Unreasonable dislike of the spouse and the material settlement of divorce

The dissolution of a marriage was a complicated affair.¹⁵ Because it terminated the affinal relationship between hulahula and boru, it required the cooperation of the families of the husband and wife, as well as the rajas representing their lineages. A couple was considered divorced only if the parboru and paranak had settled the material aspect of the separation and the rajas had received the dues called the pagopago sirang for their mediation. Thus, until then, in a situation where husband and wife lived separately and actually had no desire to remain married, their marriage was not yet considered dissolved and the woman was not allowed to remarry. In the meantime, she would wear a hair adornment made of certain leaves when going to the market so another man would know that she was eligible. Her parboru would then use the brideprice he received from the suitor to settle the divorce with her husband. If a woman was already divorced, she wore a hair adornment made of another type of the leaves. A suitor would show his interest in the woman by removing the hair adornment.¹⁶

The rajas who arranged a divorce and decided on the restitution of marriage gifts took into account which party was responsible for the break-up of the marriage, the husband or the wife. They might also investigate the role of other family members who might have played a part in the breakdown of the marriage. As the reasons for divorce varied and the former agreement on marriage payments could be complex, the rajas might have trouble coming up with a settlement acceptable for both parties. Another complication was that marriage payments were rarely written down, giving rise to endless haggling over who had received what in the past.

Often litigants and their witnesses twisted the evidence merely to obtain the most advantageous settlement for them.

A husband could have various reasons to request a divorce. For example, he found his wife quarrelsome, was distressed because she had a tense relationship with her mother-in-law,

13 Yet another form of langkup was the abduction of a betrothed girl (oroan), for which the term was therefore langkup oroan.

14 See Chapter 12, sections 12.1., 12.2., and 12.5.

15 Sources on divorce used: Meerwaldt 1894:122; Ruhut [tr. Meerwaldt] 1904/5; Bruch 1912:16-7,24; Patik 1899 [tr. Boer 1921:94-97]; Patik 1899 [tr. Vergouwen 1932:12-14]. Vergouwen ([1933] 1964:248-269) gives a complete and detailed description of the causes of divorce, legal procedures, and financial settlements. I mention other sources if they add aspects that I would like to highlight or substantiate a certain point.

16 Leaves of certain plants were thus used as identity markers: if a woman had been divorced but the brideprice was not yet repaid, she wore a hair adornment made of bambu leaves to the market; if repaid in full, of saesae leaves; when the divorce had taken place with mutual consent, of riaria leaves; and when the couple had been divorced because of ill fortune such as barrenness or illness, of banebane leaves (Ruhut 1898 [tr. Vergouwen: 1932: 131]; Patik 1899 [tr. Vergouwen, 1932:35-6]). The use of these identity markers gradually disappeared (Salomo 1938:17), but male and female religious leaders (parbaringin and paniaran) still use leaves of certain plants at the time they officiate at rituals (Angerler 2009:222).

or did not contribute sufficiently to the upkeep of the family, channelled household assets to her own family, had insulted him, and so forth.¹⁷ If he was not immediately intent on a divorce, he could inform her father or brother (parboru) about his misgivings and ask the latter to lecture his wife about her shortcomings, mistakes, or misdemeanour. If his wife was indeed to blame, he could expect his father-in-law to speak sternly to her, reminding her of her wifely duties and obligation to behave politely towards her in-laws.¹⁸ After all, the parboru had a stake in keeping the marriage intact, as a divorce involved his obligation to return the brideprice and he might not wish to sever the relationship with his son-in-law’s family. Another good reason why a husband might seek a divorce had nothing to do with any misconduct of his wife, but rather with the attitude of his father-in-law. If the latter had not kept his promise at the time of marriage to provide his daughter with a valuable bridegift in the form of land (pauseang), the husband might be so angry that he demanded a divorce.¹⁹

It appears, however, that it was more often the husband to have been at fault. If his wife had been a dutiful wife and mother, had given him children or was still young enough to give him children, her parboru might be of the opinion that his son-in-law harboured an unreasonable dislike for his wife (magigi) and might refuse a divorce settlement or even wage war on him.

Public opinion would also be against him.²⁰ If the husband was found guilty of magigi, the rajas would still grant him the divorce, but they might punish him by denying him the full restitution of the brideprice. Therefore, a man set on a divorce without an acceptable reason was not keen to request a divorce through the regular legal procedure. It was more advantageous for him to pursue other strategies. For example, he could return his wife to her parents under the pretext that she was to blame for something and then just leave her there, taking no further notice of her. Or he could leave the village, leaving his wife not provided for during a prolonged period of time. A husband could also physically abuse his wife to induce her to leave him. Also, if she lacked the support of, or suffered from ridicule and neglect by her in-laws, she would eventually go back to her own family out of sheer misery.²¹

If convinced of the unreasonable dislike of his son-in-law for his daughter, a parboru could bring the case before the rajas, expecting them to find his son-in-law guilty of magigi.²² If the husband let the parboru sue him, however, he could use this to his own advantage, making the counterclaim that not he, but his wife, was to blame. If he had succeeded chasing her out of the house, he could claim that she had left him, that the parboru had made no effort to bring her

17 Bruch (1912:24) underlined the importance attached to the duty of a wife to support her family: ‘A woman who does not know […] how to take care of the family’s livelihood is often held in low esteem, scolded by her husband, and is usually chased away’.

18 Adatvonnissen 1936:70 (note by J.C. Vergouwen).

19 Missionary A. Bruch (1912:24), who worked in Uluan in the 1890s, reported that this problem was often the sad background of divorce in his district. Three decades later, Vergouwen (1933]1964: 205) also reported that this was a problem, particularly in Toba Holbung, adding that the father of the girl often withheld the pauseang gift, because part of the brideprice had not yet been paid in full.

20 An example of this concerns a certain Hermanus. He wanted to pronounce himself the new Si Siak Bagi of the millenarian movement of the Parmalim, the leader of which had been his deceased father-in-law. Because his wife and his mother-in-law did not agree with this, he divorced his wife. After this, nearly all the members of the movement sided with his wife and deserted him (NA, Col. MR 1923:434 and 1137). Note the non-Batak name of Hermanus, indicating that he or his family probably had been Christian.

21 For a case in which a husband used to beat his wife and succeeded in chasing her away, but eventually received the entire brideprice back, see KITLV, Adatrechtstichting H 1051, 86. Perdjandjian perdamaian no: 15, Kleine Rapat Lagoeboti, 7 maart 1928.

22 The parts of the brideprice that had to be returned differed per region and at different points in time (Oude gegevens 1919:215; Dorpstuchtrecht 1928:68; Adatsrechtregelen 1932:2139).

back, and that therefore the other party was guilty of breaking up the marriage.²³ If he succeeded in convincing the rajas, he had a better chance to get more out of the material settlement of the divorce.

A parboru, enraged and bitter because of the arbitrary treatment of his daughter by her husband, might show his rage by simply marrying off his daughter to another man. The following Batak saying (umpama) applied to such a case: to have a cow and want two horses, to have one daughter and desire two sons-in-law’.²⁴ The husband could then sue his father-in-law for langkup, trampling on his rights vested in his wife who was still his lawful spouse. It is likely that only a parboru who was rich enough to pay the high fines for such an offence resorted to this unlawful conduct. If the case came before the rajas, the indignant parboru might hurl the following reproach to his son-in-law:

My agreement with you was not that you would use my daughter only as the person who dries your roof tiles, but I gave her in marriage to you with the objective that you would make her a decent husband. Instead, you have treated her like a rag. All right then, now take your money!

(Patik 1899 [tr. De Boer1921:361]²⁵

This was not always the end of the dispute, as the husband, feeling insulted, might start hostilities.

If the case was brought before the rajas again, the parboru would have to return the brideprice and both parties had to pay additional fines, because both had been at fault and had obstructed the judicial procedure.

But a woman, too, could have reasons for ending her marriage. Perhaps she loathed her husband because she had been married off without her consent. She also might resent his addiction to gambling, because it diminished the household’s assets.²⁶ Or she deplored the fact that he was about to marry again, or already had. Just as her husband could make her life miserable, she could make his life hell: she could pester him, abuse him, refuse to cook for him or attend to his sexual needs, run away to her parent’s house on the slightest pretext, and so forth.

Remarriage of the husband seems indeed to have been a cause of marital discord. Despite the mechanisms to minimize ill feelings between wives discussed in the previous chapter, conflict between co-wives was proverbial: ‘conflicts over land some day will come to an end, conflicts because of co-wives never do’ (Warneck 1909:132). The missionaries of course made much of the envy, rivalry, and actual clashes between co-wives, but the Batak authors of Ruhut and Patik also referred to these. Clearly influenced by the Christian dogma on monogamy, they summed up the disadvantages observed in real life. The author of Patik reported that some women even resorted to black magic or poisoning to get rid of their rival (Patik 1899 [tr. De Boer 1921:116;

369-70]).

A true story was reported by Van Asselt, the missionary with a keen sense of drama.

One day the first wife of Raja Partuan Suangkupon, the kuria head of Sipirok (1856–1862),

23 A case in which the husband tried to put the blame on his wife, see KITLV, Adatrechtstichting H 1051, 85, Civiel vonnis Groote Rapat Tarutung no. 3/1928, 23 January 1928.

24 Sada lombu naeng dua hoda, sada boru naeng dua hela (Patik 1899 [tr. Vergouwen 1932:34]).

25 Vergouwen does not give this wording verbatim (Patik 1899 [tr. Vergouwen 1932:34]).

26 Schreiber (1891a: 283) reported that Toba Batak said that ‘they absolutely had to become Christian, because they did not know of any other way of disengaging their men from the misery of gambling’.

came to visit him after she heard of her husband’s plan to marry a younger woman. In tears, she confided to him, ‘If she arrives, I will see to it that she does not enter the house’. On the day of the wedding, the beautifully adorned bride arrived in the village with her family and a large following. All of a sudden, when she climbed the stairs of the house, a pot with stinking filth was thrown over her. Her insulted family left and nothing came of the marriage. Van Asselt (1899:26) chuckled, ‘and in no way did the queen want to admit to her doing!’ This lady, besides being a headstrong character, must have been of aristocratic birth herself and probably had children, including a son or sons. She probably counted on her husband’s reluctance to divorce her in order to preserve the relationship with her family.²⁷ Van Asselt was of course not the only missionary who remarked on the dismay of Batak women who faced the possibility of their husband’s taking a second wife or suffered because of it.²⁸ It confirmed the righteousness of their crusade against polygamy.

If a wife made life too hard for her husband, he might seek a divorce on the charge of her dislike for him, the offence called mahilolong. The rule for the settlement on the return of the brideprice was as follows: ‘what is one becomes two, what is three becomes six; the debt of wayward women’.²⁹ In other words, the rajas would oblige the parboru to return to his son-in-law the doubled value of the brideprice he had received for her at the time of marriage. Needless to say, a parboru was usually not inclined to make such an extraordinary material sacrifice on behalf of a flippant or obstinate daughter or sister. If her husband did not want to take her back, however, the parboru had no other choice than to pay up. He also had to offer his son-in-law and his family, the chiefs, and the villagers a ceremonial meal to placate the injured party.

In sum, it was not easy for a man to obtain a divorce, but he could always arrange for it if he was intent on it. If he had no valid reason for the divorce, his request was considered merely unseemly. On the other hand, it was impossible for a woman to obtain a divorce on her own initiative. If she refused the continuation of her marriage, it was a grave offence (Vergouwen ([1933]1964:261). It would also backfire on her relationship with her parboru, who would hold it against her that she had put him in a very disadvantageous position with regard to the settlement of the marriage payments at the time of her divorce.