Chapter 12

(M347) During the Fourth Dynasty of Babylon, the celebrated Michaux Stone(286) records the gift of lands by a father to his daughter on her marriage. From Kassite times we have a list similar to the above, but not easily translatable. The supposed examples of dowry in Assyrian times are not really such. But in the later Babylonian era the marriage-portion was still given by the father. It bears, however, the name _nudunnu_, once reserved for the husband’s free gift to his wife. The _nudunnu_, in one case, is ten minas of silver, four maid-servants, house-furniture, and the like.(287) It might include sheep and oxen.(288) See also the later Babylonian laws about the marriage-portion.(289) A long list might be made out from these sources of the house-furniture,(290) but as before we do not know what half of the terms mean.

(M348) There are many examples of receipts given for the marriage-portion received in full.(291) Sometimes it was merely promised. It was not always paid promptly. Law C made a note of this. The father might have promised a portion, and even given a deed of gift for it to his daughter. But if his means have diminished he cannot be held to a literal fulfilment of the promise. He may do what he can. The law adds significantly that “father-in-law and son-in-law shall not oppress one another.” We find that actions were frequently brought to obtain a marriage-portion. We have an instance where the payment was withheld for nine years.(292)

(M349) A husband might make a settlement on his wife. In the time of the Code this was called a _nudunnu_. It had to be by deed of gift. It might cover income-producing estate as well as personal property. But it was hers only for life. She could leave it as she chose among her children of the marriage, but not to members of her own family.(293) We may regard it as pin-money. Her husband’s heirs could not disturb her possession of it as long as she lived. But she forfeited it, if she married again.(294)

(M350) The betrothed maiden did not at once leave her father’s house. This we learn from the Code, which enacts a penalty on one who should seduce a betrothed maiden living in her father’s house.(295) It seems that on both sides betrothal took place in early life and that the arrangements were in the hands of the parents. A father was expected to take a wife for his son.

(M351) Neither the Code nor any contracts throw light upon the marriage-ceremony, but a tablet published by Dr. Pinches in the Proceedings of the Victoria Institute, 1892-93, reprinted as “_Notes on some recent discoveries in the realm of Assyriology_,” contains certain suggestions.(296) It is very fragmentary and in the form of an interlinear translation from the Sumerian. It is not always clear who are the actors referred to, but we may perhaps take it that the officiating ministers, priests, or elders, first placed their hands and feet against the hands and feet of the bridegroom, then the bride laid her head on his shoulder and he was made to say to her: “I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill your lap, you shall be my wife, I will be your husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give you offspring.” Then there is a wide gap. But in the next column we seem to have a further part of the wedding-ritual. The officiating ministers ceremoniously bound sandals on the feet of the newly wedded pair, gave them a leather girdle (? or strap) and fastened to it a pouch or purse of silver and gold. The further ceremony included placing them somewhere in the desert. Then turning their faces to the sunset and addressing the man, the minister says: “I swear by the great gods and you may go.” He bids him not to put off the garment of Ea, nor something belonging to Marduk of Eridu. Then comes a wide gap, but the fourth column seems to read “until you have settled in the house, until you have reached the city, eat no food and drink no water, taste not the waters of the sea, sweet waters, bitter waters, the waters of the Tigris, the waters of the Euphrates, waters of the well, nor waters of the river, to fly up to heaven direct not your wings, to burrow in the earth set not your dwelling. As a hero, the son of his god, let him be pure.”

The passage is very difficult and much of the rendering is conjectural, but the point of the address seems to be that the young man was to go straight home, live with his wife, and be good, as a true child of God. The first column seems to be an enumeration of men who are cursed with misfortunes, for example, “one whom his mother brought forth with weeping,” and perhaps forms part of a prayer that the bridegroom may not ever be like such men. We must hope some day to find a fuller text and so to determine the connection of the various columns. But it is difficult to imagine what else the text can be than part of a wedding-ceremony.

(M352) The young couple did not always set up a house of their own; they often went to live with the bridegroom’s father. This is shown by the penalty fixed by the Code for the seduction of a daughter-in-law by a father-in-law. The daughter-in-law was living in his house.(297)

(M353) In the earlier days monogamy prevailed. A man ordinarily had one wife. Polygamy, however, was not unknown. For a variety of reasons men did sometimes have two wives, but these cases were treated as exceptions. A man might also have a concubine or a slave-girl to bear him children. These did not bear legitimate children. He might adopt them, but was not bound to do so. If a man married twice, the children of both marriages shared equally in his possessions; but they did not put their mothers’ marriage-portions into a common fund and divide that equally. The children of the first wife divided among themselves their own mother’s marriage-portion, and the children of the second marriage did likewise.(298)

(M354) In Assyrian times there is clear evidence that among the slaves and serfs, at least, polygamy was fairly common.(299) In the later Babylonian era polygamy also existed. Wives might be sisters.(300) We read of a “second wife.”(301) But taking a second wife was held to be a slight upon the first, in whose marriage-contract the clause was inserted that in such a case the husband must pay her a mina of silver and allow her to go back to her father’s house. In that case the man was hardly bigamous. It was a case of divorce, and perhaps a legal ceremony before judges was also necessary.

(M355) A man might form a connection with a woman other than his wife. A concubine was a free woman, but had not the status of a wife; nevertheless she might bring with her a marriage-portion, over which she had the same rights as a legal wife.(302) She was taken into the same house as the wife, but she might not rival her. A man’s excuse for taking a concubine was that his wife was childless. He was not allowed to take a concubine, even if his wife was childless, if she gave him a maid to bear him children. Only when the wife was herself childless and would not allow him a maid, was he allowed to bring a concubine into his house. This second wife was married to him. She often seems to have been bound to serve the first wife and treat her as her mistress. But she had the same rights as a wife. If she were put away, the husband had to return her marriage-portion, if she had any. She had the usufruct of house, field, and goods. She was not deprived of her children, but had the custody and education of them. When they entered into possession of their father’s property, she shared with them, taking the same share as a child. Then she was free to marry again.(303) It seems that in any case, the children of a concubine were full children and with the same standing as the children of the first wife. The father might dower his daughter for a concubine; she then had no claim to share with her brothers and sisters at his death.(304) But, if her father had given her no marriage-portion, her brothers must give her one at the division of his property.(305)

(M356) The case was different with the maid—a slave who by her mistress’s consent bore children to her master. She was still a slave and if she rivalled her mistress, or was impertinent to her, she could be put back again among the slaves; perhaps even branded. But, if she had borne children, she was not to be sold as a slave. At the death of her master she was free. Her children by him were free in any case. If her master were so minded, he might make them full sons by verbal acknowledgment. It was enough to say, “my sons.” But that he had done so probably had to be proved by a witness. A family unacknowledged by the father would on his death have only a mother. In such a family the mother was the obvious ruler. We must be on our guard against mistaking her position, or that of the concubine above, for examples of matriarchy. If she was pledged for debt, she could not be sold, she must be bought back.

(M357) That a slave usually was married to a slave-girl with his master’s consent and even by his direction is quite the rule. Masters even went so far as to buy a slave-girl to be wife to a slave. There is no reason to think that the master did not respect the slave’s matrimonial rights. But the slave’s wife was not always owned by the slave’s master. Sometimes she was owned by a different master, or was free. There was no especial disgrace attaching to becoming the wife of a slave. A free woman might not only marry a slave, but bring with her a marriage-portion, as if she had married in her own rank. The man had no ancestral property, he was “a son of no one.” Hence when he died all the property to be divided consisted of what the married couple had acquired together, and the wife’s marriage-portion. To the latter she had full and unquestioned right. The master was his slave’s heir. So the property which the pair had acquired during their married life was divided into two equal portions. The master took one half, the wife the other for herself and her children. The children were all free. When both father and mother were slaves, so were the children. There was no property then for the slave-children to inherit.(306)

(M358) Some further evidence from the contracts is worth noting here. Documents relating to marriage are not very common and may have owed their presence in the archives to some peculiarity in their form. Some are perhaps rather a memorandum that the proper formalities have been complied with. Thus(307) we read that “A has taken to wife B, the daughter of C, from C and D his wife, and has paid ten shekels as _terḫatu_ to C, her father.” The rest is lost. If it only laid down the penalties for infidelity on either side, this was quite normal.

(M359) Whenever the mother alone appears, as giving her daughter in marriage, we may suspect that the father was dead, or the mother divorced. When the mother is a votary, we know that such a person was not entitled to have a daughter at all, and hence we are not surprised that the _terḫatu_ offered for the girl is small, five shekels(308) or even one shekel.(309) So the penalty laid upon the man for divorcing such a wife is only ten shekels.(310) On the other hand if she was unfaithful she was to be drowned.(311)

(M360) Very singular are the cases in which a votary marries. We know from the Code that this sometimes took place; but the votary seems to have been expected, though married, to keep her vow of virginity. In one case we read that a woman first devotes her daughter, _ullilši_, then marries her, and declares at the same time that she is vowed, _ellit_, and that no one has any claim on her.(312)

(M361) (M362) In some cases a sister had the power to give her sister in marriage, with the declaration that no one has any claim on her.(313) We may imagine the sisters orphans, without brothers. The name of their father is, however, given; and his sons and daughters are mentioned. It seems to be closely parallel to the case of the marriage of a king’s daughter(314) where a sister also gives a sister in marriage. Here Elmeshu, daughter of the king Ammiditana, is given in marriage by Zirtum, also daughter of king Ammiditana, on the order of her brother, Shumum-libshi. The bridegroom was Ibku-Anunitum, son of Shamash-limir and Taram-shullim, his wife. The parents paid for their son only four shekels as _terḫatu_, which Shumum-libshi and Zirtum received. If the bridegroom repudiated his bride, he had to pay half a mina. It is not clear what penalty the bride had to pay if she repudiated her husband. This is dated in the reign of Ammiditana; but in which year of his reign does not appear, as the traces of the year-name do not agree with any in the Chronicle. It must then have fallen somewhere between the seventh and the twenty-second years. Hence the father of the princess was alive at the time. Why had he no hand in the marriage? The history of the reign is not very well known. Perhaps he was away from home. His son and successor, Ammizaduga, whom we may imagine to have been the eldest son, does not appear in the case. Perhaps he also was away. But it is remarkable that the king never does directly take part in any contract. That is probably due to his sacred character. The young princess was not treated with overmuch consideration, judging by the smallness of her dowry.

(M363) We have a very singular case in the marriage of two sisters to one man. This has already been translated and commented upon by Meissner,(315) Pinches,(316) and Sayce.(317) It is, however, too important to omit here. There are two tablets concerned with it.(318) The first is the contract between the husband and his wives. We may render it thus:

Ardi-Shamash took to wife Taram-Saggil and Iltâni, daughters of Sin-abushu. If Taram-Saggil and Iltâni say to Ardi-Shamash, their husband, “You are not my husband,” one shall throw them down from the _AN-ZAG-GAR-KI_; and if Ardi-Shamash shall say to Taram-Saggil and Iltâni his wives, “You are not my wives,” he shall leave house and furniture. Further, Iltâni shall obey the orders of Taram-Saggil, shall carry her chair to the temple of her god. The provisions of Taram-Saggil shall Iltâni prepare, her well-being she shall care for, her seal she shall not appropriate (?).

Then follow ten witnesses, but no date.

The second document seems to be drawn up rather from the point of view of the sisters. We may render it thus:

Iltâni, the sister of Taram-Saggil, Ardi-Shamash, son of Shamash-ennam, took to wife, from Uttatum, their father. Iltâni shall prepare the provisions of her sister, shall care for her well-being, shall carry her chair to the temple of Marduk. The children which she has borne, or shall bear, shall be their children. [If Taram-Saggil] shall say to Iltâni, her sister, “you are not my sister” [the penalty is lost]. [If Iltâni shall say to Taram-Saggil her sister], “You are not my sister,” one shall brand her, and sell her. If Ardi-Shamash shall say to his wife, “You are not my wife,” he shall pay one mina of silver; and if they say to Ardi-Shamash their husband, “You are not our husband,” one shall tie them up and throw them into the river.

Here there are eleven witnesses, but again no date.

Meissner deduces from the mention of children that Taram-Saggil was already married. The exact relation between the sisters is not clear. In one case they seem to be daughters of Uttatum, in the other of Sin-abushu. Or it may be that Iltâni alone was daughter of Sin-abushu. If so, perhaps Uttatum had adopted her. Sayce clearly thinks so. But they might be daughters of the same mother by different fathers, one of whom is mentioned in one case, the other in the other. Or they might really be children of Sin-abushu, if their mother afterwards married Uttatum, who was thus their step-father. It is clear that Iltâni was to wait on her sister, and, if she repudiated her, was to be treated as a slave. This is exactly parallel to the status of the slave-maid, whom a wife or votary in the Code(319) provided for her husband. Perhaps Taram-Saggil had become a chronic invalid. A comparison of the two texts is interesting in other respects. The penalties differ curiously. If Ardi-Shamash repudiates his wives, in one case, he loses house and furniture; in the other case, he pays one mina. Was one the penalty for repudiating Taram-Saggil, the other for repudiating Iltâni? But if they repudiate him, the penalties are different in the two documents, unless indeed the _AN-ZAG-GAR-KI_ be an ideogram for the “steep place” from which they were to be thrown into the water.

(M364) Marriages are not infrequent which impose conditions upon the husband and wife with relation to outside parties. Thus a mother gives her daughter in marriage to a man, on condition that she shall continue to support her mother as long as she lives. In this case, if the husband put away his wife, he was to pay one mina of silver; while, if she hated her husband, she was to be thrown from a pillar, _dimtu_.(320) This pillar may be the real meaning of the _AN-ZAG-GAR-KI_, which looks very like an attempt to express _zigguratu_, a tower, in an ideographic way. A very similar case is where a lady takes a girl to be wife to her son but stipulates that the wife shall treat her as mistress. If she shall say to her mother-in-law, “Thou art not my mistress,” she shall be branded and sold. As long as the mother lives, they two together shall support her.(321) One may suspect that such maternal power, as is here shown over the children, arises from their having been adopted by their mother in order to provide for her in her old age. This was often done. The children may have been slaves before adoption. In the second case, the mother leaves her son all she has, or may acquire.

XI. Divorce And Desertion

(M365) Divorce is regulated by the Code. The Sumerian laws seem to regard the marriage-tie as dissoluble on the part of the man by an act of simple repudiation, accompanied by a _solatium_, fixed at half a mina. The wife, however, was punished by death for repudiating her husband.(322) The Code limits the facility of divorce for the man and renders it possible for the woman to obtain.

(M366) Divorce of either a wife or concubine involved her being given a maintenance. The divorced wife had the custody of her children, if any. They were not disinherited by the divorce. The divorced woman retained the marriage-portion which she had brought to the home. She had a share with her children in the divorced husband’s property at his death. If he married again, the children of both marriages shared equally. She was also free to marry again, but apparently not until her children had come into their share of the late husband’s property, therefore not during his life.(323)

(M367) Divorce was permitted on the ground of childlessness. The husband gave back to his wife all her marriage-portion. Also he had to give the bride-price which he had paid to her parents during his courtship, and which they had returned to him, as a rule, on marriage.(324) If this bride-price had not been given, then he paid her a fixed sum of money; one mina, if he was a patrician, a third, if he was only a plebeian.(325) A slave does not seem to have had the liberty of divorce.

(M368) The wife might take a dislike to her husband and set her face to leave him and deny him conjugal rights. This was probably equivalent to desertion. Then a judicial inquiry was required. If his ill treatment or neglect was made clear and she was blameless, a divorce was granted. She took her marriage-portion and went back to her family. But as this was of her own seeking, she received no alimony.(326) It is assumed that it was an unhappy marriage from the first and that there were no children.

If it were proved that she was a bad wife, she was treated as an adulteress and drowned.(327) On the other hand, even if she were a bad wife, the husband might repudiate her simply without paying any price for divorce. In this case there was no suspicion of her infidelity. Or the husband might degrade her to the position of a slave.(328) There is no mention in these cases of a return to her father’s house.

Chronic illness on the part of a wife was not a ground for divorce. The husband had to maintain her. He might, however, take a second wife.(329) If she did not care to remain in his house in such conditions, she could leave him, take her marriage-portion and return to her family.(330)

(M369) We have already seen that the Code regulates the questions arising out of divorce.(331) The examples at this period are but few. In one case a man put away his wife and she received her price of divorce. It is expressly stated that she may marry another man and her former husband will not complain.(332) This document is, however, little more than an agreement to abide by the terms of the divorce.

In another case a marriage-contract names the penalty a man shall pay for divorcing his wife.(333) In all these cases the word for divorce, _ezêbu_, is literally “to put away.” But a man divorced his wife by the simple process of saying, “You are not my wife.” He then paid her a fine, returned her marriage-portion and so on, as laid down in the Code.(334) It was far harder for a woman to secure a divorce from her husband. She could do so, however, but only as the result of a lawsuit.(335) As a rule, the marriage-contracts mention death as her punishment, if she repudiates her husband. The death by drowning is usually named. This was in accordance with Law V. of the Sumerian Code.

We may regard repudiation of husband and wife, one by the other, and desertion as leading to divorce; and therefore these may be appropriately considered next.

(M370) Desertion of a wife by her husband might be involuntary. The Code deals with the case of a man captured by the enemy. If the wife were left at home well provided for, she was bound to be true to her absent husband. If she entered another man’s house, she was condemned to death as an adulteress.(336) But if she was not provided for, she might enter another man’s house without blame.(337) There she might bear children. But, if so, she yet had to go back to her original husband on his return. The children she had borne in his absence were to be counted to their real father.(338) That the law provides for such cases points to the existence of frequent wars, in which fortune was not always on the side of Babylonia.

(M371) But the husband might desert his wife voluntarily. Then, if she was left unprovided for, the wife might enter another man’s house. The errant husband, when he returned, could not reclaim his wife.(339)

We have a legal decision in a case(340) where a man had deserted his wife for twenty years and “left her to her fate, did not love her.” During this time a daughter, whether real or adoptive we are not told, took care of her mother. To her the mother left property, among other things, a slave. The mother being dead, the truant husband returned and claimed the slave from the daughter. He was nonsuited.

Among the provocations which gave the wife cause for divorce was the “going out” of the husband, probably a euphemism for adultery on his part. Belittling his wife was another ground for her complaint. What this means is not quite clear, but we may regard it as persistent neglect.

XII. Rights Of Widows

(M372) The Code makes clear what was the position of the widow. She had a right to stay on in her husband’s house until she died,(341) but was not compelled to do so.(342) If she remained, she was the head of the family. To her the young sons looked to furnish them with means to court a wife, and the daughters for a marriage-portion. She acted in these matters with the consent and assistance of her grown-up children. But she might elect to leave the home and remarry.