cups of corn (or soy) oil, 1 onion, 1 bay leaf, 1 peeled carrot, 2 cloves of garlic, chopped parsley, ground black pepper, salt.1. Tongues pour 2 liters of water in a saucepan and

From the author's book

Pork ham in wine? pork ham (up to 2 kg), 2 glasses of cider,? cups of dry sherry, ? cups of granulated sugar, 1 tbsp. a spoonful of ready-made mustard, 1 tbsp. a spoonful of grated horseradish, 8 clove buds, 2 bay leaves, 6 black peppercorns, salt.1. Put the ham in a large pot

From the author's book

On the equal guilt of men and women in adultery For adultery there is no justification for both men and women, which means that the worldly opinion is not true that adultery is inherent in a man by his nature. some places

From the author's book

Adultery when separated from a spouse Some Christians justify their betrayal by separation from the other half. Moral Theology (Sins against the seventh commandment, the sin is adultery): On the first

From the author's book

Adultery in the Spouse's Illness The next justification has to do with the health of one of the spouses. At the same time, the person making excuses usually utters a phrase like: “I had nothing to do, because nature demands its own” (the answer to this justification has already been given above). Still sad

From the author's book

Types of incorporeal adultery So, it is clear that if a family Christian does not violate the commandment: "do not commit adultery", then sexual relations with a wife are blessed by God. In chapters 1-5, we did not talk about the bodily relationship of a person with the opposite sex, and on

A PHOTO Getty Images

The hundreds of love stories that I listened to while writing The Secret Lives Of Wives constantly remind 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 deal 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 I was writing this 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 turns out, is 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 goes on behind closed bedroom doors. It's not that that 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'm just reminding those who were unexpectedly caught up with "true love" at the office cooler and are now ready for anything, about one thing. I tell them that this is a new love, and everything new sometime inevitably becomes old.

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.

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 ...

With a divorce case is pending. Judge:
- 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?

F 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 is the best way to 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 interviews with old 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!

F 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.

F 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!

With 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.

F 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 a flamboyant 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.

- WITH 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 in 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 between the Orthodox Church, the state authorities and the cultural elite were concentrated in the family, who realized that it was the family that was the most effective means for maintaining the social relations on which Tsarist Russia was based. 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 not an agreement between two people - the bride and groom, but 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 a detailed description of the marriage contract that was in force among the Russian nobility through various forms of the same model of marriage on the example of three married 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 also 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 day of the wedding, 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 filial 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.

The dissolution of the marriage union thus becomes practically impossible, especially since Article 103 of the Civil Code imposes obligations on spouses Cohabitation under one roof, which makes it impossible to actually end cohabitation, mainly for a woman, even in cases of violence and abuse against 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, in particular adultery, 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 resolutely refuses, reflects not only the balance of power between the spouses, but also the real pressure that social order exerts 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 are a 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, the 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 begin to file 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 fraudulent 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. Norms 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 judicial system, 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 the relationship give rise to a certain combination of individual rights and reciprocal obligations.

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 by 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 firmly believes that marriage bonds based on feelings and mutual respect become 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 sexual 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 should henceforth 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 attacks. 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 Civil Law Course; 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 Council of State instructed the Ministry of Justice to revise the divorce law, and in 1897 the commission to reform the Civil Code presented a new project, which, although it did not completely eliminate all vestiges of the patriarchal order, significantly undermined 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 reasons 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 presented draft reform is far from simplifying divorce proceedings and only exacerbates 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 amendments and additions to existing laws on personal and property rights 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 agreement. 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 type of family 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 certain new device that is superimposed on the first and, without abolishing it, contributes to the reduction of its significance. This is the dispositive of sexuality.”

If the “dispositive of marital union” pursues mainly the goal of reproducing the game of relations 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 becomes, from 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 arises only with a new form of family; 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 not 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 attitude and behavior of women is changing, and their attitude towards children becomes different: the number of newborns is decreasing, the number of illegitimate children is increasing, women are beginning to oppose family life with their private life. They get the right to independently 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 a delay of more than a century compared to Western Europe, in Russia at the turn of the century a new family was born with new functions, with new external and internal ties. 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 "burst" 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 1940s and 1950s raises the issue of women: “The novelists first women's issue the right of citizenship in literature and popularized 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 is itself enriched and “multiplied” 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 worldly theme of the novel, Tolstoy's anti-Slavophile position 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, 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, and 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 no sign new era, but exclusively the egoism and stupidity of the Russian nobility. In the next 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 the rest characters- phantom 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. A number of images of hero-lovers appear in fiction (Goethe's Electoral Affinity, 1809; Flaubert's Madame Bovary, 1857; Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, 1850), who renounce virtue, family, 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 is. 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 at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, see: Veremenko V. marital relationship in the noble families of Russia in the second half of the 19th - 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. 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: K. Pobedonostsev. 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 the separation of 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 romance 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, called 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 this work is the subject of 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. The following 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 (N. Gudziy. Preface to the eighteenth and nineteenth volumes // Tolstoy L.N. Complete collection of works. P. 7-9; The same History of writing and printing "Anna Karenina", pp. 635-643; V. Zhdanov, E. Zeidenshnur, decree op. pp. 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 ”(Tolstoy L.N. 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 vols. M.: Fiction, 1974. Vol. 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.