Part 22 (1/2)

(M534) We have a great variety of types of donation, not always easy to cla.s.sify, and often obscure, in some details. The common characteristics are that deeds of gift were duly executed, sealed, and witnessed; and that the consents of the parties, whose expectations were thus diminished, or restricted, had to be obtained.

(M535) A daughter might be portioned off for marriage and this involved a gift, which might be treated as a donation, but rather comes under the head of marriage-portion, in the chapter on marriage. Precisely the same portioning took place when the daughter either became a votary or was dedicated to the service of a G.o.d. Such gifts may be included here. They usually contain a list of property: sharing houses, land, slaves, jewels, money, clothes, household furniture, even pots of honey or jars of wine.

As a rule, in our present state of knowledge, nothing that could pretend to be an accurate translation can be given of the items of such a gift, only a general idea of the nature of the whole. Such a gift, however, evidently set the lady up in an establishment of her own, with all she could require for maintenance and comfort for the rest of her life.

(M536) Here these donations split up into separate cla.s.ses. The recipient might have only a life interest in her gift, or it might be hers outright.

The latter case could not be presumed. The heirs of her parents, ”her father's house,” would maintain their claim at her death, unless they had specially contracted to waive it. Then the clause was inserted that she might ”give her sons.h.i.+p to whomever she pleased,” _aar elia tab.u.m aplutsa inadin_.(555) By ”sons.h.i.+p” is meant ”heirs.h.i.+p.” Such cases do not seem common and are probably to be explained as due to the fact that as a votary she had no legitimate heir. It is important to note that there is no hint that, if she died without heirs, the temple would inherit.

(M537) A modified freedom is allowed by a father who gives his daughter house, land, sheep, slaves, and the like, but limits her power of gift to her brothers. But among them she may ”give it to him who loves and serves her.”(556) It is a.s.sumed that one of her brothers will care for her and manage her estate and be rewarded by the reversion of it. As a rule, it is only a life interest which the recipient has.

A different sort of gift is where the donor reserves to himself a use of the property as long as he lives, or stipulates for a life allowance from it. These are usually accompanied by formal adoption. The recipient is one who has not already a claim to inherit, but undertakes the care or maintenance of the donor. Such gifts are best cla.s.sed under adoption, even where the fact of adoption is not stated. When a parent makes an arrangement of this kind with a son or daughter, these were possibly adopted by a previous act. At any rate, it seems likely that such a child was either unmarried or again free to wait upon the donor. But whatever the actual state of relations.h.i.+ps, we find a mother giving property to a daughter, reserving the use of it as long as she lives.(557) Similarly a brother undertakes to give one shekel _per annum_ to his brother. Here the grounds of the undertaking are not stated, but a contract to do this is duly sealed and witnessed.(558) Further, maintenance is stipulated for, though the relations.h.i.+p is not stated, nor grounds given. This may not be based upon a gift, but follow the order of some judge, for other reasons.(559)

(M538) The husband might settle upon his wife a fixed amount of property.

This was frequently done and was called the _nudunnu_. It might include a house, two maids, clothes, jewelry, and household furniture.(560) Here the sons are expressly said to have no claim, she may give it to whoever serves her and ”as her heart desires.” Probably she was a second wife without children, and is thus secured a life of comfort and the faithful service of her step-sons. As a rule these gifts are best considered under the head of marriage, but they were also free gifts on the donor's part.

The wife in any case had her right to inherit with her step-sons, if her husband made no such settlement.

(M539) The consent of the legal heirs of the donor to such alienation of their reversionary rights was needed. Thus in one case, when a man gives his daughter a house, his son appears as the first witness.(561) A father and his son give their daughter and sister a house, which she is free to give to her son, ”whom she loves.”(562) Had the house merely come to her as her share in the usual way, it must have been shared by her sons. If she had none, then her brother would be the next heir. That she can leave it as she will must be a matter of legal instrument. The brother must consent to the exception to the rule.

(M540) In a.s.syrian times, donation is rarely represented within the group of doc.u.ments which have reached us. Here is one case:(563)

The household which Bel-na'id gave to his daughter, Baltea-abate.

A house in Nineveh, before the great gate of the temple of Shamash. (Then come the servants, a _a?u_ or head man, a washerman, a _aknu_, and others, male and female, in all eleven souls.) Dated the fourteenth of Adar, in the Eponymy of Marduk-shar-u?ur. Nine witnesses.

This may be donation, or adoption, or even a marriage-portion.

At all times, a difficulty arises from the phraseology of the deeds of gift. When we are told that ”A has given B such and such things,” we do not know the ground of the gift. ”To give for money,” _nadanu ana kaspi_, is the usual expression for ”to sell.” In the older doc.u.ments _ara?u_, ”to present,” often occurs, but has in most cases the derived technical sense ”to dower,” or ”give a marriage-portion.” Hence, we are not able to judge whether what appears as ”gift” may not really be ”a sale,” or some payment meant to complete the portioning off of a daughter, on marriage or taking vows.

(M541) There are, however, a large number of deeds of gift which have reached us from the Second Babylonian Empire. The characteristic formula may be taken to be _ina ?ud libbiu iknukma pani uadgil_, ”in the joy of his heart (_i.e._, of his own free will, implying that no consideration was taken _per contra_) he has sealed and placed at the disposal of.” As a rule, we may suspect these to be ”gifts” to which the recipient had a right. Thus, mother to son,(564) brother to sister,(565) man to wife and daughter,(566) mother to daughter,(567) are not free from suspicion. But when a man gives maintenance to wife and son,(568) brother gives dower to sister,(569) father-in-law gives son-in-law arrears of his daughter's dower,(570) and wherever there is a hint that the ”gift” was a _nudunnu_, or a _eri?tu_, we may regard the case as not properly ”donation,” but ”dower.”

(M542) The following example shows the limitations on free gift that still remained in later times.(571) Zerutu had married and had a son, Shapik-zeri. Then he had an intrigue with Nasikatum, daughter of the Sealand scribe, who bore him a son, Bala?u. He gave Bala?u a house, but did not adopt him. After Zerutu died, Shapik-zeri demanded the house as his father's heir. The judges gave it to him and also the deed of gift.

(M543) The dedication of land to a temple or of a child to the service of a G.o.d may be considered as examples of free gift; but they are of a nature deserving separate consideration. We have already noticed some cases of such donations by the kings. We know from the Code that a father might dedicate a child as a votary,(572) and he might portion that child; but this did not bring a free gift to the temple, for the family had the reversion of the votary's property.

As a further example of dedication by a private owner, we may take the following:(573)

(M544)

As temple of the G.o.d Lugalla (the king) and his consort Shullat, Nur-ilishu, son of Bel-nada, has dedicated to his G.o.d one _SAR_ of improved land, for his life (salvation), has devoted it to his G.o.d. Pi-sha-Shamash shall be the priest of the temple. Nur-ilishu shall lay no claim to the priesthood. The curse of Shamash and of Sumula-ilu be on him who disputes the settlement. Seven witnesses.

This is total alienation. The donor is not making an indirect provision for himself, but waives all claims to be the chief priest of the temple.

(M545) Here is an example of a dedication of children:(574)