In the early Roman Empire, a husband held the jus tori, the right to the bed, which meant that while a wife's fidelity was legally enforced, a husband's sexual relations with slaves or unmarried women were not considered illegal. This legal double standard created a society where the husband's infidelity was often ignored, while the wife's was treated as a theft of property. The Roman historian Spartianus recorded a telling exchange between the imperial colleague Verus and his reproaching wife, where he declared, "Wife is the name of dignity, not bliss." This statement encapsulated the prevailing view that marriage was a political and social contract rather than a partnership of equals. The Roman Lex Julia of 17 BC later codified these views, punishing adultery with banishment to different islands and the confiscation of property. Fathers were even granted the right to kill their daughters and their lovers, while husbands were required to divorce adulterous wives. The legal system prioritized the husband's property rights over the woman's autonomy, treating her as an extension of her husband's estate rather than an individual with agency.
Bloodlines and Thrones
The stakes of adultery rose from property disputes to matters of national security when it involved royalty. In England, engaging in adultery with the King's wife, his eldest son's wife, or his eldest unmarried daughter was classified as high treason, not merely a moral failing. The jurist Sir William Blackstone explained that the plain intention of this law was to guard the Blood Royal from any suspicion of bastardy, which could render the succession to the Crown dubious. This fear of illegitimate heirs led to brutal consequences, such as the imprisonment of all three daughters-in-law of Philip IV of France. Two of them, Margaret of Burgundy and Blanche of Burgundy, were imprisoned on grounds of adultery, while the third, Joan of Burgundy, was held for being aware of their behavior. The two brothers accused of being lovers were executed immediately after arrest. The political fallout was so severe that the wife of Philip IV's eldest son bore a daughter, the future Joan II of Navarre, whose paternity and succession rights were disputed for her entire life. The law treated the King's wife as a vessel for the state's future, making her body a public asset that could not be compromised.The Death of David's Wife
The biblical narrative of King David and Bathsheba illustrates the complex intersection of religious law, political power, and the definition of adultery. While the Hebrew Bible prescribes the death penalty for a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, the story of David and Uriah reveals how power could manipulate the letter of the law. David, the King of Israel, arranged for Uriah, a non-Jewish soldier, to be sent to the front lines of battle to ensure his death, allowing David to marry Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. Some scholars argue that David's act was adultery only according to the spirit and not the letter of the law, because Uriah was non-Jewish and the Biblical codes technically applied only to Israelites. However, the Babylonian Talmud suggests that Uriah was indeed Jewish and had written a provisional bill of divorce prior to going to war, specifying that if he fell in battle, the divorce would take effect from the time the writ was issued. This legal maneuvering highlights the tension between divine law and human interpretation, where the punishment for adultery was not just a legal consequence but a spiritual sin that required divine intervention to resolve.