MARRIAGE IN ANCIENT ROME

Welcome back to Rome Across Europe! Lately we have tried to incorporate more for women in our articles, but it has been hard since most Roman Historians were men.

The focus of the moment though will apply to both men and women as it is about relationships. Today RAE is talking about marriage in Ancient Rome!

Marriage in Ancient Rome was seen as a strictly monogamous institution. By law a Roman citizen could have only a single spouse at a time.

Sometimes, however, appearances aren’t always what they seem. We’ll now discover Pars I of our matrimonium notificatio.

The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states.

This is an aspect of Ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western Culture.

Marriage had mythical precedents, starting with the abduction of the Sabine Women, which may reflect the archaic custom of bride abduction. Romulus and his band of male immigrants were rejected conubium, the legal right to intermarriage, from the Sabines.

According to Livy, Romulus and his men abducted the Sabine maidens, but promised them an honorable marriage, in which they would enjoy the benefits of property, citizenship and children. These 3 benefits seem to define the purpose of marriage in Ancient Rome.

The word matrimonium, the root for the English word matrimony, defines the institution’s main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children.

Basically, Roman Citizens producing new Roman Citizens.

Consortium is a word used for the sharing of property, usually used in a technical sense for the property held by heirs, but could also be used in the context of marriage.

Worldly possessions transferred automatically from the wife to the husband in olden times, whereas the classical marriage kept the wife’s property separate.

In order for the union of a man and woman to be legitimate, there needed to be consent legally and morally. Both parties had to be willing and intend to marry, and both needed their fathers’ consent.

If all legal conditions were met, a marriage was made. We know how romantic this sounds.

The lives of elite Roman women were essentially determined by their marriages. We are best informed about families with both wealth and political standing, whose largely inherited money would follow both their sons and their daughters.

In the earliest periods of Roman history, Manus Marriage meant that a married woman would be subjugated by her husband. When that custom died out in the 1st Century BC in favor of LiberumMaritagium, a husband was not granted any rights over his wife nor have any changing effect on a woman’s status.

Elite young men would usually marry in their mid-20s, after a year or more of military service and in politics of some sort. Their brides, however, would be markedly younger women (between 15 and 20).

The family typically felt no need to retain the daughter at home in order to give her a full education. They also feared that once she hit puberty the girl might throw away her virginity or lose the reputation for chastity, which was a prerequisite for marriage.

The higher the social position of the young girl, the sooner betrothal tended to follow puberty since marriages were arranged for political reasons. The actual marriage, however, was usually postponed until she was physically mature enough to carry a healthy pregnancy or survive the high risks of childbirth.

The young wife would learn some of the complexities of running a large household by observing her mother, and her training would be supplemented by the slave staff of her new household.

The more prominent her family, the less it was likely that the girl would have much choice in the age, appearance or character of her husband. Through high status marriages, women were able to gain associative power from their husbands’ prominent positions in society.

Women who gained power in this way could even then legitimize the power positions of their sons (such as with Livia and Tiberius) as their symbolic status influenced Roman society.

While upper class girls married very young, lower class women (plebeians, freedwomen, etc.) in practice would marry during their late teens to men in their late 20s. Marriage for these women was not about economic or political gain, so it was not as urgent.

The lives of all women in antiquity were defined around their expectation and achievement of marriage: first as young girls, then as wives and, if all went well, as mothers. In their later years, it was statistically probable that they would survive their husbands and live as widows.

From day to day, on a larger scale, their obligations and opportunities depended on the man or men to whom they were married.

The nuptiae was often begun with a celebration, combining legal, religious and social features. It brings the pair of households together, new property is introduced and there is the underlying promise of children.

The wedding ceremony included various customs and religious rites. The typical upper-class wedding tended to be a lavish affair.

The expense of the wedding was normally the bride’s family’s responsibility, much as it is today. The day was carefully chosen, with various religious reasons as to why certain days should be avoided.

During engagement ceremonies, which typically took place before the wedding ceremonies, the groom would often hand his future wife an iron ring. During wedding ceremonies the bride and groom often sacrificed an animal and asked the gods for a blessing.

Gifts were given to family and friends, and sometimes the bride and groom exchanged presents of money before the wedding. On the wedding day, the bride went with a procession to her new home, while the bridegroom went ahead of the bride to receive her.

The bride brought a torch lit from her family’s hearth, and was offered another torch and water, symbolizing the aquae et ignis communicatio. She was then carried over the threshold by her attendants, not her husband.

The words “Ubi tu Gaius, ego Gaia” may have been exchanged at this point. The actual consummation of the marriage took place in the bedroom, supposedly in the dark.

The day after the wedding, the groom would hold a dinner party at his house. It was at this time that the bride made an offering to the gods of her new home.

The verbal consent between the bride and groom fulfilled the legal expectations and was part of publicizing the marriage. The sharing of water and fire, the clasping of their right hands (dextrarum iunctio), the religious and the actual ceremony and celebration fulfilled the social obligation.

Following the collapse of the Republic and the rise of Augustus as Emperor, moral legislation became part of the new political order. As Rome’s original Emperor, in 18 BC Augustus turned his attention to social reforms.

Laws pertaining to marriage, parenting and adultery were part of his program to restore the mos maiorum, traditional social norms, while consolidating his political authority and codifying a more rigid social hierarchy in the wake of the recent civil wars. The appeal to old-fashioned values cloaked the radical overthrow of the Republic’s participatory political institutions by top-down, one-man rule.

Among the upper classes marriage was less frequent, and many couples who did marry failed to produce offspring. Augustus implemented a series of laws pertaining to marriage and family life aimed at increasing the population of native Italians in Italy, encouraging marriage and having children, and punishing adultery as a crime.

Heavier taxes were assessed on unmarried men and women without husbands. However, privileges and recognition were granted for marriage and childbearing (Jus trium liberorum).

These new laws from Augustus were badly received and were modified in AD 9 by the Lex Papia Poppaea, named after the pair of bachelor Consuls of that year. The earlier and later laws are often referred to in juristic sources as the lex Julia et Papia.

In part, as a result of Christian opposition to such policies, the laws were eventually nearly all repealed or fell into disuse under Constantine and later Emperors, including Justinian.

Remarriage was very common in Roman society and many men and women were usually married at least twice in their lifetimes. This was due to the high death rate and low average life expectancy in ancient Rome.

This high mortality rate plus the high divorce rate led to many instances of remarriage. Since children were expected in marriage, each spouse usually brought at least one child to the new marriage.

Remarriages thus created a new blending of the family in ancient Roman society, where children were influenced by stepparents and, in some instances, where stepmothers were younger than their stepchildren.

Most wives were encouraged to remarry after either the death of the husband or a divorce. Ancient physicians believed that a woman was liable to get very sick if she was deprived of sexual activity and it could even lead to a woman getting “hysteric uterine constriction”.

There was even legislation passed during the rule of Augustus that required widows and widowers to remarry to be able to fully inherit from people outside of their immediate family.

This ends today’s look at marriage and its overall concept, rules and institution. Come back tomorrow to see Pars II of our focus on marriage.

Till next time, Don’t Stop Rome-ing!

References:

Bradley, K.R. Remarriage and the Structure of the Upper-Class Roman Family. In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, eds. Beryl Rawson, 79-98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814918-2.

Corbier, Mireille. Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies. In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, eds. Beryl Rawson, 47-78. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814918-2.

Fantham, Elaine. Julia Augusti: the Emperor’s Daughter: Women in the Ancient World. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-33146-3.

Gardner, Jane F. Women in Roman Law and Society. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-20635-9.

Holland, Barbara, and Lane Yerkes. The long good-bye. Smithsonian 28, no. 12 (March 1998).

Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Fant, Maureen B. Women’s Life in Greece and Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4474-6.

Lelis, Arnold A., Percy, William A. and Verstraete, Beert C.The Age of Marriage in Ancient Rome. The Edwin Mellen Press, 2003. ISBN 0-7734-6665-7.

Parkin, Tim G. Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7128-X.

Saller, Richard P. Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-32603-6.

Treggiari, Susan. Divorce Roman Style: How easy and how Frequent was it?. In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, eds. Beryl Rawson, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-814918-2.

Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-19-814890-9.

Marriages in Ancient Greece

Marriages in ancient Greece were arranged by the parents of the intended bride and groom. A financial arrangement was made between the families in the form of a dowry. Girls married between the ages of fourteen to eighteen, while typically men married in their twenties or even thirties. Spartan men continued to live in the barracks, even after the wedding, until they reached the age of thirty when they could move home with their wives.

Priests did not direct weddings in ancient Greece. Instead, a set of rituals was followed, after which the couple would live together. The rituals started with baths. The groom then would go to the bride’s house in a chariot or a cart. A feast may be held at the bride’s father’s house, after which the groom would take his bride back to his parents’ house. They were greeted at the door by the groom’s parents and led to the hearth. There they were showered with nuts and fruit. The couple then retired to their bedroom. For the wife to be fully accepted into the groom’s family, a child had to be conceived from their union.

Divorces were easily arranged. The man would have to pay back, in cash, the remaining dowry money to his wife’s parents. Divorces were granted on many grounds; for example, if the wife could not bear children. When a wife committed adultery, divorce was legally required.

Greek men did not discuss with others their wives or other female relatives. They dared not even give their names outside their close family circle. They did not want to attract unwanted attention from unrelated males.

Weddings and Marriage Traditions in Ancient Israel

Weddings and Marriage Traditions in Ancient Israelby Tracy M. Lemos

Marriage in ancient Israel was very different from marriage today. Although there is a great deal we do not know about Israelite marriage, the biblical texts that speak about it tell us that many Israelite marriage customs were unlike those of modern western societies.

First, although girls were expected to be virgins when they got married—and according to Deut 22:21 could even be put to death if they were found not to be—men were allowed to marry multiple women. It is hard to know how common polygamy, which entailed a husband being married to more than one woman, really was in ancient Israel. Also, the evidence suggests that compared to women, men had more control over whom they married. For example, Samson chooses his own wife in Judg 14, even though his parents disapprove of the match. Most likely, girls were married around puberty whereas men were somewhat older. Though unions were generally based more on economic or social considerations than romantic ones, some texts, including the Song of Songs, show us that ideas of passion and sexual love were also present in ancient Israel.

In order to marry a girl, a man would give her father a gift (called mohar in Hebrew) that would seal the betrothal between the bride- and husband-to-be. Betrothal was a much firmer commitment than today’s engagement. Though some people think of the betrothal gift as a purchase price, this is inaccurate. Anthropologists call this gift “bridewealth.” It is found in many societies throughout the world and is not considered a sale by people in those cultures—Israelite wives were not thought of as slaves in biblical texts, though men sometimes did marry slave women. Some length of time after the betrothal, wedding festivities, often involving days of feasting, would occur.

The relationship between husbands and wives was not equal in the ancient Near East, including Israel. Ba‘al, one of the Hebrew words for “husband,” also meant “lord” or “master,” and men had life-and-death power over women in the case of adultery, which in ancient Israel involved a woman having sex outside of her marriage or a man having sex with another man’s wife. Men, though, could have multiple wives and concubines and were allowed to go to prostitutes, thus monogamy was a one-way street in this culture.

Biblical texts make clear that marriages between cousins were strongly preferred. Marriages with non-Israelites are treated differently by different texts. Although some passages either limit or prohibit marriages between Israelites and non-Israelites, other biblical texts, such as the book of Ruth, are tolerant of intermarriage. Lev 18 prohibits incest but does not include uncle-niece marriages, which are prohibited in some later Jewish communities, including those responsible for writing the Dead Sea Scrolls. Deut 25:5-10 encourages a custom called levirate marriage, where a widow marries her husband’s brother if her husband has died without children; a similar, though not identical, practice is found in the book of Ruth.

In conclusion, not all biblical texts are in agreement on every issue regarding marriage, suggesting that different Israelite communities and authors had diverse viewpoints on marriage and that Israelite viewpoints evolved over time.  Many biblical customs would be unfamiliar or even objectionable to many people living in western societies today. Still, when we read the impassioned romantic poetry of the Song of Songs, we realize that some things never change.

Marriage in Ancient Egypt

Although some aspects of marriage in ancient Egypt were similar to those of today, others were radically different, and other aspects remain hazy. As in today's society, Egyptians considered marriage to be for a lifetime but divorces were fairly common. Incest was frowned upon except for royalty, who could marry their siblings, and marriages were expected to be monogamous, except for royalty.

Boys were usually married by the age of 15 to 20 while girls married at a younger age, sometimes as early as 12 years old. Since the average lifespan was about 30 years, these ages probably did not seem as young to the Egyptians as they do today.

Romantic Love in Ancient Egypt

© MCAD Library - Pharaoh Menkaure and his wife

Many ancient Egyptian tomb drawings depict affectionate gestures between a man and wife, indicating that there was an emphasis on romantic love in ancient Egypt. Common images depict couples touching each other, caressing each other, offering gifts, and smiling. King Tut's tomb contains numerous romantic images of himself and his wife, Queen Ankhesenamun, engaged in romantic gestures.

Although the primary considerations for life partners were quality of lineage, personal integrity, and personal habits, many couples also opted for romantic love in their relationship. Men and women endeavored to make their spouses happy because it was thought that their marriage would extend beyond the grave, and no one wanted to be miserably married for eternity.

More emphasis was placed on the woman's happiness than the man's. A man was expected to provide for his wife in a manner that would please her and ensure her happiness. In return, she was expected to happily provide a neat and clean household that ran smoothly, to keep herself neat and well groomed, to provide children who were well mannered, and to be content. For the husband, this meant that even if he wasn't passionately in love with his wife, he could be content and happy.

© Wally Gobetz - Statue of a New Kingdom couple

Many poems have survived which glorify the concept of romantic love, including posthumous loving odes from a grieving husband to his wife. Apparently, romance wasn't always the answer though. The works also include frustrated pleas from widowers imploring their departed wives to stop tormenting them from beyond the grave.

Since wives were considered equal to their husbands in ancient Egyptian culture, it was important to select a compatible and congenial wife. Although men were considered the masters of their homes and the women and children were to obey him, the women were not considered subordinate to their husbands.

Men were expected not to micromanage their household, that was the wife's domain, and to leave her in peace and quiet if she was satisfactorily performing her wifely duties.

Chastity before marriage was not considered important, the ancient Egyptians considered sexuality to be a part of life, nothing more or less. Single adults were free to copulate with others and illegitimacy carried no stigma. This helped the ancient Egyptians to ensure compatibility on all levels with their life partner and reduced the number of divorces.

Marriage Ceremony

Unlike today, there were no requirements for a legal ceremony for a marriage. When a couple decided to marry, or their parents decided for them, the bride gathered her belongings and moved them into the groom's house, whereupon they were considered to be married.

When a man took a woman to wife, it was understood that he had his own household; men didn't marry until they could afford to live on their own. They didn't marry and then continue to live with his or his wife's parents. This indicated that the man was sufficiently responsible to provide for his wife and future children, and that he cared for their well being.

Usually, documents were drawn up that detailed items specifically belonging to the wife and those items that the husband was bestowing upon her, but there were no documents required stating that the couple was married. Apparently, the bride moved her belongings to the groom's house, there was often a celebration, and then they were considered married.

© Darren Puttock - Relief of Meru and his wife

Marriage Agreements/Contracts

Except for the very poor, a marriage in ancient Egypt usually had a contract or agreement that was similar to a modern prenuptial agreement. This document specified the bride price, which was in essence a reverse dowry; that is, the amount the groom's family paid to the bride's family for the privilege of marrying her. It also specified what would be paid to the wife in the event the husband divorced her.

The agreement also specified the items that the bride brought into the marriage and what she would take with her in the event of a divorce. Children always belonged to the mother and they would go with her if there was a divorce, regardless of who terminated the marriage. Egyptian marriage contracts tended to ensure that the ex-wife was not left destitute.

The agreement was compiled by the bride's father and then signed in the presence of witnesses; this constituted a marriage contract and was usually the only documentary evidence of a legal marriage.

Depiction of a couple during harvest

Divorce in Ancient Egypt

Divorcing a spouse in ancient Egypt was as simple as the process of marrying one. There were no protracted legal proceedings, the terms of the marriage were clearly specified in the marriage contract and generally adhered to.

The exception to this was in the instance of the wife's infidelity. Wives were expected to be faithful to their husbands and those who weren't, if it could be proved, sometimes were put to death, either by stoning or by being burned at the stake. This was not always the husband's decision; the court could overrule a husband who wanted to spare his wife, in which case she was executed.

Egyptian divorces frequently stipulated that spousal support be paid to the wife until she remarried. Unlike today, spousal support was always paid from the husband to the wife. Men had the majority of the wealth in ancient Egypt, except for women who had inherited wealth, and the man usually paid spousal support to the wife, whether the couple had children or not. The wife also kept the dowry provided by the groom at the time of the marriage.

© Richard White - Relief of Isis and Osiris

Marriage and the Afterlife

Marriages were thought to be eternal so the ancient Egyptians placed emphasis on selecting a compatible life partner. The prospect of reuniting with one's spouse in the afterlife was thought to ease the pain of his or her passing. The concept of eternal marriage provided the impetus to make life pleasurable, both on earth and in the afterlife, so that the eternal marriage could be happy and successful.

Ancient Egyptians thought that after death, mortal beings stood before Osiris, who judged them. If their lives were deemed worthy, they were permitted to enter the Field of Reeds, where their earthly lives would continue on a higher plane. All the possessions and those who were held dear would be waiting, such as one's spouse, pets, home, relatives, and so forth.

If the deceased had mistreated others and not lived a good life, then this reunion might not occur and the deceased could suffer consequences in subsequent lives. Poems, inscriptions, and documents exist that indicate a surviving spouse thought his or her departed was exacting revenge from his or her place in the afterlife.

© isawnyu - Tomb wall paintings, depicting the weighing of the heart

Famous Marriages in Ancient Egypt

Royal marriages in ancient Egypt usually occurred between family members. Although the ancient Egyptians thought that this would preserve the purity of the royal lineage, it didn't. The result was genetic corruption and many royal babies didn't survive. Cleopatra married both of her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV. Neither of the marriages produced offspring.

Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun

The marriage of Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun is perhaps one of the most famous in ancient Egypt. Ankhesenamun was King Tutankhamun's half-sister and his Great Royal Wife, they were married when he was about 10 years old and she was between 8 and 10 years old. Some historians postulate that she was first married to her father Akhenaten, but this has not been definitely proven.

Ankhesenamun was King Tut's only wife and their marriage is thought to have produced two daughters, both of whom were stillborn. Contrary to ancient Egyptian opinion, this didn't keep the bloodline pure. Rather, it resulted in genetic defects that were sometimes fatal. Some of King Tut's deformities were probably due to the fact that his parents were also brother and sister.

King Tut and his half-sister appear to have been very happy. Many images have survived that depict them in proximity, smiling at each other and proffering flowers or gifts.

Their marriage was short lived, since King Tut died when he was about 18 years old; he left no heir. Queen Ankhesenamun continued as Queen of Egypt but needed to find a consort. It isn't well documented, but some historians think she married Ay, a successor to King Tut and died during or shortly after his reign.

© Asaf Braverman - Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun

Ramses II and Nefertari

Ramses II, known today as Ramses the Great, and first his wife, Nefertari, known today as the Great Royal Wife of Ramses II, were married during the first year of his reign. She was beautiful and well educated, which was unusual for women of her time. Ramses' esteem for her is evident in the lavishness of her tomb, and the fact that he constructed a temple for her that was next to his colossal temple in Abu Simbel.

Nefertari was very active in Ramses' court, serving both as a diplomat and as a royal correspondent. Her lineage is unclear but a cartouche of Pharaoh Ay indicates that she may be a distant relative of his. Nefertari had four sons and two daughters with Ramses, and she was prominent in Ramses' court for more than two decades. After about 25 years, her health apparently failed and she was buried in her lavish tomb in the Valley of the Queens.

Ramses II and Nefertari appeared to have a happy and long-lasting marriage. Ramses II had eight royal wives, but Nefertari appears to have been his favorite and remained his Great Royal Wife.

© Terry Feuerborn - Statues of Ramses II and Nefertari at Abu Simbel

Akhenaten and Nefertiti

In the fifth year of his reign, Pharaoh Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaten, in keeping with the change from polytheism to monotheism, which he and and his Great Royal Wife Nefertitidecreed to their subjects. Akhenaten apparently had very high regard for his Great Royal Wife, as she wielded far more power than any of her predecessors. Nefertiti may have risen to the post of co-regent according to one of the stela, and she had numerous titles.

The pair reigned for 17 years until Akhenaten's death. Nefertiti's tomb has never been located, although it was customary for the pharaoh to provide burial accommodations for their Great Royal Wives.

© Ivan Herman - Sculptures of Akhenaten and Nefertiti

Facts about Marriage in Ancient Egypt

• Ancient Egyptians considered marriage to be the most desirable state and was intended to be monogamous, except for royalty. However, there's very little evidence that legal documentation was required other than the marriage contract.
• Before the 26th Dynasty, which was from 664 to 332 BC, women usually had little or no input in their choice of husbands. A man and the bride's parents determined whether the marriage would take place.
• Marriages couldn't take place between close relatives, except for royalty. Husbands and wives couldn't be related closer than distant cousins.
• Marriage between older men and very young girls was very common.
• Early dowries from the husband to the wife's parents were about equivalent to the price of a slave.
• If a husband divorced his wife, she was automatically entitled to about one-third of his money for spousal support.
• Despite the arranged marriages, statues and portraits usually depict happy couples.

Love, Sex, and Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia

Article

by Joshua J. Mark 
published on 16 May 2014

Medical texts from ancient Mesopotamia provide prescriptions and practices for curing all manner of ailments, wounds, and diseases. There was one malady, however, which had no cure: passionate love. From a medical text found in Ashurbanipal’s library at Ninevehcomes this passage:

When the patient is continually clearing his throat; is often lost for words; is always talking to himself when he is quite alone, and laughing for no reason in the corners of fields, is habitually depressed, his throat tight, finds no pleasure in eating or drinking, endlessly repeating, with great sighs, `Ah, my poor heart!’ – he is suffering from lovesickness. For a man and for a woman, it is all one and the same (Bottero, 102-103).

Marriage in ancient Mesopotamia was of vital importance to the society, literally, because it ensured the continuation of the family line and provided social stability. Arranged marriages were the norm, in which the couple had often never met, and there were even bridal auctions where women were sold to the highest bidder, but human relationships in ancient Mesopotamia were just as complex and layered as those today and part of that complexity was the emotion of love. The historian Karen Nemet-Nejat notes, “Like people the world over and throughout time, ancient Mesopotamians fell deeply in love” (132).

REMOVE ADS

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise Here

The popularity of what, today, would be called `love songs’ also attests to the commonality of deep romantic attachment between couples. A few of the titles of these poems illustrate this: `Sleep, begone! I want to hold my darling in my arms!’ `When you speak to me, you make my heart swell till I could die!’ `I did not close my eyes last night; Yes, I was awake all night long, my darling [thinking of you]’ (Bottero, 106). There are also poems, such as an Akkadian composition from c. 1750 BCE, which depicts two lovers arguing because the woman feels the man is attracted to another and he must convince her that she is the only one for him. In the end, after they have discussed the problem, the couple reconciles and it is made clear that they will now live happily ever after together.

THE BUSINESS OF MARRIAGE

Contrasted with romantic love and a couple sharing their lives together, however, is the `business side’ of marriage and sex. Herodotus reports that every woman, at least once in her lifetime, had to sit outside the temple of Ishtar (Inanna) and agree to have sex with whatever stranger chose her. This custom was thought to ensure the fertility and continued prosperity of the community. As a woman’s virginity was considered requisite for a marriage, it would seem unlikely that unmarried women would have taken part in this and yet Herodotus states that `every woman’ was required to.  The practice of sacred prostitution, as Herodotus describes it, has been challenged by many modern-day scholars but his description of the bride auction has not. Herodotus writes:

Once a year in each village the young women eligible to marry were collected all together in one place; while the men stood around them in a circle. Then a herald called up the young women one by one and offered them for sale. He began with the most beautiful. When she was sold for a high price, he offered for sale the one who ranked next in beauty. All of them were then sold to be wives. The richest of the Babylonians who wished to wed bid against each other for the loveliest young women, while the commoners, who were not concerned about beauty, received the uglier women along with monetary compensation…All who liked might come, even from distant villages, and bid for the women. This was the best of all their customs but it has now fallen into disuse (Histories I: 196).

Babylonian Marriage Market

So while romantic love did play a part in Mesopotamian marriages, it is true that, according to the customs and expectations of Mesopotamian society, marriage was a legal contract between the father of a girl and another man (the groom, as in the case of the bride auction where the groom paid the girl's father the bride-price) or, more commonly, between two families, which functioned as the foundation of a community. The historian Bertman writes,

REMOVE ADS

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise Here

In the language of the Sumerians, the word for `love’ was a compound verb that, in its literal sense, meant `to measure the earth,’ that is, `to mark off land’. Among both the Sumerians and the Babylonians (and very likely among the Assyrians as well) marriage was fundamentally a business arrangement designed to assure and perpetuate an orderly society. Though there was an inevitable emotional component to marriage, its prime intent in the eyes of the state was not companionship but procreation; not personal happiness in the present but communal continuity for the future (275-276).

This was, no doubt, the `official’ view of marriage and there is no evidence to suggest that a man and woman decided to simply get married on their own (although there is evidence of a couple living together without marrying).  Bertman writes, “Every marriage began with a legal contract. Indeed, as Mesopotamian law stated, if a man should marry without having first drawn up and executed a marriage contract, the woman he `marries’ would not be his wife…every marriage began not with a joint decision by two people in love but with a negotiation between representatives of two families” (276). Once the marriage contract was signed in the presence of witnesses, the ceremony could be planned.

 The wedding ceremony had to include a feast in order to be considered legitimate. The course of the marriage process had five stages which needed to be observed in order for the couple to be legally married:

1. The engagement/marriage contract;
2. Payment of the families of the bride and groom to each other (the dowry and bride-price);
3. The ceremony/feast;
4. The bride moving to her father-in-law’s home;
5. Sexual intercourse between the couple with the bride expected to be a virgin on her wedding night and to become pregnant.

If any one of these steps was not performed, or not performed properly (such as the bride not becoming pregnant), the marriage could be invalidated. In the event the bride turned out not to be a virgin, or could not conceive, the groom could return her to her family. He would have to return her dowry to her family but would get back the bride-price his family had paid.

REMOVE ADS

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise Here

THE ENGAGEMENT

Special attention was paid to the engagement. Bertman notes:

Engagements were serious business in Babylonia, especially for those who might have a change of heart. According to Hammurabi’s Code, a suitor who changed his mind would forfeit his entire deposit (betrothal gift) and bride-price. If the prospective father-in-law changed his mind, he had to pay the disappointed suitor double the bride-price. Futhermore, if a rival suitor persuaded the father-in-law to change his mind, not only did the father-in-law have to pay double, but the rival wasn’t allowed to marry the daughter. These legal penalties acted as a potent deterrent against changes of heart and a powerful incentive for both responsible decision making and orderly social behavior (276).

These incentives and penalties were particularly important because young people in Mesopotamia, as young people in the present day, did not always wish to comply with their parents' wishes. A young man or woman might well love someone other than the `best match’ chosen by their parents. A poem featuring the goddess Inanna, known for her penchant for `free love’ and doing as she pleased, and her lover Dumuzi, is thought to illustrate the problems parents had in guiding their children, daughters in particular, in proper conduct resulting in a happy marriage (although, as Inanna and Dumuzi were a very popular couple in religious and secular literature, it is doubtful that young people interpreted the poem in the same way their parents may have). The scholar Jean Bottero describes the work, pointing out how Inanna was encouraged to marry the successful farmer god Enkimdu but loved the shepherd god Dumuzi and so chose him. Bottero writes:

She furtively left the house, like an amorous teenager, to go to meet her beloved beneath the stars, `which sparkled as she did’, then to dally beneath his caresses and suddenly wonder, seeing the night advance, how she was going to explain her absence and lateness to her mother: `Let me go! I must go home! Let me go, Dumuzi! I must go in! /What lie shall I tell my mother? /What lie shall I tell my mother Ningal?’ And Dumuzi suggests an answer: she will say that her girl companions persuaded her to go with them to listen to music and dance (109).

Marriage of Inanna and Dumuzi

The penalties and incentives, then, were supposed to keep a young couple on the desired path toward the marriage and prevent them from engaging in romances under the stars. Once the couple was properly married, they were expected to produce children quickly. Sex was considered just another aspect of one’s life and there was none of the modern-day embarrassment, shyness, or taboo involved in Mesopotamians' sex lives. Bottero states that “Homosexual love could be enjoyed” without fear of social stigma and texts mention men “preferring to take the female role” in sex. Further, he writes, “Various unusual positions could be adopted: `standing’; `on a chair’; `across the bed or the partner’; taking her from behind’ or even `sodomising her’ and sodomy, defined as anal intercourse, was a common form of contraceptive (101). Further,

it could happen that an eccentric setting was chosen…instead of keeping to your favourite place, the bedroom. You might take it into your head to `make love on the roof-terrace of the house’; or `on the threshold of the door’; or `right in the middle of a field or orchard’, or `in some deserted place’; or `a no through road’; or even `in the middle of the street’, either with just any woman on whom you had `pounced’ or with a prostitute (Bottero, 100).

Erotic Plaque

Bottero further notes that, “Making love was a natural activity, as culturally ennobled as food was elevated by cuisine. Why on earth should one feel demeaned or diminished, or guilty in the eyes of the gods, practicing it in whatever way one pleased, always provided that no third party was harmed or that one was not infringing any of the customary prohibitions which controlled daily life” (97). This is not to say that Mesopotamians never had affairs or were never unfaithful to their spouses. There is plenty of textual evidence which shows that they did and they were. However, as Bottero notes, “When discovered, these crimes were severely punished by the judges, including the use of the death penalty: those of men in so far as they did serious wrong to a third party; those of women because, even when secret, they could harm the cohesion of the family” (93). Bottero continues:

In Mesopotamia, amorous impulses and capabilities had traditionally been channeled by collective constraints with the aim of ensuring the security of what was held to be the very nucleus of the social body – the family – and thus to provide for its continuity. The fundamental vocation of every man and woman, his or her `destiny’, as they said, referring matters to a radical wish on the part of the gods, was therefore marriage. And [as it is written in an ancient text] `the young man who has stayed solitary…having taken no wife, or raised children, and the young woman who has not been either deflowered, or impregnated, and of whom no husband has undone the clasp of her garment and put aside her robe, to embrace her and make her enjoy pleasure, until her breasts swell with milk and she has become a mother’ were looked upon as marginal, doomed to languish in an unhappy existence (92).

PROCREATION AS THE GOAL OF MARRIAGE

Children were the natural, and greatly desired, consequence of marriage. Childlessness was considered a great misfortune and a man could take a second wife if the bride proved infertile. Bottero writes, “Once settled in her new status, all the jurisprudence shows us the wife entirely under the authority of her husband, and social constraints – giving the husband free rein – were not kind to her.

In the first place, although monogamy was common, every man – according to his whims, needs, and resources – could add one or more `second wives’, or rather, concubines, to the first wife” (115). The first wife was often consulted in choosing the second wives, and it was her responsibility to make sure they fulfilled the duties for which they had been chosen. If a concubine had been added to the home because the first wife could not have children, the concubine’s offspring would become the children of the first wife and would be able to inherit and carry on the family name.

As the primary purpose of marriage, as far as society was concerned, was to produce children, a man could add as many concubines to his home as he could afford. The continuation of the family line was most important and so concubines were fairly common in cases where the wife was ill, in generally poor health, or infertile. A man could not divorce his wife because of her state of health, however; he would continue to honor her as the first wife until she died. Under these circumstances, the concubine would become first wife upon the wife’s death and, if there were other women in the house, they would each move up one position in the home’s hierarchy.

Queen of the Night Plaque

DIVORCE & INFIDELITY

Divorce carried a serious social stigma and was not common. Most people married for life even if that marriage was not a happy one. Inscriptions record women running away from their husbands to sleep with other men. If caught in the act, the woman could be thrown into the river to drown, along with her lover, or could be impaled; both parties had to be spared or executed. Hammurabi’s Code states, “If, however, the owner of the wife wishes to keep her alive, the king will equally pardon the woman’s lover.”

Divorce was commonly initiated by the husband, but wives were allowed to divorce their mates if there was evidence of abuse or neglect. A husband could divorce his wife if she proved to be infertile but, as he would then have to return her dowry, he was more likely to add a concubine to the family. It never seems to have occurred to the people of the time that the male could be to blame for a childless marriage; the fault was always ascribed to the woman. A husband could also divorce his wife on grounds of adultery or neglect of the home but, again, would have to return her property and also suffer the stigma of divorce. Both parties seem to have commonly chosen to make the best of the situation even if it was not optimal. Bottero writes,

As for the married woman, provided she had a little `guts’ and knew how to make use of her charms, employing all her guile, she was no less capable of making her husband toe the line. A divinatory oracle mentions a woman made pregnant by a third party who ceaselessly implores the goddess of love, Ishtar, repeating: `Please let the child look like my husband!’ [and] we are told of women who left their home and husband to go gallivanting not just once, but two, three…as many as eight times, some returning later, crestfallen, or never coming back at all (120).

Women abandoning their families was uncommon but happened enough to have been written about. A woman traveling alone to another region or city to begin a new life, unless she was a prostitute, was rare but did occur and seems to have been an option taken by women who found themselves in an unhappy marriage who chose not to suffer the disgrace of a public divorce. Since divorce favored the man, “if a woman expressed the desire to divorce, she could be thrown out of her husband’s home penniless and naked” (Nemet-Nejat, 140). The man was the head of the household and the supreme authority, and a woman had to prove conclusively that her husband had failed to uphold his end of the marriage contract in order to obtain a divorce.

Even so, it should be noted that a majority of the myths of ancient Mesopotamia, especially the most popular myths (such as The Descent of Inanna, Inanna and the Huluppu Tree, Ereshkigal and Nergal) portray women in a very flattering light and, often, as having an advantage over men. While males were recognized as the authority in both government and in the home, women could own their own land and businesses, buy and sell slaves, and initiate divorce proceedings. Bottero cites evidence (such as the myths mentioned above and business contracts) which show women in Sumer enjoying greater freedoms than women after the rise of the Akkadian Empire (c. 2334). After the influence of Akkad, he writes, "if women in ancient Mesopotamia, even though regarded at all levels as inferior to men and treated as such, nevertheless seem to have enjoyed also consideration, rights, and freedoms, it is perhaps one of the distant results and vestiges of the old and mysterious Sumerian culture" (126). This culture remained prevalent enough, throughout the history of Mesopotamia, to allow a woman the freedom to escape from an unhappy homelife and travel to another city or region to begin a new one.

LIVING HAPPILY EVER AFTER

Throughout all of the difficulties and legalities of marriage in Mesopotamia, however, then as now, there were many happy couples who lived together for life and enjoyed their children and grandchildren. In addition to the love poems mentioned above, letters, inscriptions, paintings, and sculpture attest to genuine affection between couples, no matter how their marriage may have been arranged. The letters between Zimri-Lim, King of Mari, and his wife Shiptu, are especially touching in that it is clear how much they cared for, trusted, and relied on each other. Nemet-Nejat writes, “Happy marriages flourished in ancient times; a Sumerian proverb mentions a husband boasting that his wife had borne him eight sons and was still ready to make love” (132), and Bertman describes a Sumerian statue of a seated couple, from 2700 BCE, thusly: “An elderly Sumerian couple sit side by side fused by sculpture into a single piece of gypsum rock; his right arm wrapped around her shoulder, his left hand tenderly clasping her right, their large eyes looking straight ahead to the future, their aged hearts remembering the past” (280).

Although the customs of the Mesopotamians may seem strange, or even cruel, to a modern-day western mind, the people of the ancient world were no different from those living today. Many modern marriages, begun with great promise, end badly, while many others, which initially struggle, endure for a lifetime. The practices which begin such unions are not as important as what the individuals involved make of their time together and, in Mesopotamia as in the present, marriage presented many challenges which a couple either overcame or succumbed to.