529
ticing magic but one of them retracts his statement. His colleague
is thus at the same time an eyewitness and a hearsay witness to
statements made in private by the one who recanted. The king, who
conducts the inquiry, wishes to obtain the recalcitrant witness’s tes-
timony so as to convict the culprit. The hearsay witness first confirms
before the deity that there is a second eyewitness (MAL A 47:17);
the latter is subsequently interrogated by the king, then handed over
to an exorcist who purifies him and hears his statement sworn by
the king and his son (MAL A 47:23–24). The procedure is excep-
tional because the oath sworn applies not only to the witness but
also to the sorcerer:^43 apart from the sworn statement being decisive
for conviction, the rite performed by the exorcist doubtless coun-
tered the curses which the witness thought he would suffer if he
made a statement. Note also the unusual reference to the king and
his son in a legal source, which might suggest that the prince func-
tioned as a co-ruler.3.3.4 The river ordeal is prescribed in the absence of witnesses
(MAL A 17 and 22 for an accusation of adultery) or to establish a
person’s good faith (MAL A 24). There is no description of the pro-
cedure. MAL are only concerned to accord or deny the parties the
possibility of negotiating the practical terms of the ordeal (riksàte
i“akkunù“they shall make an agreement” MAL A 17:70; riksàte la““u
MAL A 22:9), most probably concerning the distance to be covered
in the water. In all cases, the ordeal is ordered by the judge, and
all the parties must go to the river. The ordeal itself, however, is
undergone by a single person, chosen by the judge on the basis of
his considered opinion.^443.4 The judges are obliged to impose the statutory penalties (MAL
C+G 8) or those demanded by the plaintiff(MAL A 15). A special
case is sacrilegious theft by a woman (MAL A 1): the law pro-
vides for an oracular procedure (bà"erûtu) to establish the culprit’s(^43) MAL A 47:26–31: “No one shall release you (the witness and the sorcerer)
from the oath that you swore by the king and his son.” The witness would thus
have already testified out of court and would regard himself as freed from the curses
with which the sorcerer was doubtless threatening him.
(^44) Cf. Cardascia, Lois.. ., 129, and on the Mesopotamian ordeal in general,
“Ordalie...”
WESTBROOK_f13–521-563 8/27/03 12:27 PM Page 529