The matter of divorce was not really well known in the ancient epochs. It seems, however, that adultery was not considered a reason for divorce. The man, in fact, had the right to bring in his own home some concubines, but for the woman it wasn’t the same thing.
Anyhow, in the Middle Reign, a form of property appeared, the preservation of the properties and of the inheritance for the children rendered necessary the intervention of the law for the divorce matters. The law on legal right didn’t take part in these private matters, that were committed instead to the simple contractual rights. So the courts had only the duty of making sure that the clauses on the free contracts that the consorts stipulated when they got married, were respected. From the saitico epoch up to half of the period of the Lagidi’s domination, the divorce was permitted only to the husband and the woman could only protect her own rights with contracts that made divorce strongly disadvantageous for the man; for example she could prepare a fictitious dowry which the husband, in case of divorce, had to give her with a special life annuity included in the matrimonial norms.
Moreover, to the man a fine could be inflicted and his properties could be mortgaged for the sum that the woman established and for the sum of the fine, also established on the contract. Finally the husband was forced to de-invest his properties in favour of his oldest son, to guarantee the annual payment of life-annuity to the woman. Even in the successive epoch similar contractual dispositions have been found, the only main difference is that now it’s the woman who has the right to divorce. Consequently the formulas on the contracts change and in the place of the surpassed :”If I despise you, if I take another woman, I will give you….”, there is : “Starting from today only you can leave. I will give you…”
From the excess that characterized the adulterers’ punishment in the classic epoch, they have fallen in the opposite excess, equally deplorable.