2. Roman. — It seems that the Roman law made the same important distinction with the Hebrew between the infidelity of the husband and of the wife, by de- fining adultery to be the violation of another man's bed (violatio tori al'taii); so that the infidelity of the husband could not constitute the offence. The more ancient laws of Rome, which were very severe against the offence of the wife, were silent as to that of the husband (Smith's Diet, of Class. Antiq.). See Wife.
:S. Spiritual. — Adultery, in the symbolical language of the Old Testament, means idolatry and apostasy from the worship of the true God (Jer. iii, 8, 9; Ezeli. xvi, 32 ; xxiii, 37 ; also Rev. ii, 22). Hence an adul- teress meant an apostate Church or city, particularly "the daughter of Jerusalem," or the Jewish Church and people (Isa. i, 21 ; Jer. iii, G, 8, 9; Ezek. xvi, 22 :
ADULTERY
xxiii, 7). This figure resulted from the primary one, which describes the connection between God and his separated people as a marriage between him and them (Jer. ii, 2 ; iii, 14 ; xiii, 27 ; xxxi, 32 ; Hos. viii, 9). By an application of the same figure, "an adulterous generation" (Matt, xii, 39 ; xvi, 4 ; Mark viii, 38) means a faithless and impious generation. See Fornication.
II. Trial of Adultery. — The Mosaic trial of the sus- pected wife by the bitter water, called the water of jealousy (Num. v, 11-31) — the. only ordeal in use among the Israelites, or sanctioned by their law — is to be regarded as an attempt to mitigate and bring un- der legal control an old custom which could not be en- tirely abrogated. The forms of Hebrew justice all tended to limit the application of this test. (1.) By prescribing certain facts presumptive of guilt, to be established on oath by two witnesses, or a preponder- ating but not conclusive testimony to the fact of the woman's adultery. (2.) Bjr technical rules of evi- dence which made proof of those presumptive facts dif- ficult (see the Talmudical tract Sotah, vi, 2-5). (3.) By exempting certain large classes of women (all, indeed, except a pure Israelitess married to a pure Israelite, and some even of them) from the liability. (4.) By providing that the trial could only be before the»great Sanhedrim {Sotah, i, 4). (5.) By investing it with a ceremonial at once humiliating and intimidating, yet which still harmonized with the spirit of the whole or- deal as recorded in Num. v ; but, (6), above all, by the conventional and even mercenary light in which the nuptial contract was latterly regarded. (See Sim- eon, Works, ii, 1.)
When adultery ceased to be capital, as no doubt it did, and divorce became a matter of mere convenience, it would be absurd to suppose that this trial was con- tinued; and when .adultery became common, as the Jews themselves confess, it would have been impious to expect the miracle which it supposed. If ever the Sanhedrim were driven by force of circumstances to adopt this trial, no doubt every effort was used, nay, was prescribed {Sotah, i, 5, 6), to overawe the culprit and induce confession. Nay, even if she submitted to the trial, and was really guilty, some rabbis held that the effect on her might be suspended for jears through the merit of some good deed {Sotah, iii, 4-6). Be- sides, moreover, the intimidation of the woman, the man was likely to feel the public exposure of his sus- picions odious and repulsive. Divorce was a ready and quiet remedy ; and the only question was, wheth- er the divorce should carry the dowry and the property which she had brought, which was decided by the slight or grave character of the suspicions against her (Sotah, vi, l;Gemara, Kethuboth, vii, 6; Ugolino, Uxor Heb. c. vii). If the husband were incapable, through derangement, imprisonment, etc., of acting on his own behalf in the matter, the Sanhedrim proceed- ed in his name as concerned the dowry, but not as con- cerned the trial by the water of jealousy {Sotah, iv, 6). See Jealousy.
This ordeal was probably of the kind which we still find in Western Africa, the trial by red u-ater, as it is called, although varying among different nations in minute particulars, and a comparison of the two may suggest the real points of the evil which the law on Moses was designed to rectify, and the real advantages which it was calculated to secure. This ordeal is in some tribes confined to the case of adultery, but in others it is used in all crimes. In Africa the drink, in cases of proper ordeal, is poisonous, and calculated to produce the effects which the oath imprecates ; where- as the "water of jealousy," however unpleasant, was prepared in a prescribed manner, with ingredients known to all to be perfectly innocuous. It could not, therefore, injure the innocent ; and its action upon the guilty must have resulted from the consciousness of having committed a horrible perjury, which crime, when the oath was so solemnly confirmed by the
ADULTERY 8
draught, and attended by such awful imprecations, was believed to be visitable with immediate death from heaven. On the Gold Coast the ordinary oath-drink (not poisonous) is used as a confirmation of all oaths, not only oaths of purgation, but of accusation, or even of obligation. In all cases it is accompanied with an imprecation that the fetish may destroy them if they speak untruly, or do not perform the terms of their obligation ; and it is firmly believed that no one who is perjured under this form of oatli will live an hour (Villault; Bosnian). Doubtless the impression with respect to this mere oath-drink is derived from observa- I tion of the effects attending the drink used in the act- ' ual ordeal ; and the popular opinion regards such an ' oath as of so solemn a nature that perjury is sure to i bring down immediate punishment. The red water, as I an ordeal, is confined to crimes of the worst class. \ These are murder, adultery, witchcraft. Perhaps this arises less from choice than from the fact that such crimes are not only the highest, but are the least capa- ble of that direct proof for which the ordeal is intend- ed as a substitute. A party is accused : if he denies the crime, he is required to drink the red water, and, on refusing, is deemed guilty of the offence. The trial is so much dreaded that innocent persons often confess themselves guilty in order to avoid it. And yet the immediate effect is supposed to result less from the wa- ter itself than from the terrible oath with which it is drunk. So the person who drinks the red water in- vokes the fetish to destroy him if he is" really guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The drink is made by an infusion in water of pieces of a certain tree or of herbs, and, if rightly prepared, the only chance of escape is the rejection of it by the stomach, in which case the party is deemed innocent, as he also is if, being retained, it has no sensible effect, which can only be the case when the priests, who have the management of the matter, are influenced by private considerations or by reference to the probabilities of the case, to prepare the draught with a view to ac- quittal. The imprecations upon the accused if he be guilty are repeated in an awful manner by the priests, and the effect is watched very keenly. If the party seems affected by the draught, like one intoxicated, and begins to foam at the mouth, he is considered un- doubtedly guilty, and is slain on the spot ; or else he is left to the operation of the poisonous draught, which causes the belly to swell and burst, and occasions death. (Barhot, p. 126; Bosnian, p. 118; Artus, in De Bry, vi, 62 ; Villault, p. 191 ; Corry's Windward Coast, p. 71 ; Church Missionary Paper, No. xvii ; Da- vis's Journal, p. 24.) See Poison.