Sons were also vowed to temples (B? 2183, 2480).
9, The father had power over his children. He could pledge or sell them for his debts (§ 119). He sought wives for his sons, and provided them with a proper bride-price. This was so important a duty, that, if he had not performed it for all his children before his death, the brethren at the division of the property, at his death, had to set aside a bride-price for the unmarried sons, and get them married. The father gave his daughters in marriage. After his death the mother took his place. She usually acted in concert with the grown-up children. In default of both parents, the elder brother acted. f
Children were often hired out by their parents to work. It seems that, as long as a son lived in his father’s house, the father had a right to his work or earnings.
Sonship could be dissolved ; put only on grave grounds. The judge had to consent, and was bound to try to reconcile the father first. Only on a
repetition of the offence was disinheritance allowed (8§ 168, 169).
10. Adoption was very common. son was as
An adopted difficult to disinherit as a real son.
The adoption was usually made by contract; the father gave the son a ‘deed of sonship’ (duppu aplitisu). This might lay down conditions. The most usual was that the adopted son should care for and maintain his adoptive father as long as he should live. Mothers often adopted daughters, to be cared for by them. The other members of the family were consenting parties. The arrange- ment disturbed their succession to their parents’ property ; but if married they might prefer, and even procure, this means of providing for old people.
Adoption could be rescinded for faults on either side. When an adopted child failed to keep his contract (§ 186), when the adopting parent did not treat the adopted child properly (§$ 189, 190), or when the adoptive parent chose to dissolve the contract (§ 191), it could be done. In the con- tracts, the right to break the bond was sometimes expressly reserved to both parties (B 27). Some- times the right to dissolve the relation was re- served to the parents alone (B! 210). Sometimes it was laid down that, if they did that, they must give the child a son’s share of the estate (B! 54).
In such cases we may regard the adopted child as a scion of a good family, whose real parents con- sented and saw after their child’s interests. Such a, consent was needed (§ 186). When a man adopted a foundling, or his own children by a maid, no one could make a stipulation (§§ 170, 185, 187). But, even when the real parents were alive, the adopted child might be severely punished for attempting to repudiate his adoptive parents. Usually he was to be made a slave, branded, and sold. ‘The Code prescribes mutilation as punishment in specially ungrateful cases ($§ 192, 193). It is not unlikely that in these cases the real parents stipulated that they should not be known. We find that votaries — often adopted daughters, and, whenever a child of a votary is named, this may be the explanation. Slaves were adopted (B! 322, V.A.Th. 847).
11. Sons inherited equally. Adopted sons were usually heirs to a residuary portion. A married and portioned daughter had no share. But if she was not portioned she had a share like a son (§ 180), but only a life interest init. The brothers might give her a portion after her father’s death (§ 184). When there were children of two mothers by the same father, they all shared equally in the father’s property (§ 167); but each family shared only their own mother’s portion.
On sharing, if there was an unmarried son, a bride-price had to be reserved for him over and above his share ($166). A girl’s share was her Xeriktu, or marriage portion. If she had had that, she had no other share; if not, she had it now. A father’s free gift to a favourite son did not come into the division, nor was his share less on that account (§ 165). Daughters, of course, inherited in default of sons. The widow took one son’s share (§ 171) and her own property. The contemporary documents often show divisions of inheritance, or lawsuits about them.
Ti. THE Cope.
$1. If a man has accused a man and laid (a charge of?) death [a deadly spell ?] upon him and has not justified it, he that accused him shall * be put to death.
§ 2. If a man has laid (a charge of?) sorcery upon a man and has not justified it, he upon whom the sorcery is laid shall go to the holy river, he shall plunge into the holy river, and if the holy river overcome him, he who accused him shall take to himself his house. If the holy river has made out that man to be innocent and has saved him, he
* ‘Shall’ is futures In many cases it could be rendered ‘may.’ It fixes the extreme penalty.
600 CODE OF HAMMURABI
CODE OF HAMMURABI
who accused him shall be put to death. He who plunged into the holy river shall take to himself the house of him who wove the spell upon him. [Ex 2238, Dt 18”, Jer 27°].