In ancient Babylon, the status of women in their respective families was less liberating in certain paths compared to their partners. The husband’s status was slightly higher than his wife’s as he had control of his wife’s actions in a number of ways. This would be in terms of wealth, infidelity, debt and so on. However, though the wife’s status in the family was lower than the husband’s it was her priority of birthing and raising children within the family that still gave her a respectable status.
To begin, the husband’s status in the Babylonian family led him to having more power over his family’s actions, most especially his wife’s. To explain, if a free-born man had a debt to repay, a purpose or service to fulfill to another, he did not …show more content…
In addition, it was not strictly by the husband’s orders that he could control her choices. In some cases, it was the husband’s wealth that determined whether his wife would stay or leave him. An ideal situation for this would be “if a free born man was taken captive, but there was sufficient to live on in his house, his wife (shall not leave her house, but she shall take care of her person by not) entering (the house of another)” (Law 133). Thus, even if she wished so, a wife could not leave her husband could he still support her during his imprisonment. Also, “if that woman did not take care of her person, but has entered the house of another, they shall prove it against that woman and throw her into the water” (Law 133a). Lastly, the Babylonian man had more control over his wife’s choices through the process of marriage. To officially marry a woman a contract must be signed by the man claiming her as his wife. Law 128 states “If a free-born man acquired a wife, but did not draw up the contracts for her, that woman is no wife.” What this explains about the husband’s control is that it was left to him to choose if he would officially marry the …show more content…
For instance, should a husband wish to divorce his wife who had given him children, it would not be without payment. “If a free born man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry and a part… of the field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart” (Law 137). To explain, due to the fact that the husband’s wife birthed him children, which she must raise, her husband must give her a good amount of land, shelter, and money to support herself and her children. Although it is not as much as he will keep for himself, showing the husband’s slightly higher status. Whereas, had she not given him children, then “to divorce his wife who did not bear him children, he shall then give her to the full amount of her marriage-price and he shall also make good to her the dowry which she brought from her father’s house and then he may divorce her” (Law 138). So, to compare, having children gave the wife more status, leading to her obtaining a fair amount of land, money, though it isn’t as much as the man would obtain. Still, it is more than what she
To begin, the husband’s status in the Babylonian family led him to having more power over his family’s actions, most especially his wife’s. To explain, if a free-born man had a debt to repay, a purpose or service to fulfill to another, he did not …show more content…
In addition, it was not strictly by the husband’s orders that he could control her choices. In some cases, it was the husband’s wealth that determined whether his wife would stay or leave him. An ideal situation for this would be “if a free born man was taken captive, but there was sufficient to live on in his house, his wife (shall not leave her house, but she shall take care of her person by not) entering (the house of another)” (Law 133). Thus, even if she wished so, a wife could not leave her husband could he still support her during his imprisonment. Also, “if that woman did not take care of her person, but has entered the house of another, they shall prove it against that woman and throw her into the water” (Law 133a). Lastly, the Babylonian man had more control over his wife’s choices through the process of marriage. To officially marry a woman a contract must be signed by the man claiming her as his wife. Law 128 states “If a free-born man acquired a wife, but did not draw up the contracts for her, that woman is no wife.” What this explains about the husband’s control is that it was left to him to choose if he would officially marry the …show more content…
For instance, should a husband wish to divorce his wife who had given him children, it would not be without payment. “If a free born man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry and a part… of the field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart” (Law 137). To explain, due to the fact that the husband’s wife birthed him children, which she must raise, her husband must give her a good amount of land, shelter, and money to support herself and her children. Although it is not as much as he will keep for himself, showing the husband’s slightly higher status. Whereas, had she not given him children, then “to divorce his wife who did not bear him children, he shall then give her to the full amount of her marriage-price and he shall also make good to her the dowry which she brought from her father’s house and then he may divorce her” (Law 138). So, to compare, having children gave the wife more status, leading to her obtaining a fair amount of land, money, though it isn’t as much as the man would obtain. Still, it is more than what she