Hititler`de Aile Hukuku

Abstract

The organization of the family implied throughout the Hittite Laws is of the usual patriarchal type. The power of the man over his children is illustrated by the provision that he shall provide a son in place of a child whom he has kiled (S 44 A), and by the fact that in marriage a father is able to `give away` his daughter to the bridegroom. His power over his wife is implicit in the whole phraseology used at marriage: the bridegroom `takes` his wife and thereafter `possesses` her; if she is taken in adultery, he has the right to decide her fate. We know that in parts of Asia Minor, notably among the Lycians, a matrilinear system was still in existence in the time of Herodotus, and it may be that certain privileges enjoyed by women among the Hittites represent vestiges of this more primitive system. Thus one rather obscure law (S 171) provides for certain conditions under which a mother may disown her son, and in another (SS 28-29) she is associated with the father in disposing of their daughter in marriage. Possibly also the very independent position of the Hittite queen may have a similar origin. The marriage customs of the Hittites seem to have closely resembled those of Babylonia. The first stage was the betrothal, which was accompanied by some sort of present from the bridegroom. However, the betrothal had no binding force, for it was still open to the girl to marry another man, with or without her parents' consent, provide the original Fiance was indemnified by the return of his present. TheIll marriage itself was normally accompanied by a symbolic (Hittite kusata) from the bridegroom o the family of the bride, corresponding exactly to the Babylonian terhatu; but for various reasons it is probably erroneous to regard this gift as a `bride-price` and as evidence that the Hittite and Babylonian marriage had originally been of the type known as `marriage by purchase`. At the same time the bride received a dowry (Hittite ivaru) from her father. If after this the consummation of the marriage was refused by the bridegroom or opposed by the bride's family this was tantamount to non-fulfilment of the contract: the engagement was anulled and the guilty party was penalized, the bridegroom by the forfeit of his kusata, the bride's family by a two-or three-fold compensation paid to the bridegroom. Normally the married pair would set up house together, but an alternative arrangement was recognized whereby the wife remained in her father's house - a custom found also among the Assyrians. After the consummation adultery by the wife was punishable by death. On the death of the wife her dowry became the property of her husband if she was living in his house, but if she was living with her father this did not occur - the text is broken at this point, but it seems that the dowry passed to her children. The law contained detailed regulations prohibiting marriage between near relatives. A man is forbidden to have intercourse with his mother or his daughter, with the mother, sister, or daughter (by a former marriage) of his wife, or with the wife of either his father or his brother during their lifetime. In the midst of these regulations S 193 states that if a man die his widow shall be married first to hisIV brother, then (i.e., presumably, if the brother die) to his father, and then, if the father die, to his nephew. In its context this clause appears simply to state an exception to the series of prohibitions, and accordingly one copy adds the words : `It is not punishable`. But the law is remerkably similar to the Hebrew law of the levirate marriage, according to which if a man died childless it was the duty of his brother, or failing him, of his father or nearest surviving kinsman, to marry the widow, the offspring of this union taking the name and inheritance of the dead man. The custom is illustrated by the stories of Judah and Er (Gen. XXXVIII) and of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth IV) ; its purpose seems to have been to perpetuate the family of the deceased `that his name be not blotted out of Israel` (Deut. XXV. 6). The Babyloniansand Assyrians attained this and by other means, and had no need of the levirate; but S 193 proues the existence of the custom among the Hittites, although the section is inserted in its context for another purpose, and is evidently not intended as a full statement of the law. Similary, S 190 says that there is no punishment for intercourse with a stepmother after the death of the father; but this again probably indicates the existence of a custom, widespread among ancient peoples, whereby sons inherit their father's wives (with the exception of their own mothers). It is noteworthy that marriage between brother and sister is not forbidden in the Hittite laws. Marriage in which either party was a slave were recognized by the Hittites as valid. There are no less than sixlaws regulating such marriages, but the different versions are curiously inconsistent in this matter.