Правило 9 Василия Великого

The Lord's saying that it is not permissible to leave marriage unless the word is adulterous (Matthew 5:32), according to his mind, is equally appropriate for both husbands and wives. But that is not the case. We find many strict sayings about wives. The Apostle says: he who has intercourse with a harlot becomes one body with her (1 Cor. 6:16). And Jeremiah: if a husband lets his wife go, and she leaves him and becomes the wife of another husband, can she return to him? (Jer. 3:1). And again: he who contains an adulteress is foolish and wicked (Proverbs 18:23). Custom commands wives to restrain their husbands, although they commit adultery and are in fornication. Therefore, I don’t know whether someone living with a husband abandoned by his wife can directly be called an adulteress: for here the accusation falls on the one who left her husband, for what reason she departed from the marriage. For if it were because she was beaten and did not endure the blows, then it was more fitting to endure it than to be separated from her partner; if it was because she could not bear the loss of her property, this excuse is not worthy of respect. Even if it is because her husband lives in fornication, we do not observe this in church custom: but the wife is not commanded to separate from an unfaithful husband, but to remain with him, out of uncertainty of what will follow. Why do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband (1 Cor. 7:16)? Therefore, a wife who leaves her husband is an adulterer, even if she moves on to another husband: but a deserted husband is worthy of condescension, and the one who cohabits with him is not condemned. If the husband, having departed from his wife, understands otherwise: then he himself is an adulterer, because he commits adultery, and she who lives with him is an adulteress: because she has attracted someone else’s husband to herself. (Ap. 48; Trul. 87, 93; Ankyr. 20; Carth. 102; Basil Vel. 18, 21, 35, 77). We became acquainted with the teaching of the Orthodox Church on divorce in the interpretation of Trullo Rule 87. In it, the Trullan fathers refer to the present rule of Basil the Great and to the passages of Holy Scripture that Saint Basil also cites. To the question of Amphilochius, whether a wife can demand a divorce when her husband is caught in adultery, what right does the husband of an adulterous wife enjoy, Saint Basil quotes the words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:32) and notes that this commandment applies equally to both husband and wife (εξ ίσου καί άνδράσι, καί γυναιξίν αρμόζει, ex aequo et viris et mulieribus convenit), i.e., that a husband can seek a divorce if his wife is adulterous, and a wife can also demand the same if her husband is an adulterer. What Saint Basil said on the basis of the cited passage of Holy Scripture is confirmed by other places thereof. When the Pharisees, tempting Christ and trying to convict him of a mistake, asked Him about divorce, He referred them to the law of Moses, which, due to the hardness of their hearts, allowed that a husband could let his wife go, but added that this was not the case from the beginning, so that the one who takes a divorced woman commits adultery (και ό άπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχάται) (Matt. 19:3–9), which equated the husband’s betrayal in marriage entirely with the wife’s betrayal (cf. Mark 10:11–12). Meanwhile, this church teaching about the identity of the conjugal rights of husband and wife, which is based on divine right and which St. Basil cites at the beginning of this canon, could not be established in Christian society for a long time, but the pre-Christian custom was firmly preserved, according to which only the husband had the right to break the marriage bond in the event of his wife’s infidelity, and the wife had to tolerate an adulterous husband. Saint Basil mentions this custom in this rule and notes that it was still in force then. According to pre-Christian Roman laws, the wife was a powerless member of society, subordinate to her husband in everything. This power was the basis for the social improvement of that time, and the subject of legislation was the protection of the rights of the husband, while no one even thought about protecting the rights of the wife. As a result, in married life only the rights of the husband were protected by law, and the wife’s infidelity was punished as adultery, while the husband’s infidelity was not punished by law and the wife, as a person without rights, had to submit to the despotic power of her husband and his relatives and endure, put up with the infidelity of her husband, who sometimes knew no boundaries in this 40. Some change in this respect came only in the time of Augustus, or rather, there were then attempts to do something in this regard. Namely: the lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis invalidated many of the laws that had been issued before that time and in which the husband’s free communication with other women, in addition to his legal wife, was depersonalized, and declared any relationship between a husband, wife, and third parties illegal and worthy of punishment 41. One might think that with the publication of this law, promiscuity would cease in Roman society and the equality of husband and wife in marriage relations would be established - equality, which is required by both divine laws and nature, and which determines the happiness and prosperity of the family itself. However, public promiscuity was so deeply rooted that neither this law of Augustus, nor the punishments for adulterers provided for in it, could destroy the evil custom. And what’s worse is that this vice was carried over into Christian society by persons converting to Christianity from Roman-pagan society. In Christian society, of course, all marital infidelity was condemned, both by the wife and the husband; however, according to the traditional concept of the wife's subordination and the husband's advantages in marriage, the husband's infidelity was punished much more leniently than the wife's infidelity. For treason, the husband was considered only a fornicator, while the wife was considered an adulteress (Basily the Great 21). The Church Fathers strictly condemned this perverse concept of the conjugal rights of husband and wife. In the 3rd century, Tertullian raised his voice against this, calling everyone an adulterer, qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam Deus aut conjunxit in duos, aut conjunctam deprehendit 42. Subsequently, civil legislation came to the aid of the church, and the law of Emperor Constantine the Great prescribes the death penalty for anyone caught committing adultery 43 . The church fathers of subsequent centuries did not cease to teach, in their works, about the conjugal rights of married persons. Objecting to those who denied the right of a wife to complain about a husband guilty of adultery, Athanasius the Great explains that the sin of adultery (μοιχεία) always occurs, whether a husband commits fornication (πορνεύση) with another woman, or a wife with a stranger 44. John Chrysostom puts this forward even stronger and more decisively: “It is not adultery only when a man commits fornication with a married woman, but adultery also occurs when a husband commits fornication with an unmarried and unmarried woman” (άφετήν καί λελυμένην, liberam et solutam) 45. That Basil the Great also judges this issue, like other fathers and teachers of the church, is evidenced by both the beginning of his present rule and further words that an adulterer (μοιχαλις, adultera) is every wife who has cheated on her husband, and an adulterer (μοιχαλίς, adulter) is every husband who has cheated on his wife; the same is said in the 77th rule of Basil the Great, where anyone who cheats on his wife is condemned for adultery (τψ της μοιχείας κρίματι), and reference is made precisely to the mentioned place of Holy Scripture (Matthew 19:9). Adultery, therefore, according to the teaching of Basil the Great, as well as all other fathers and teachers of the church, is a reason for divorce for both the wife and the husband. As for the Roman custom, which also existed in the time of St. Basil (IV century), according to which the husband had all the rights in marriage matters, but the wife had none, St. Basil certainly does not approve of this, but mentions it only because it existed in his time; and that this is so is evidenced by both the method and the uncertainty (ούκ οίδα) with which he generally speaks about it. However, we also talk about the same thing in the interpretation of the 21st rule of Basil the Great. See about this the excellent chapter de la condition des femmes in the book M. Troplong, De l’influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains (Paris, 1868, p. 280 et seq.), where all relevant legal decisions are given. Digest.XLVIII, 5, 6, § 1. Tertull., De monog., c. 9 [Migne, s. l., t. 2, col. 941]. Athanas., Quest. 95, ad Antiochum [Migne, s. g., t. 28, col. 656]. Chrysοstοm., Hom. 5 in I ad Thessalon. [Migne, s. g., t. 62, col. 425]. Cp. the same holy father Hom. in 1Cor. VII, 2 [Migne, s. g., t. 52, col. 213 et seq.). Bl. Augustine writes about this: Hujus autem fidei violatio dicitur adulterium, cum vel propriae libidinis instinctu, vel alienae consensu cum altero velaltera contra pactum conjugale concumbitur (de bono conjug., p. 4) [Migne, s. l., t. 40, col. 376]. About the mutual duties of husband and wife to maintain marital fidelity, Mvrosius says: nec viro licet quod mulieri non licet: eadem a viro, quae ab uxore debetur castimonia (de Abrah. I, 4) [Migne, s. l, t. 14, col. 431]; Jerome too: quidquid viris jubetur, hoc consequenter redundat in foerainas (de epitaph. Fab.). You might be interested in: