She was "a woman so small that she might have been mistaken for a child," yet her charisma, resourcefulness, and outrage belied her appearance, and in a controversy that gained national attention, she was able to defeat her husband, the Shakers, and the political and social mores of her time. In The Great Divorce Ilyon Woo tells the true story of Eunice Chapman, who in 1818 gained the first legislative divorce in the history of New York State and won back her civil rights. Even more importantly, she gained back her three children, whom her husband had kidnapped and taken to live in a Shaker village. Woo gives an interesting, and at times gripping, step-by-step account of the drama, capturing the various personalities involved, the issues at the heart of the conflict, and the far-reaching political and social ramifications of the legislation.

The 1804 marriage of James Chapman and Eunice Hawley was shaky from the start and began to deteriorate rapidly. Neither side seems without fault, with a volatile temper and outspokenness on her part and an abuse of alcohol and "arbitrary shows of power" on his. In 1811 James left his wife and three children and after different attempts to find work and contentment, he went to live in a Shaker community in Watervliet, N.Y. Eunice begged her husband to return to the family. Since a woman gave up all her rights and possessions when she married, Eunice was stripped of identity without her husband. She made an effort to enter the Shaker community but found it in conflict with her own religious beliefs. Eunice claimed that James had abandoned his vows to her; he, on the other hand, claimed that since he had offered her a place among the Shakers and she had refused, it was she who was a disobedient wife and he was not legally indebted to her.

The situation escalated when James and a fellow believer traveled to Eunice's home in Durham, N.Y., ironically while she was returning from a visit to James to try to persuade him to come home. The men took the three children: George, 10; Susan, 8; and Julia, 4. James had the law on his side since children rightfully belonged to their fathers. At the Shaker village, George was separated from his two sisters. At one point Eunice managed to reclaim George, but he was quickly taken back by his father who then moved the children to a community in New Hampshire.

Eunice now battles not only her husband but the Shakers themselves. Aligning herself with the anti-Shaker movement, she publishes a series of claims about their abuses toward children, their sexual practices, and their unorthodox religious rites. Her personal journey is now part of a larger mission: she sees herself as "an instrument in God's hands."

Emboldened by her own helplessness and by other cases of women in a situation similar to hers, Eunice takes her case to the legislature in Albany. There she is given voice through her brother-in-law, and an act called Relief for Eunice is introduced. The act grants Eunice a legislative divorce—without a trial in court—and the right to pursue custody of her children. Important men line up on both sides of the controversy: Should adultery be the only grounds for divorce? Are a man's constitutional rights being violated? Are the Shakers truly evil or only harmlessly unorthodox? Will the act set a dangerous precedent? And, of course, the character of Eunice herself is divisive: is she a helpless, loving mother or a dangerous manipulator and enchantress?

Woo details the bitter three-year-long controversy and the votes and vetoes that take place in the house, senate, and Council on Revision. She describes the resourcefulness and determination with which Eunice herself keeps the case alive and the high emotions that fill the assembly room on the day of the final decision.

The Great Divorce is interesting on many levels. One is the personalities of James and Eunice, the relationship between them, and the question of who is "right" at different points in the story. Socially, the history of Mother Ann Lee and the details of Shaker religious life and daily practices are fascinating, as is the controversy over whether or not they privately engaged in practices that they publicly denounced. Politically, the changes in divorce laws, attitudes toward women, and the role of government in civil cases are all explored. Along with these big issues are some more trivial, but no less interesting, facts. Since I had always pictured the Shaker Sisters in sensible oxfords, I was surprised to learn that they wore dancing shoes with 2-inch heels, on which they managed to skip and stamp, "flying by one another like clouds in a storm." And I'm never again using the expression "rule of thumb," since it derives from the legal argument that a man could beat his wife with a stick the width of his finger but not as wide as a thumb.

As interesting as the story itself is the way in which the book was written. First is the very idea—the inspiration to write a book about a woman who lived more than 200 years ago. Over a 10-year period, Woo read mostly primary sources—the actual writings of Eunice, James, and a Shaker Elder—and pieced together the events of the conflict and their impact on society. The challenge of the historical nonfiction genre is to give life to facts and to create an engaging story, in which nothing can be made up or embellished. Woo does an excellent job of meeting both of these challenges. One way she does this is to tie together the chronology of events with foreshadowings, which hint that a particular present action will have consequences in the future. She also carefully connects all historical exposition to the thread of the narrative. The only part at which this reader lost a bit of interest was during some of the legislative proceedings. (But then, that's often where this reader loses interest!)

The author, Ilyon Woo, will be at Fruitlands Museum on Sept. 24. Dramatic readings from her book will begin at 7:30 p.m.; the event is free and open to the public.