Giving away the bride
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. [pg 127] In the absence of father and mother, the brother as head of the family assumed 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]
Widows free to dispose of themselves
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.
Consent of bridegroom's father or guardian requisite for a legal marriage
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 nobles 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 [pg 128] 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.
The court of registration
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 mâr bânê, 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 bît pirṣatum, the meaning of which is obscure. But as Ishtar was bêlit parṣê, the “lady of the parṣê,” we may connect it also with weddings.