Part 15 (1/2)

(M331) The suitor came with presents to the parents of the girl. Most writers see in this a survival of the purchase of the bride. The name of this gift, _ter?atu_, is undoubtedly connected with the name of the bride, _mar?itu_. This present, or bride-price, differed greatly with the circ.u.mstances of the parties. Both money and slaves were given, but a simple sum of money was more common. In cases where the bride was rich or highly placed the amount seems less. A very usual amount was ten shekels, but we have examples from one shekel up to three minas.(262) The Code a.s.sessed it at one mina of silver for a patrician and a third of a mina for a plebeian.(263)

(M332) Without this bride-price the young man could not take a wife. Hence it was expressly secured to him by the Code, if his father died before he was of age to marry, and reserved as a first charge on the father's estate. There is some evidence that a woman might make this present to her future husband. But that may have been because he was too poor to make it himself and she found him the means. As a rule, the parents gave this money to the bride. But we are not in a position to say whether they did so at once, on the consummation of the marriage, or on the birth of a child. The suggestion that it was her _Morgengabe_ remains without support. Certain it is that it was not returned always. In the contracts it seems to be given to the bridegroom with the bride. On a wife dying without children, the husband was bound to return her marriage-portion to her family. But if the bride-price which he had given for her had not been returned to him, he could deduct its value. On a divorce, he was bound to let his wife have not only her marriage-portion, but the bride-price paid back to him. If there had been none, he must give her a fixed sum instead of it.

(M333) From the phrase-books we may gather that there was a sort of ceremony about presenting the bride-price to the father: it was placed on a salver and brought in before the parents.(264) This was probably a part of the ceremony of betrothal.

If the father rejected the suitor, he was bound to return the bride-price offered.(265) A curious section of the Code enacts that if the suitor's comrade intrigued to break off the match, he was excluded from marrying the girl himself.(266)

(M334) If, after he had brought in the bride-price to his prospective father-in-law, the suitor took a fancy to another girl, he might withdraw from the suit. But he then forfeited what he had offered. If this really was the result of having taken a dislike to a plain girl, we may suppose that such a maiden might acc.u.mulate several bride-prices and so acquire some wealth. This may explain Herodotus's idea that the handsome girls made a dowry for the plain ones. But there is not a shred of evidence for their doing so in the way he suggests. A girl was a virgin when she was married.(267)

(M335) Of interest in the later Babylonian texts is the fact that the preliminaries of the marriage are more fully ill.u.s.trated. Thus we read of the wedding of the daughter of Neriglissar:(268) Nabu-shum-ukin, the _erib biti_ of Nabu, judge of ezida, spoke to the King Neriglissar, saying thus: ”Give to me Gigitum, your young daughter, to wife.” The tablet has only preserved a few lines, from which we cannot be sure that the marriage took place. The tablet was called a duplicate of ezida, showing that it was preserved in the Nabu temple at Borsippa.

The following case is one of the clearest:(269)

(M336)

Nabu-nadin-a?i, son of Bel-a?e-iddin, grandson of Ardi-Nergal, spoke thus to Shum-ukin, son of Mushallimu, saying: ”Give me thy daughter, Ina-Esaggil-banat, the maiden, to wife, for Uballitsu-Gula, my son.” Shum-ukin listened to him and gave his maiden daughter, Ina-Esaggil-banat to Uballitsu-Gula, his son. He gave also one mina of silver, three female slaves named, and house furniture, with Ina-Esaggil-banat, his daughter, as a marriage-portion to Nabu-nadin-a?i. Nana-kis.h.i.+rat, the maid of Shum-ukin in lieu of two-thirds of a mina of silver, her full price, Shum-ukin gave to Nabu-nadin-a?i out of the one mina of silver for her marriage-portion. The deficiency, one-third of a mina of silver, Shum-ukin will give Nabu-nadin-a?i, and then her marriage-portion is paid. Each took a writing.

Here the father negotiates for his son. There is no evidence of any bride-price being paid. But the examples of this kind of doc.u.ment are too few for us to establish any fixed conclusions. In the following case something very like it appears.(270)

(M337)

Dagil-ilani, son of Zambubu, spoke thus to ?amma, daughter of Nergal-iddin, son of Babutu, saying: ”Give me thy daughter, Latubas.h.i.+nni, she shall be my wife.” ?amma listened to him and gave him her daughter, Latubas.h.i.+nni, to wife; and Dagil-ilani, in the joy of his heart, gave to ?amma for Latubas.h.i.+nni, her daughter, Ana-eli-beli-amur, a maid, for half a mina of silver and a mina and a half of silver to boot. The day that Dagil-ilani shall take a second wife, Dagil-ilani shall give Latubas.h.i.+nni a mina of silver and she shall go back where she was before. With the cognisance of Shum-iddin, son of Ina-ehi-eter, son of Sin-damaku.

Here the man himself negotiates. The mother gives the bride. Whether he really buys her is hard to say. The mother may have adopted the girl to care for her old age, as was often done. The bridegroom may have compensated the mother with means to adopt another daughter. What _locus standi_ Shum-iddin had is not clear. He may have been the real father of the bride and so had to be satisfied that she was fairly treated by the change in her position. Or his consent to the bridegroom's alliance may have been needed. The penalty set down for divorce is not high and the bride was probably poor; we see she was portionless. In other cases it was as high as six minas of silver.(271) Occasionally the deed of marriage also named a penalty for adultery on the part of the wife.

(M338) Women were given in marriage. The suitor for her hand did not perhaps see her until marriage, but this is not likely, since he is contemplated by the Code as capable of having cast his eyes upon another, and so desiring to retreat from his suit. At any rate, he brought presents to her father, who accepted or rejected him. There is no hint that the woman had any choice. The result of this power over the child's marriage was that conditions might be imposed on the marriage. The bride might be required to do service to an existing wife, or to the bridegroom's mother.

Further, the disposal of property was not entirely free after marriage. It depended upon what the father had laid down in the marriage-settlement on his daughter. It was strictly limited to the woman's children, and if there were none it went back to her father's house.

(M339) In early times, the father usually gives the bride. But in a great many cases this duty fell on the mother. How this came about we do not usually know. The father being dead, or the girl illegitimate, seem the best explanations, as a rule. In the absence of father and mother, the brother as head of the family a.s.sumed the duty. The examples of this are common enough.(272)

For later times also the examples are numerous of the power of agnates to give in marriage. It may perhaps be deduced that the children, in these cases, were young.(273)

(M340) Women once married, were free to marry again of their own choice, whether divorced, separated, or widowed. A betrothed girl, or bride, if her marriage were not yet consummated, being seduced by her father-in-law, in whose house she had gone to live, was also free to marry. But it does not seem that women who were yet virgins could choose their own husbands.

Even princesses were given in marriage.

(M341) The man was not altogether free to marry. The Code contemplates a boy left by the death of his father too young to marry. The brothers, when they divided the father's property, were bound to set aside for him, in addition to his share of his father's property, a sum for a bride-price, and take him a wife. It seems probable that men married while still young and living at home. For the Code contemplates the bride being brought to live in her father-in-law's house.(274)

In later Babylonian times, at any rate, the son could not marry without his father's consent. This we learn from a suit in high life, in the time of Cyrus.(275) A high official of the king's, A, brought a suit against B, who was ”over the house,” before the n.o.bles and the king's judges. A accused B and C, an official of his house, of having given a tablet of marriage-contract of D, a sister of C's, to A's son without A's consent.

Put to the oath, B swore that he did not seal the tablet. Then D was questioned. Then C acknowledged that he had drawn up and sealed with B's seal the marriage-contract of D to A's son. The judges ordered D to return to her brother's house. The tablet was to be broken whenever found. If afterward D should be seen with A's son, she was to bear the sign of a concubine.

(M342) From other examples the conclusion is inevitable that if a woman desired to be a full and proper wife she had to obtain the consent of her bridegroom's father. Thus we read:(276) ”The day that the woman A is seen with B he shall bring her to the wedding-house. If she does not say to the master of the wedding-house: Send for C, the father of B, then she shall wear the sign of a concubine.” Her mother was present at the sealing of this agreement. From this we may deduce that weddings took place at a definite spot, called the ”wedding-house.” The name was literally ”house of the males,” or ”of the named ones,” and also house of the _mar bane_, or ”sons of ancestors.” It is clear that this was a registration court where all who had pretensions to ancestry, or were people of position, were enrolled. One whose name was found there was a man ”with a name,”

also a ”son of an ancestor.” He was probably registered there at birth, marriage, and death. The master of that house was a registrar and evidently could marry people. It was expected in this case that the woman, if she wished to be properly married, would send for the bridegroom's father, whose consent was necessary. Another name for the house was _bit pir?atum_, the meaning of which is obscure. But as Ishtar was _belit par?e_, the ”lady of _the par?e_,” we may connect it also with weddings.

(M343) We have seen that the _ter?atu_, or present made to the parents by the suitor before marriage, was usually handed over to the bride on her going to her husband's house. There is frequent reference to this essential preliminary. It had to be carefully laid aside for the young man by his mother or brethren, if he had not married in his father's lifetime, and was secured to him by law, apart from and above what might come to him as a share of his father's property. Otherwise he would suffer loss in having to find it out of his own pocket, when his married brothers had been provided with the means during their father's lifetime. Usually it was an amount of silver, one shekel up to three minas. In later Babylonian times there is little evidence of the parents receiving gifts. We now and then find it so. Thus a man gave a slave and a mina and a half of silver for his wife to her mother,(277) but it is not clear whether or not this was to buy her.

(M344) A far more valuable endowment of the bride was her marriage-portion. If her father was not alive to give it to her, the duty fell on his heirs, and she had a right to it over and above her daughter's share of his property. Thus we find that the brothers, on giving their sister a share, contract to further endow her if she marries.(278)