The proceedings began on October 30, 1835, when “Madame D----- a
forme centre son mari une demande en separation de corps.  Cette
demande etait fondee sur les injures graves, sevices et mauvais
traitements dont elle se plaignait de la part de son mari.”

The following is a passage from Michel of Bourges, her advocate’s defence:  “Des 1824, la vie intime etait devenue difficile; les egards auxquels toute femme a droit furent oublies, des actes d’emportement et de violence revelerent de la part de M. D----- un caractere peu facile, peu capable d’apprecier le devouement et la delicatesse qu’on lui avail temoignes.  Les mauvais traitements furent d’abord plus rares que les mauvais precedes, ainsi les imputations d’imbecillite, de stupidite, furent prodiguees a Madame D----- le droit de raisonner, de prendre l’art a la conversation lui fut interdit...des relations avec d’autres femmes furent connues de l’epouse,et vers le mois de Decembre, 1828, toute cohabitation intime cessa.

“Les enfants eux-memes eurent quelque part dans les mauvais traitements.”]

M. Dudevant then appealed to the Court of Cassation at Bourges, where the case was tried on July 25; but he withdrew his appeal before judgment was given.  The insinuations and revelations made in the course of these lawsuits were anything but edifying.  George Sand says that she confined herself to furnishing the proofs strictly demanded by the law, and revealed only such facts as were absolutely necessary.  But these facts and proofs must have been of a very damaging nature, for M. Dudevant answered them by imputations to merit one hundred-thousandth part of which would have made her tremble.  “His attorney refused to read a libel.  The judges would have refused to listen to it.”  Of a deposition presented by M. Dudevant to the Court, his wife remarks that it was “dictated, one might have said, drawn up,” by two servants whom she had dismissed.  She maintains that she did not deserve this treatment, as she betrayed of her husband’s conduct only what he himself was wont to boast of.

George Sand’s letters [Footnote:  George Sand:  Correspondence 1812- 1876; Six volumes (Paris:  Calman Levy).] seem to me to show conclusively that her chief motives for seeking a divorce were a desire for greater independence and above all for more money.  Complaints of ill-treatment are not heard of till they serve to justify an action or to attain a purpose.  And the exaggeration of her varying statements must be obvious to all but the most careless observer.  George Sand is slow in making up her mind; but having made it up she acts with fierce promptitude, obstinate vigour, and inconsiderate unscrupulousness, in one word, with that concentration of self which sees nothing but its own desires.  On the whole, I should say that M. Dudevant was more sinned against than sinning.  George Sand, even as she represents herself in the Histoire de ma Vie and in her letters, was far from being an exemplary wife, or indeed a woman with whom even the most angelic of husbands would have found it easy to live in peace and happiness.