598 CODE OF HAMMURABI
CODE OF HAMMURABI
(§§ 120, 125). Want of malice excused man- slaughter, partly (§ 207).
Suspicion of evil was not enough. The Code continually insists that the criminal must be caught in the act. If accused of harbouring a slave, the slave must be seized in his possession (§ 19). The adulterer, ravisher, ete. (§§ 129, 130, 131), must be caught in the act.
An injured party could condone the offence in some cases. man might save the life of an adulterous wife (§ 129).
xi. MARRIAGE, AND FAMILY LIFE.—1. The laws dealing with the family are very numerous. For the most part, the Code keeps them together. The foundation of the family is marriage. This was a contract, first on the part of the parents of the man and wife who seem to have arranged marriages quite young. The Code, however, treats the man as a free suitor; he comes himself to the house of the bride’s father and brings him presents. The maid does not seem to be free. Her father gives her in marriage, accepts or rejects the suitor. Women who had been married, or were seduced, were free to marry the man of their choice (§§ 137, 156, 172).
Besides the presents, the suitor gave a bride- price (terhatw) to the father of the bride (marhitw). This was usually a mina of silver (§ 189), though we find much less in contemporary documents : one shekel, four, five, or ten shekels. These irregu- larities may be due to special circumstances ; but even a princess, daughter of Ammiditana (B! 193), had only four shekels given for her. It might not be given at all. The father often gave this to the bride. If a suitor now retreated, he had to relinquish the presents and bride-price paid. If the father refused the girl to the suitor, he had to return double what he had received (§§ 159, 160). If the marriage was childless, the terhatw had to be returned to the husband on the wife’s death, if it had not been returned before (§ 163; cf. Gn 242 2918 3115 34%, Ex 2216 Dt 2279, 1 S 18%),
The wife brought a dowry with her, the mar- riage portion (Seriktu), her share of her father’s property. Though she brought this into her hus- band’s house, it was tied to her for life. It had to be returned to her family, by her husband, if she died childless, but he might deduct the amount of the bride-price given by him, if this had not been paid back to him (§ 164). The seriktw there- fore was normally larger than the ¢erhatu. We have several contemporary lists of these dowries. They included gold, silver, jewels, garments, household furniture, slaves even, if not also estates (B! 10, B! 33, B! 163). If her husband died before her, though his property might be divided up, she retained her Seriktu (§§ 171, 172); and, after her death, it fell to be divided among her children (§§ 162, 167, 173, 174). If she had no children, it went back to her father’s house (§§ 163, 164). Even if she were divorced, she kept her Seriktu (§§ 137, 1388, 142, 149). She of course forfeited it if she were an adulteress, or reduced _ to slavery for misconduct (§§ 141, 143; ef. Gn 16? 9459. 61 9974. cy Jos 1538, Jg IE),
If the marriage was dissolved without her fault, she took a child’s share when her husband’s pro- perty was divided. If she had children, the father had to allow her the usufruct of his estates till the children were grown up (§ 137). She was free to marry again when the children were grown up, and apparently not till her husband was dead. Ti she had no children when the marriage was dis- solved, she got back her marriage portion and either her ¢erjatu, or divorce price (wzébu), of one mina, if her husband was a gentleman ; or a third of a mina if he was a ‘poor man’ (§§ 138-140). When the husband died and she had a family, she
=— _
had a right to a son’s share (§ 172), unless her husband had given her a settlement (nudunni) by deed of gift in his lifetime. She might have power given her to leave this as she liked among her sons, but not outside her husband’s children. Her family could not disturb her possession of these benefits as long as she lived and remained a widow ; but, if she remarried, she gave them up to her family, to whom they came at her death (§ 172). She had a right to live in her husband’s house, and the family could not turn her out.
The married pair formed a unit. Each was re- sponsible for the debts of the other, even prenuptial debts. This shows that they were not always children when married, and that unmarried women could contract debt. The Code allowed a woman to get her husband to give her a bond that she should not be held responsible for his prenuptial debts, in which case his creditors could not touch her (§ 151). But it enacted that this should also exempt him from responsibility for her prenuptial debts. Further, it enacted that both together should be responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. This was a heavy responsibility for the wife. For she could be assigned by her husband to work off his debts as a mancipiwm (§ 117). Her contracting debt was one of the offences which might lead to divorce, or even death (§ 141 f.).