Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Law and Opera pp 65–77Cite as

“That May Be Japanese Law … but Not in My Country!” Marriage, Divorce, and Private International Law in Giacomo Puccini’s Madama Butterfly

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 472 Accesses

Abstract

Madama Butterfly is one of the most famous operas by Giacomo Puccini. Set in Japan in 1904, it depicts the tragic love story between B.F. Pinkerton, an officer in the US Navy, and Cio-cio-san (also called Madama Butterfly), a young Japanese girl from Nagasaki.

The libretto (written by Giacosa e Illica—one of whom happened to be a lawyer) is quite interesting from a jurist’s perspective as it mentions a number of legal. The pivotal point in the opera is the marriage between the officer and the young Japanese lady. Questions arise about the law applicable to the marriage itself (including the formalities required), that applicable to the matrimonial life and, more importantly, whether Pinkerton was allowed to unilaterally divorce by abandoning the conjugal house, an option in his view permitted by Japanese law (but of course not allowed under the law of the USA). In the opera, the validity of this option is taken for granted, but a legal, technical analysis leads to a different conclusion.

This paper investigates in detail the legal aspects of Madama Butterfly, in light of the applicable law in Japan in 1904: in particular, the Civil Code of 1898 (Minpō), the Japanese Code of Private International Law (Hōrei) and the Nationality Law (Kokuseki hō). The story of Pinkerton and Butterfly will be analyzed through the lenses of law to find answers to the following questions: Was their marriage validly performed? Which law regulated their marital life? And most of all: Did the law in 1904 grant the husband the ability to unilaterally divorce through abandonment? In trying to deal with these questions, the paper relies on the original text in Italian (of course providing an English translation for the international readership).

This paper was previously published as Colombo, Giorgio Fabio; Suzuki, Masabumi; Yokomizo, Dai, ““That may be Japanese law…but not in my country!”. Marriage, Divorce and Private International Law in Giacomo Puccini’s Madama Butterfly”, in Zeitschrift für Japanisches Recht/Journal of Japanese Law, vol. 39, 2015, 73–88. The copyright holder has given its permission to republishing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to the website Operabase, Madama Butterfly is the sixth most represented opera worldwide (http://operabase.com/, last accessed November 25th, 2014).

  2. 2.

    Girardi (1996). Girardi is one of the leading experts of Puccini. Readers interested in his work may refer to Girardi (2002).

  3. 3.

    Girardi (1996) note 2 mentions La Princesse Jaune (Saint-Saëns, 1872), The Mikado or the Town of Titipu (Gilbert & Sullivan, 1885), Madame Chrysantème (Messager, 1893) and The Geisha (Jones, 1896).

  4. 4.

    Loti (1888).

  5. 5.

    Long (1898). Oddly enough, Mr. Long was a lawyer.

  6. 6.

    The work is reprinted in Belasco (1928), p. 10.

  7. 7.

    This is not the appropriate venue for a complete debate on the sources behind Madama Butterfly. For a thorough description, see Van Rij (2001).

  8. 8.

    Of course in Japanese the correct writing should be Chô-chô, but Cio-Cio follows the Italian pronunciation.

  9. 9.

    The nickname is based on the Japanese word 蝶 (chô), which means “butterfly”.

  10. 10.

    Act I. All the references are based on the 1906 edition of the libretto. Giacosa and Illica (1906).

  11. 11.

    Bonzo in the original Italian text.

  12. 12.
    Act I. Pinkerton:

    La comperai per novecento novantanove anni, con facoltà, ogni mese, di rescindere i patti. Sono in questo paese elastici del par, case e contratti.

    Sharpless:

    E l’uomo esperto ne profitta

    For the purpose of this paper, we availed ourselves of the translation by Elkin for the Stanford University Opera Glass Project, http://opera.stanford.edu/Puccini/Butterfly/libretto_a.html (last accessed: November 21st, 2014).

    The scholar of Japanese law cannot ignore the reference to the “elastic” (or “flexible”) Japanese contracts. It is surprising to find a reference to the (alleged) attitude against formal agreements so common in the literature about Japanese law. On the topic see Kitagawa (1997). On a broader level, see Upham (1998).

  13. 13.
    Act. I. Goro:

    Qui verran: l’Ufficiale del registro, i parenti, il vostro console, la fidanzata. Qui si firma l’atto e il matrimonio è fatto

    The registration of the marriage is one of the few legal aspects dealt with by Loti. After the Japanese police apparently harassed his landlords for hosting a foreigner married to a Japanese lady, he has to visit the local authorities to prove that his marriage was validly registered. The dialogue that follows is not really a good example of cultural understanding and kindness, to say the least: “Certainement, disent-ils enfin, on laissera en paix mon honorable personne; on ne demande pas mieux, même. Seulement, pour me soumettre aux lois du pays , j’aurais dû venir ici déclarer mon nom et celui de la jeune personne que… avec laquelle… – Oh ! c’est trop fort, par exemple ! Mais je suis venu exprès, troupe méprisable, il n’y a pas trois semaines! Alors je prends moi-même le registre de l’état civil: en feuilletant, je retrouve la page, ma signature et, à côté, le petit grimoire qu’a dessiné Chrysanthème:– Tiens, assemblée d’imbéciles, regarde!” Loti (1888), p. 100-1 (emphasis added).

  14. 14.
    Act I. Pinkerton::

    Così mi sposo all’uso giapponese per novecento novantanove anni. Salvo a prosciogliermi ogni mese.

  15. 15.

    Act I., Imperial Commissioner:

    È concesso al nominato Benjamin Franklin Pinkerton, luogotenente nella cannoniera Lincoln, marina degli Stati Uniti America del nord: ed alla damigella Butterfly del quartiere di Omara­Nagasaki, di unirsi in matrimonio, per diritto il primo, della propria volontà, ed ella per consenso dei parenti qui testimonii all’atto (porge l’atto per la firma)

  16. 16.
    Act II. Butterfly:

    Bevenuto in casa americana.

  17. 17.

    Act II.

    Butterfly:

    Già legata è la mia fede

    Goro and Yamadori:

    Maritata ancor si crede

    Goro:

    Ma la legge...

    Butterfly:

    Io non la so

    Goro:

    ...per la moglie l’abbandono al divorzio equiparò

    Buttefly:

    La legge giapponese, non quella del mio paese

    Goro:

    Quale?

    Buttefly:

    Gli Stati Uniti

    Sharpless:

    (Oh, l’infelice!)

    Butterfly:

    Si sa che aprir la porta e cacciar la moglie per la più corta qui divorziar si dice. Ma in America questo non si può. Vero?

    Sharpless:

    Vero...però...

    Butterfly:

    Là un bravo giudice, serio e impettito, dice al marito “Lei vuole andarsene? Sentiam perché?” ~ “Sono seccato del coniugato!” E il magistrato: “Ah, mascalzone, presto in prigione!”

  18. 18.

    This is our interpretation based on the premise in paragraph II, i.e. the première at La Scala in Milan. However, different readings of the relevant date are offered by Bailey-Harris (1991). Bailey-Harris thinks that the beginning of the story could have taken place in the latter part of 1898 (at the earliest. Id. at 158) She therefore believes that the 1898 legislation is applicable in toto. Other scholars claim that, should 1898 be the date, the applicability of the Hōrei would be doubtful: contrary to the view of Bailey-Harris see Sakurada (2008).

  19. 19.

    On the issue of the Unequal Treaties in general, see Auslin (2006).

  20. 20.

    Law No. 89/1896 and No. 9/1898.

  21. 21.

    Law No. 10/1898.

  22. 22.

    For a complete and detailed analysis of the modernization of Japanese law, see Röhl (2005). See also Dogauchi (2008), p. 26.

  23. 23.

    Law No. 66-1899.

  24. 24.

    For the translation of the 1898 Civil Code and of the Hōrei we used Lönholm (1898).

  25. 25.

    Incidentally, Butterfly has just reached the legal age for entering into a marriage. She is in fact 15, the minimum permitted by the law to get married. Art. 765, Civil Code.

  26. 26.

    It is worth mentioning that the violation of Art. 750 gave the power to the family head to expel the member from the family, but it did not affect the validity of the marriage itself. On the other hand, a violation of Art. 772 would prevent the valid registration of the act. Amplius, Ramseyer (1996), p. 96.

  27. 27.

    Act I: [l’Ufficiale dello stato civile ritira l’atto e avverte il Commissario che tutto è finito].

  28. 28.

    Art. 10, Law No. 10/1898.

  29. 29.

    “A Japanese woman who has married an alien loses Japanese nationality”. See also Torii (1999), pp. 257–260; 259.

  30. 30.

    This allows us to disregard Art. 789 of the Civil Code, by which the wife must live with the husband and the husband must permit the wife to live with him.

  31. 31.

    Fuess (2004), pp. 1–2 refers to a vast literature in this sense, ranging from Valignano to Midford to Chamberlain.

  32. 32.

    Japanese courts had a long history of refusing at-fault divorce West (2011).

  33. 33.

    For a debate on the “American side” of the issue, see Bailey-Harris (1991).

  34. 34.

    Actually, Puccini employs—to a limited extent—Japanese instruments both in the orchestral setting and on stage. His access to Japanese musical instruments is believed to be due to the great research work carried out by Mascagni for the Iris. Amplius, Girardi (1996).

  35. 35.

    For the purpose of this analysis we are not interested in discussing what an hypothetical Madama Butterfly 2.0, set in Nagasaki today (as the libretto states) could be, from a legal point of view. Of course applying present laws to the case would be stimulating, but we leave to others this intellectual effort.

  36. 36.

    Röhl (2005), pp. 1–23.

  37. 37.

    The so-called Ansei Treaties are five unequal treaties executed between Japan and the USA, Netherlands, Russia, Great Britain and France in 1858. By virtue of the most favored nation clause, their provisions extended from a treaty to the other to provide a homogenous regime for foreign powers vis-à-vis Japan. In the case of France, the governing treaty was the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between France and Japan of October 9th, 1858.

  38. 38.

    Fuess (2004), p. 29.

  39. 39.

    Supra at 13.

  40. 40.

    Although the Japanese legal system has often depicted through stereotypes. Amplius, Colombo (2014).

References

  • Auslin MR (2006) Negotiating with imperialism: the unequal treaties and the culture of Japanese diplomacy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey-Harris R (1991) Madame Butterfly and the conflict of laws. Am J Comp Law 39:157–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belasco D (1928) Madame Butterfly: a tragedy of Japan. In: Six plays. Little, Brown, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo GF (2014) Japan as a victim of comparative law. Mich State Int Law Rev 22:731–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogauchi M (2008) Historical development of Japanese private international law. In: Basedow J, Baum H, Nishitani Y (eds) Japanese and European private international law in comparative perspective. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 27–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuess H (2004) Divorce in Japan. Family, gender and the state 1600–2000. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacosa G, Illica L (1906) Madama Butterfly. Una tragedia giapponese. Ricordi, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Girardi M (1996) Esotismo e dramma in “Iris” e “Madama Butterfly”. In: Puccini e Mascagni. Quaderni della Fondazione Festival pucciniano 37–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Girardi M (2002) Puccini: his international art. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitagawa Z (1997) Use and non-use of contracts in Japanese business relations: a comparative analysis. In: Baum H (ed) Japan: economic success and legal system. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 145–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Long JL (1898) Madame Butterfly

    Google Scholar 

  • Lönholm LH (1898) The civil code of Japan. Maruya, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Loti P (1888) Madame Chrysantème. Calmann-Lévy, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer JM (1996) Odd markets in Japanese history. Law and economic growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Röhl W (ed) (2005) A history of law in Japan since 1868. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakurada Y (2008) Chocho-Hujin no Higeki. Kyoto University Law and Politics 21 COE Program for the Reconstruction of Legal Ordering in the 21st Century, Occasional Paper Series 28:19–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Torii J (1999) International human rights and the law concerning family relations. In: Andō N (ed) Japan and international law. Past, present, future. Brill, Den Haag, pp 257–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Upham FK (1998) Weak legal consciousness as invented tradition. In: Vlastos S (ed) Mirror of modernity: invented traditions of modern Japan. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 48–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rij J (2001) Madame Butterfly: Japonisme, Puccini & the search for the Real Cho-Cho-san. Stone Bridge Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • West MD (2011) Lovesick Japan. Sex, marriage, romance, law. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nagoya University, Graduate School of Law, Nagoya, Japan

    Giorgio Fabio Colombo, Masabumi Suzuki & Dai Yokomizo

Authors
  1. Giorgio Fabio Colombo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masabumi Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dai Yokomizo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Fabio Colombo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Angelo Sraffa Department of Legal Studies, Bocconi Universtiy, Milan, Italy

    Filippo Annunziata

  2. Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

    Giorgio Fabio Colombo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Colombo, G.F., Suzuki, M., Yokomizo, D. (2018). “That May Be Japanese Law … but Not in My Country!” Marriage, Divorce, and Private International Law in Giacomo Puccini’s Madama Butterfly . In: Annunziata, F., Colombo, G. (eds) Law and Opera. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68649-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68649-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68648-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68649-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation