and only depended on the accusation of the husband, the woman could clear herself by swearing her own innocence; if, however, the accusation was not brought by the husband himself, but by others, the woman could clear herself by submitting to the ordeal by water; that is to say, she would plunge into the Euphrates; if the river carried her away and she were drowned, it was regarded as proof that the accusation was well founded; if, on the contrary, she survived and got safely to the bank, she was considered innocent and was forthwith allowed to return to her household completely vindicated.

It will have been seen that the duty of chastity on the part of a married woman was strictly enforced, but the husband’s responsibility to properly maintain his wife was also recognized, and in the event of his desertion she could under certain circumstances become the wife of another man.  Thus, if he left his city and fled from it of his own free will and deserted his wife, he could not reclaim her on his return, since he had not been forced to leave the city, but had done so because he hated it.  This rule did not apply to the case of a man who was taken captive in battle.  In such circumstances the wife’s action was to be guided by the condition of her husband’s affairs.  If the captive husband possessed sufficient property on which his wife could be maintained during his captivity in a strange land, she had no reason nor excuse for seeking another marriage.  If under these circumstances she became another man’s wife, she was to be prosecuted at law, and, her action being the equivalent of adultery, she was to be drowned.  But the case was regarded as altered if the captive husband had not sufficient means for the maintenance of his wife during his absence.  The woman would then be thrown on her own resources, and if she became the wife of another man she incurred no blame.  On the return of the captive he could reclaim his wife, but the children of the second marriage would remain with their own father.  These regulations for the conduct of a woman, whose husband was captured in battle, give an intimate picture of the manner in which the constant wars of this early period affected the lives of those who took part in them.

Under the Babylonians at the period of the First Dynasty divorce was strictly regulated, though it was far easier for the man to obtain one than for the woman.  If we may regard the copies of Sumerian laws, which have come down to us from the late Assyrian period, as parts of the code in use under the early Sumerians, we must conclude that at this earlier period the law was still more in favour of the husband, who could divorce his wife whenever he so desired, merely paying her half a mana as compensation.  Under the Sumerians the wife could not obtain a divorce at all, and the penalty for denying her husband was death.  These regulations were modified in favour of the woman in Hammurabi’s code; for under its provisions,