Page images
PDF
EPUB

bler be entirely immersed. The reason is obvious enough the air in the tumbler having no vent, remains in it, and prevents the water from occupying its place, so that the cork and candle, though apparently under water, are still floating, and surrounded by the air in the tumbler; the candle continues burning until the oxygen of the air is exhausted, and then it goes out, as would the life of a man under similar circumstances. If vessels full of air, like the barrels of Dr. Halley, were submerged, and their contents poured into the tumbler, the light might be maintained; but this could be better done if a tube passed through the tumbler, and air were pumped from above through the tube into the tumbler.

The modern diving-bell, which is made of cast-iron like Smeaton's, is supplied with air in this manner. It must be remembered that air is compressible, and diminishes in bulk in proportion to the pressure, so that at a depth of about 33 ft. in water, it would occupy half the space it filled at the surface; if the inverted tumbler were carried to this depth, it would be half filled with water. A considerable quantity of air has, therefore, to be pumped into the diving-bell, merely to keep it full as it descends; the air thus compressed exerts a corresponding pressure, and would rush up with great force if the tube were open and free. This is prevented by a valve opening downwards only. When the diving-bell has reached its full depth, the pumping is continued to supply air for respiration; and the redundant air overflows, or rather underflows, by the open mouth, and ascends to the surface in great bubbles. The diving-bell is provided with a platform or seat for the workmen, and suspended from a suitable crane or beams projecting from a barge or pier; men above are stationed to work the pumps, and attend to the signals of the bellman. These signals are simply made by striking the sides of the iron diving-bell with a hammer, and as sound is so freely communicated through water, they are easily heard above. One blow signifies "more air;" two blows, "stand fast;" three, "heave up;" four, "lower down;" five, "to eastward;" six, "to westward," etc. These, of course, may be modified as agreed upon. Messages are also sent up, written on a label attached to a cord. The sensations produced in descending are rather curious. Immediately on the mouth of the diving-bell striking the water, a feeling like a slight blow on the internal ear is produced; a dull ringing in the ears and a sense of deafness follow.

The workmen accustomed to subaqueous existence do not suffer these inconveniences; novices feel pains in the head and ears, but these pass away after a short initiation. It is stated that one man who had suffered from difficulty of breathing was completely cured by "belling," and that deafness is not produced by it, but, on the contrary, is in some cases relieved.

DIVING-DRESS. In Schott's Technica Curiosa, published in 1664, is described a iorica aquatica, or aquatic armor, which consisted of a leathern dress, to protect the diver from the water, and a helmet. In 1721, Halley describes a contrivance of his own of nearly the same kind; its object was to enable the diver to go out from the bell and walk about; he was to be provided with a waterproof-dress, and a small divingbell, with glass front, as a helmet over his head, which was to be supplied with air by means of a tube from the diving-bell.

In 1798 Kleingert of Breslau invented a diving-dress available for depths up to 20 feet. The head and body of the diver were encased in cylindrical tin-plate armor, and his legs, in leather breeches. Fresh air was conveyed to him and the vitiated air was removed by means of pipes. In 1829 August Siebe devised an open helmet divingdress, having a copper helmet and breastplate, with attached canvas jacket, below which the air was allowed to escape, but to avoid the admission of water the diver was forced to keep a vertical position. In 1839 Siebe improved his dress, which now is a waterproof costume with helmet of tinned copper, having circular glasses in front, valves to admit and discharge air, and a signal line to allow communication with those above water. The weight of the dress is about 275 lbs. In 1880 Fleuss invented a dress weighing only 20 lbs. This has a copper cylinder fastened to the back, carrying a supply of compressed oxygen. The carbonic acid exhaled by the diver is absorbed by caustic soda in a receptacle fixed above the copper cylinder, while the nitrogen is breathed over and over again. In this dress the diver may remain several hours below the surface. For light ing, arc and incandescent lights are used, as well as improved oil-lamps supplied with air by force-pumps. Slates and signal lines are used for purposes of communication. According to Siebe the greatest depth to which a man has ever descended is 204 feet; equivalent to a pressure of 884 lbs. per square inch.

DIVI'NING-ROD-often called the virgula divina, the baculus divinatorius, the caduceus or wand of Mercury, the rod of Aaron, etc.-is a forked branch, usually of hazel, and sometimes of iron, and even of brass and copper, by which it has been pretended that minerals and water have been discovered beneath the surface of the earth. The rod, when suspended by the two prongs, sometimes between the balls of the thumbs, will distinctly indicate, by a decided inclination, it is alleged, the spot over which the concealed mine or spring is situated. Other powers are ascribed to the divining-rod, but this is the chief. Many men, even of some pretensions to scientific knowledge, have been believers in the occult power ascribed to this magic wand. Agricola, Sperlingius, and Kirchmayer, all believed in its supernatural influence. So did Richelet the author of

[blocks in formation]

the dictionary. The learned Morhoff remained in suspense, while Thouvenot and Pryce, in the latter part of the 18th c., gave ample records of its supposed power. Bayle, in his dictionary, under the word abaris, gives some ingenious arguments both for and against the divining-rod. In a work published by Dr. Herbert Mayo in 1847 and 1851, entitled On the Truth Contained in Popular Superstitions, he gave some curious illustrations of the art, supposed to be possessed by one in forty of the Cornish miners. At Weilbach, in Nassau, he likewise met with one Edward Seebold, who, he says, possessed the power, but afterwards lost it. Arthur Phippen, in 1853, published a pamphlet containing an account of two professional diviners or dowsers. One of them, named Adams, gave remarkable indications of being able to detect water under-ground. He not only was able to discover the particular spot where water might be found—he could even perceive a whole line of water running under-ground.

Scientific men, who have bestowed any care on the examination of nature, regard this alleged power of the divining-rod as an unconscious delusion, ascribing the whole phenomenon to the effect of a strong impression on the mind acting through the agency of the nerves and muscles. See ANIMAL MAGNETISM.

DIVIRIGI (anc. Tephrene), a t. of the province of Sivas, Asia Minor, on the KurnerSu, a branch of the Euphrates, 28 m. n.w from Arabkir. Pop. supposed to be about

5600.

DIVISIBILITY is that property of quantity, matter, or extension, through which it is either actually or potentially separable into parts. Whether matter is or is not indefinitely divisible, is a question which has occupied the minds of philosophers since very early times. See ATOм. There is no doubt that, abstractly speaking, it is indefinitely divisible. We cannot conceive any body or space so small but that we can subdivide it in imagination, and thus figure to ourselves bodies and spaces still smaller; and prac tically, we know that the subdivision of matter is carried in nature far beyond appreciation either by our senses or by calculation. The diffusion of odors through the air for long periods from odoriferous bodies without their suffering any sensible change of weight, and the tinging of great quantities of fluid by very minute portions of coloring matter, are cases commonly appealed to in proof of the extreme fineness of certain material particles; while, by experiment, it is shown that there is no practical limit to the divisibility of even the most solid substances. Thus, an ounce-weight of silver, gilt over with eight grains of gold, has been drawn out into a wire 13,000 ft. long, which was all its length covered with the gold; and a tube of glass presented to the blow-pipe has been drawn out till it became as fine as a silk fiber, orth of an inch thick, still retaining its character as a tube with a distinct interior and exterior surface. In fact, in theory, great and small are mere terms of relation; under the microscope, objects invisible to the eye appear of considerable bulk; and as sir John Herschel, in his celebrated Introduction to the Study of the Physical Scionces, has put it, there is no reason why a mote in a sunbeam should not be in itself a world. With regard to the indefinite divisibility of space, it may be demonstrated geometrically; and perhaps, after all, it is the feeling that space is infinitely divisible, which compels our minds most strongly to resist the notion of ultimate atoms with definite forms, as conceived in the corpuscular theory.

m

1

DIVISIBILITY, in the theory of numbers, means the capability of any number of being divided by another without remainder. To find the condition of divisibility of one number, N, by another, D. Let N = b+bm-1pm-1+...bır+b. See NOTATION. Then Nb (D+(r =D),TM + 6m-1 (D+r − D)m-1+. +b1 (D+r− D) +bo. Expanding the different terms of the right-hand side of this equation, it will appear N that will be a whole number, if b + b1 (r− D) + . . . + bm (r — D)m be divisible by D. Hence, if r = 10, or the number be in the denary scale, and D = 9, and therefore (r- D) = 1, any number will be divisible by 9, if b ̧ + b1 + b2+. + is so, or if the sum of its digits is divisible by 9.

D

...

m

DIVI'SION, one of the four principal rules of arithmetic, is that by which we find how often one quantity is contained in another. It is a compendious method of subtraction, by which we can at once take one number from another as often as it is contained in it. There are three numbers concerned in D.: the dividend, or number to be divided; the divisor, or that by which the dividend is to be divided; and the quotient, or the number expressing how often the divisor is contained in the dividend. The sym. bols of D. are ¿) a (, 2, or or ab, where a is the dividend, and b the divisor.

There are various methods of D., such as the English, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, German, and Indian methods, which differ merely in the manner of arranging and disposing the numbers. The English method will be found explained in all the ordinary text-books of arithmetic. There are also rules of D. for the D. of integers, fractions, and algebraical quantities. The general rule for the D. of vulgar fractions is to multiply the one by the reciprocal of the other. The D. of decimal fractions is performed in the same way as the D. of integers. And, in algebra, D. is practically performed as in arithmetic, either by making a fraction of the dividend and divisor, and reducing the numerator and denominator by the parts common to both, or else by dividing the former by the latter, after the manner of long division. See LOGARITHMS.

Divorce.

20

DIVISION, a definite part of an army or of a fleet, consisting in the army of a certain number of brigades with cavalry and artillery and commanded by a major-general. In tactics the uniting of two companies in regimental or battalion drills forms a division. Military geographical divisions and departments are established and their commanders assigned by direction of the President. brigades are not formed. A division commander supervises the affairs of the departIn time of peace army corps, divisions, or ments composing his division as a general commanding in the field does those of his subordinate commanders. For convenience and to fix responsibility, the United States had till 1891 three military divisions. The division of the Atlantic, including the department of the East, with headquarters on Governor's Island, New York harbor. Division of the Missouri, subdivided into the departments of Missouri, Dakota, Texas, and the Platte, with headquarters at Chicago. Division of the Pacific, including the departments of California, Columbia, and Arizona, with headquarters at San Francisco. In 1897 the military commands comprised eight departments. A naval division is the subdivision of a fleet or squadron, the.commander of which flies a pennant to especially designate his division. service in action is also called a division. Those who serve at the guns are classed as A portion of a ship's company set apart for a certain the first, second, third divisions, the powder divisions serve the battery with ammunition; the navigator's division steer the ship, trim the yards, look after the signals and soundings; the engineer's division attend to everything in the engine department; the medical and paymaster's divisions have charge of what pertains to those two departments.

DIVISION OF LABOR, or DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT, a term often used by political economists to express a means by which labor is economized, or, as another method of stating the same result, by which production is increased. The problem in division of labor is so to adjust matters in any given community that each member of it shall work, or be able if he pleases to work, with the greatest possible results. In practice it is, like most other arrangements, apt to be too broad or too narrow. of all trades and master of none," expresses the truth, that people who try too many The old term, "jack things are not likely to be adepts in any. sort of work to great perfection, unless it is part, as it were, of a group of functions On the other hand, few people can do any for which they are more or less prepared. surgeon; a conveyancer or a special pleader will know something of the other departA good dentist will be in some measure a ments of legal practice; a shipwright will be able, on occasion, to do other kinds of carpentry, and he will be the better of a general knowledge of the mechanical powers. That division of labor, in fact, which is really productive, is where a man who can do several things selects one as that which he can do best, or has most opportunity of doing. By constant practice at that one thing, and the withdrawal of his attention from other matters, he achieves perfection and rapidity of execution. There is an important difference between this selection of a special pursuit, and the inability to do anything more than one thing, which is often confounded with it. In the former case, the worker, whether with head or hand, has great resources, for his adopted pursuit is the best out of several others, on which he can fall back. The man who can do only one thing is in a precarious condition, because that one thing may be superseded. Indeed, as the one thing which can be so done is generally a very simple thing, it is almost a law in political economy that it will come to be superseded by machinery. Such was the fate of the hand-loom weavers, whose function, especially in the plainer and lighter fabrics, was too easy to last. illustration in Adam Smith's description of pin-making: Of the division of unskilled and easy labor, there is an excellent another straights it, a third cats it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for One man draws out the wire, receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business; to whiten the pin is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into a paper; and the important business of making a pin is in this manner divided into above eighteen distinct operations, which in some manufactories are all performed by distinct hands." This division was doubtless useful, so long as pins were made entirely by human hands. It prompted serious inquiries, however, how far such functions were of an improving or a deteriorating character, and essays were written to prove that in manufacturing countries human beings were deteriorating, as no one of them had the faculty of self-support in separation from his fellows, and none could even make one single article by himself, all being dependent for their bread on a complex co-operation, which might break down any day. The answer to such fears may be found in the pin-making of the present day, where one man tends a machine, feeding it with wire at one end, while the pins drop out at the other. This, too, is the fruit of division of labor, for many skillful heads and hands have been occupied in bringing to perfection the different parts of the machinery. It is of the highest importance to the working-classes of a country, to keep in view that though the division of labor does sometimes create functions which, while they are extremely simple and easy, are of value as helping other functions to go on, yet this kind of easy and uniform work has no stability in it, and the possession of the facility for doing it acquired by practice is no permanent industrial endowment, since it is pretty sure to be superseded by machinery. DIVI'SOR. See DIVISION. See also NUMBERS, THEORY OF.

[blocks in formation]

DIVORCE is the dissolution of marriage by the act of the law on due cause shown. The desire to obtain a release from the matrimonial bond has existed at all times and under all legal systems. In heathen nations this release was often granted on the slightest grounds. Even among the Romans, marriage was regarded as little more than a conventional union, to be observed so long only as it suited the mutual convenience of the spouses. Christian nations, on the other hand, adopting as the basis of their systems the scriptural law as declared in Matt. xix. 9, Mark x. 9-11, Luke xvi. 18, and 1st Cor. vii. 10, 11, are agreed in considering marriage a sacred tie, not to be dissolved except on the ground of unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. Even this limited ground for dissolution of marriage is denied by a large portion of the Christian world. By the civil law, as it existed for some centuries after Christianity, a greater laxity was allowed in regard to divorce. The emperor Constantine was the first to prohibit dissolution of marriage by simple consent of the parties. This practice was again revived under the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian; and though those emperors subsequently rescinded this edict, yet the rule as to the grounds on which marriage might be dissolved continued to fluctuate. The law as substantially adopted by Justinian assigned the following justifiable causes for divorce on the part of the wife: certain high crimes, including murder, treason, poisoning, attempts upon the life of the wife, intimacy with prostitutes, and adultery; on the part of the husband the same, with the addition of passing the night out of his house, and visiting places of amusement without his consent. By the canon law, marriage was regarded as a sacrament; and though marriage contracted in disobedience to certain rules might be declared null ab initio, a marriage validly contracted would not be dissolved except by papal dispensation. But the rule of the canon law was not uniformly adopted by the states of Europe, and it was not till the famous council of Trent issued a decree in its 24th session, in 1562, declaring marriage indissoluble even after the adultery of one or both of the parties, that a uniform rule on the subject was established. But before this decree was issued, the reformation had made progress throughout Europe, and thus a change again took place in regard to the law of divorce. It should be observed that, though by the canon law divorce a vinculo matrimonii was unattainable, parties might obtain a separation a mensa et thoro. Roman Catholic countries adopted the principle laid down by the council of Trent, and this rule continues to be in force in most countries which are in the Roman Catholic communion. In Protestant countries, on the other hand, it may be generally stated that the liberality with which divorces have been granted has steadily increased. Luther and Calvin admitted divorce for adultery and malicious desertion. The former crime they thought worthy of the death penalty, but they did not think it wise to prohibit the marriage of the divorced adulterer, since the civil law did not take this view of the offense. The laws of Prussia on the subject of divorce are perhaps more liberal than those of any other nation of the reformed faith. Divorce is there permitted for adultery, sodomy and other unnatural vices, malicious desertion, persistent refusal of marital intercourse, plots or practices endangering life or health, ungovernable temper, drunkenness, extravagance, etc., unless convicted after the admonition of the judge; failure of the husband to support the wife, hopeless insanity continuing for more than a year, and, where there are no children, deliberate mutual consent. In Holland and in Scotland divorce may be obtained on the ground of ill-usage, and perhaps desertion (q.v.). Condonation and collusion, but not recrimination, are, in Scotland, a bar to obtaining a dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. In France the canon law prevailed until the French revolution brought about a change in the rules relating to marriage, and a short period followed in which freedom of divorce was established. By the civil code (1803) both absolute divorce and judicial separation were granted. The former could be obtained on the ground of adultery, but when the wife was petitioner it must be shown that the husband had kept his concubine in the conjugal residence. Divorce was granted to either party for any outrage, gross cruelty, or grievous injury inflicted upon him or her by the other, or for condemnation of the other to infamous punishment. Mutual consent, subject to careful restrictions as to age, consent of the relatives, duration of marriage, protection of children, etc., was also sufficient ground for divorce. Neither party could marry within three years after the divorce was granted. In 1816, as a consequence of the religious reaction, the sacramental theory as to the nature of marriage regained the ascendancy, and the laws relating to divorce were repealed, but judicial separation was retained in the new system. Efforts were made in 1831 and 1832 to renew the previous divorce laws, but failed. In 1881, M. Naquet made an unsuccessful attempt in the chamber of deputies to procure the repeal of the law of 1816; the majority stood firm against the legalization of divorce. But in the session of 1883 the Naquet bill was finally passed, the law of 1816 was repealed by a large majority, and divorce was granted for causes of adultery, conviction of crime, cruelty, and on other grounds. In England, previous to the passing of the act of 1857, establishing the divorce and matrimonial courtmarriage was, by the common law, indissoluble. It was, indeed, competent to obtain a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of relationship, previous marriage of one of the parties, mental or physical incapacity, coercion, or fraudulent representations as to the essentials of the relation, as, for example, false impersonation. But the judgment so obtained was not a decree of divorce, but a declaration that the marriage tie between the parties had never really been contracted. Dissolution of marriage even on these

22

grounds is subject to many limitations, as in the case of alleged fraud or coercion, voluntary cohabitation of husband and wife is a bar to divorce; and where parties have married under the age of consent, if such cohabitation continues after they have reached their majority, divorce cannot be obtained on the ground of their minority. A wife may now obtain a divorce on the ground of the husband's incestuous adultery; or of his bigamy with adultery; or of rape; or of sodomy; or of adultery coupled with gross cruelty; or of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years.' The husband may obtain a divorce on the ground of the wife's adultery. But neither party can obtain a divorce on the ground of desertion alone, however long continued. Nor will a divorce be granted should it appear that husband or wife has been guilty of recrimination by committing the same offense,r that there is collusion between them in order to procure the divorce. Parties also who have condoned the offense-that is, who after it has been discovered have consented again to live together as husband and wifewill not be allowed to obtain a divorce. In order to guard against fraud by parties conniving to procure a divorce, power is given to the queen's proctor, by 23 and 24 Vict., c. 144 to interpose, in case he have reasonable ground to suspect collusion or recrimination, in order to oppose a petition for divorce. The court may order the husband to pay a divorced wife a certain sum for her maintenance during their joint lives. After decree of divorce the offending party may marry again, even with the paramour. But it is enacted, 20 and 21 Vict., c. 85, that no clergyman shall be compelled to solemnize the marriage of any person who has been divorced. He must, however, allow another clergyman, if willing to do so, to perform the marriage. By the acts of 1857 and succeeding years, parties are also entitled to obtain a judicial separation on the ground of adultery, cruelty, or desertion. Judicial separation is declared to be in place of a separation a mensa et thoro. A married woman, having obtained decree of judicial separation, is declared to be in all respects as a femme sole in regard to any property that she has or may acquire. Even before obtaining a separation, a woman deserted by her husband may obtain from the court a protection for any property she may acquire by her own industry. When the divorce is on the ground of adultery, both parties may be examined as witnesses. In the United States, during the colonial period, the legislative bodies in the several states gradually assumed the right of granting divorce, and after the revolution the system of divorce by legislative enactment became uniformly established. Experience of this system proving its defective character, the jurisdiction over divorce cases was generally transferred to the courts of equity, and in many of the state constitutions it was distinctly provided that divorce by legislative act should not be permitted. There is no national control over divorce legislation in this country, and, as the states are left to make their own laws regulating the dissolution of marriage, the greatest diversity in their treatment of the subject has arisen and offers a very serious objection to our system, since it is comparatively easy for a party to move from one state to another and procure a divorce on grounds invalid in the state from which he came, and often without the knowledge of other parties intimately concerned. This want of uniformity makes it impossible to lay down general principles as to the grounds on which divorce is granted in the United States as a whole, and a brief outline of the laws relating to the subject in the different states is all that will be attempted in the present article. There are laws granting divorce on certain specified grounds in all the commonwealths except New Mexico and South Carolina. In the latter state divorce is not granted on any grounds whatever, either by courts of justice or by legislative acts, and the results of this state of things offer an interesting subject for investigation to those who maintain the strict canonical view with regard to the indissoluble nature of marriage. It has been remarked that the prevalence and partial legal recognition of concubinage are the effects of this attitude toward the divorce question in South Carolina. (Bishop's Marriage and Divorce.) In all the states infidelity and violation of the marriage vow are recognized as valid grounds for divorce. In New York, adultery alone warrants absolute divorce in the eye of the law. Impotence or physical inability in almost all either justifies divorce or renders the marriage voidable. Willful desertion is generally considered a sufficient cause, but the period of absence necessary to substantiate the complaint varies in the different states from one to three years; and in Rhode Island and Virginia, five years must have expired. Other grounds are the following: Habitual drunkenness in all states and territories except Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Imprisonment for or conviction of felony, cruel and abusive or inhuman treatment, intolerable, extreme, or repeated cruelty, in most of the states. wife, in California, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming, Indiana, Failure of the husband to provide for the Idaho, Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin; willful neglect for three years, in Delaware. Fraud and fraudulent contract, in Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Absence without being heard from for three years, in New Hampshire; for seven years, in Connecticut and Vermont; separation for five years, in Kentucky; voluntary separation for five years, in Wisconsin. Reasonable presumption of death by the court, in Rhode Island. Ungovernable temper, in Kentucky; habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper, in Florida; cruel treatment, outrages, or excesses, such as render living together intolerable, in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri,

« PreviousContinue »