In this essay I reflect on some of what Llewellyn was doing in "Behind the Law of Divorce." My goal is not to defend either Llewellyn's evolutionary perspective of his understanding of gender relations. He was, as we all are, of his times. His justifications could not be our justifications; his functionalisms will never be ours (although there are many modern versions that resonate with his). On the other hand, what fascinates me is, on the one hand, how he dealt with his own disquiet and recognition of complexity (even as he worked to make large generalizations) and, on the other hand, the language he found to talk in generalities about individual experiences and particular marriages.

I begin by laying out Llewellyn's argument in the first half of the piece, where he described marriage as an institution. My presentation here emphasizes the ways Llewellyn constantly complicated and qualified his argument. Then I isolate two aspects of his contemporary world and how he situated himself and his subject in historical time. Then, I reflect on his voice and why he wrote the piece.