A Glimpse into Song Dynasty Divorce Practices

While admiring the lively wedding processions depicted in Ming Dynasty reproductions of Along the River During the Qingming Festival, one might wonder: How did unhappy couples dissolve marriages in Song Dynasty China? Contrary to the common assumption that traditional Chinese society only allowed men to initiate divorce (“七出” or “休妻”), historical records reveal that women also exercised this right through “和离” (amicable separation).

Song legal codes explicitly recognized mutual consent divorces. The Song Penal Code stated: “If husband and wife cannot live harmoniously and mutually agree to separate, no penalty shall apply.” This established a legal framework where women could initiate divorce under specific circumstances:

– Financial abandonment: A 187 statute permitted wives to remarry if husbands absconded with dowry funds, leaving them destitute.
– Criminal exile: Wives could divorce spouses sentenced to forced relocation (188).
– Desertion: After three years of unexplained absence, wives gained remarriage rights (189).
– Coercion into prostitution: Even attempted trafficking allowed divorce (190).
– Sexual violence: Assault by in-laws justified separation (191).

Notable Cases of Women Asserting Their Rights

Literary accounts showcase remarkable agency:

– The Obsessive Scholar: Li Zhi’s Records of Teachers and Friends documents scholar Zhang Yuanbi, whose wife divorced him over neglect—he prioritized reading Su Shi’s works over marital duties. Zhang bizarrely boasted about this as intellectual dedication.
– The Merchant’s Wife: Hong Mai’s Yijian Zhi recounts how a Tangzhou merchant’s wife dragged her adulterous husband to court, securing half their assets and child custody—a striking precedent for property division.

Contemporary observers lamented shifting attitudes, with one official bemoaning how marriage had become transactional: “Men view wives like livestock purchases; women treat husbands’ homes as roadside inns.”

Tang-Song Divorce Agreements: The Dunhuang Documents

The 1900 discovery of Dunhuang’s cave library yielded over 40,000 manuscripts, including rare 8th-11th century divorce contracts (“放妻书”). These reveal sophisticated protocols for consensual separations:

### Contractual Elegance and Mutual Respect

Six surviving agreements share poetic structure:
1. Philosophical preambles invoking karmic destiny (“If bonds prove incompatible, we face each other as enemies”)
2. Neutral blame attribution (“Cat and mouse cannot share a den”)
3. Asset division clauses (“Divide possessions freely”) including:
– Three years’ living expenses in one 977 agreement
– Equal property splits (“Take whatever sustains you”)
4. Benedictory formulae wishing ex-spouses prosperous remarriages

Notably, Contract 6 from 977 AD shows wife A’Meng presiding over proceedings to “dismiss” husband Fuying—a rare “wife-releases-husband” document.

Cultural Reflections in Matrimonial Documents

Comparing nuptial and divorce paperwork reveals evolving social values:

– Song betrothal letters employed classical allusions, likening unions to “fish finding water.”
– Yuan pragmatism reduced marriage contracts to financial inventories, reflecting administrative centralization.
– Qing to Republican-era “休书” turned punitive, citing female “disobedience” as justification—a stark contrast to Tang-Song mutualism.

The Lost Civility of Separation

These documents illuminate a forgotten marital culture where:
– Collective mediation involved extended families and neighbors
– Financial equity was expected, not exceptional
– Remarriage stigma appears absent in contractual well-wishing

As scholar Chen Yuan observed, the degradation of divorce language from Tang grace to Qing accusatory tones mirrors broader civilizational shifts. Where Song scribes wrote “May you remarry nobility,” Qing notaries dictated “Never darken this door again”—a poignant metaphor for women’s eroding autonomy across Chinese late imperial history.

The Dunhuang contracts ultimately testify to an era when marital dissolution could be both legally substantive and profoundly humanistic—a legacy modern systems might still contemplate.