Covery

1. The inscription is most beautifully cut in the well-known style characteristic of the Hammurabi period. Careful rubbings or ‘squeezes’ were taken and sent to France. v. Scheil, with remarkable promptitude, published the text by photogravure in the fourth volume of the Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse (Leroux, Paris), under the direction of the French Minister of Public Instruction. This editio princeps was accompanied by an excellent transliteration into Roman char- acters, a good first translation, with a few useful footnotes, and a recapitulation of the legal enact- ments. This superb volume, in quarto, appeared in October 1902. 2. It at once attracted attention. In October the present writer gave a full account of it in a aper read before the Cambridge Theological Society, an abstract of which appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies, January 1903. In November, H. Winckler published an independent version in German under the title of Die Gesetze Hammurabis, Konigs von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr.: Das dlteste Gesetzbuch der Welt (Hinrichs, Leipzig ; second edition in March, third in Novem- ber, 1903). This was in some respects an improve- ment on Scheil’s translation, and was accompanied by some ingenious footnotes. About the same time R. Dareste gave a full account of the Code, comparing it with other ancient codes, in the Journal des Savants for October and November. In December the New York Independent began a series of articles by W. H. Ward, called ‘The most ancient Civil Code’ (December 11, 18, January 8, 15, 22). This closely followed Winckler’s trans- lation, but introduced some parallels from the laws of Moses. In February the present writer pub- lished a translation which aimed at being as literal as possible. This was accompanied by an exhaust- ive index, and appeared as the Oldest Code of Laws in the World (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh). In March appeared an article entitled ‘The re- cently discovered Civil Code of Hammurabi,’ by C. F. Kent, in the Biblical World. This gave a very readable account of the whole subject, and pointed out many Mosaic parallels. The transla- tion followed Winckler. In August, F. Mari issued an Italian translation, J7 Codice di Hamnvurabi é la Bibbia (Desclée & Co., Rome). In November, q : | is CODE OF HAMMURABI CODE OF HAMMURABI 585 D. H. Miiller gave, in the X Jahresbericht der Israelitisch-Theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien, a very full account of the Code under the title ‘ Die Gesetze Hammurabis und die mosaische Gesetz- gebung’ (A. Holder, Vienna). This is specially noticeable for a beautiful Hebrew rendering, as well as an improved transcription and German translation. It has a very full commentary. About the same time appeared the first volume of Hammurabi's Gesetz, by J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser (Pfeiffer, Leipzig). It contains a new trans- lation, juristic version, and some good explanatory matter. A number of books have been devoted to the comparison of this Code with other ancient legis- lations: S. Oettli, Das Gesetz Hammurabis und die Thora Israels (Deichert, Leipzig) ; J. Jeremias, Moses und Hammurali (Hinrichs, Leipzig [first edition in March, second in November, 1903]); R. Dareste, ‘Le Code Babylonien d’Hammourabi’ (Nouvelle Revue Historique de droit francais et étranger, xxvii. p. 5f., Larose, Paris); C. Stooss, ‘Das babylonische Strafrecht Hammurabis’ (Schweizerische Zeitschrift fiir Strafrecht, xvi. P. 1ff.); G. Cohn, Die Gesetze Hammurabis, a ectorial address (Fiissli, Ziirich); H. Grimme, Das Gesetz Chammurabis und Moses (Bachem, Cologne) ; Pére Lagrange, ‘Le code de Hammou- rabi’ (Revue Biblique, xii. p. 27, Lecoffre, Paris) ; S. A. Cook, The Laws of fases and the Code of Hammurabi (A. & C. Black, London); W. St. C. Boscawen, First of Empires (Harper, London). Besides these, there have been a large number of reviews and notices. Most of the books just cited refer to other literature on cognate subjects. The comparisons with the Bible which they suggest will be given in square brackets at the end of the cor- responding sections of the Code (below, p. 599? ff.). li. IMPORTANCE OF THE INSCRIPTION. — At Susa, where the monument was actually found, the French explorers have of late years been con- ducting a very scientific examination of the re- mains of the oldest strata. They have given to the world, along with many records of the native Elamite monarchs, a number of splendid monu- ments of Babylonian kings. These had been transported from Babylonia as trophies of con- quest, as is shown by the fact that sundry speci- mens have had parts of their inscrijtions erased, and replaced by the name and titles of some Elamite ruler. We can hardly doubt that this was to have been done in the space left vacant by the erased five columns of this stele, but the in- scription was never cut in. Hence we do not know for certain when this monument was carried to Susa. That it was meant to be set up in Sippara is clear from the words £-barra suatt, ‘this E-barra,’ the name of the temple of Shamash at Sippara (line 76, rev. col. xxviii.). The value of the inscription is enormously en- hanced by its being the original autograph. Copies existed. There was foond 3 with it at Susa a large fragment of a duplicate. The scribes of Assur- banipal, king of Assyria (B.C. 668-626), made copies of it, or one of its duplicates, dividing the text into possibly fifteen books. They called the series, in their edition, dindni (sa) Hammurabi, either ‘the judgments of Hammurabi,’ or perhaps ‘the image of Hammurabi.’ A number of frag- ments of this Assyrian edition, preserved in the British Museum, were copied and edited, with attempted translation and notes, by B. Meissner, under the title ‘Altbabylonische Gesetze’ (Bei- trdge zur Assyriologie, iii. pp. 493-523). <A frag- ment or two had been alveney published, noticed under the title ‘Code d’Asourbanipal.’ = But Meissner, who had edited a large number of con- tracts of the time of Hammurabi in his ‘ Das alt- babylonische Privatrecht’ (Assyriolog. Bibliothek, xi.), recognized forms of expression, measures of capacity and area, which showed that the Assyrian scribes had copied from some ancient document of that period. Frdr. Delitzsch, in his article ‘ Zur juristischen Litteratur Babyloniens’ (Beitrége zur Assyriologie, iv. pp. 78-87), again went over Meissner’s texts, ate giving an improved transla- tion, definitely named them the ‘Code Hammu- rabi.’ This deduction was amply verified im a few months by the discovery at Susa. The Assyrian copies are wonderfully faithful, and the few variants which occur in them may be due to their having been copied, not from this stele but from a contemporary duplicate. The credit of recog- nizing these copies in Meissner’s edition is due to Professor Scheil, who also pointed out that they actually restore parts of the erased five columns. T. G. Pinches, in a paper entitled ‘Hammurabi’s Code of Laws’ (Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology, 1902, p. 301 ff.), showed the exist- ence of a further fragment, published in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum (xiii. pls. 46, 47). H. Winckler, in a review of Scheil’s edition (in the Orientalische Litieraturzeitung, January 1903), gives a long examination of these Assyrian copies. It is to be hoped that further fragments may now be recog- nized and published. Not only did the Assyrian lawyers study this great Code, but the later Babylonians did the same. F. E. Peiser, in his Jurisprudentie Babylonice que supersunt (Céthen, 1890), published the text of anumber of fragments of late Babylonian copies preserved in the Berlin Museum (V.A.Th. 991, 1036). From these we learn that the scribes had edited the Code in a series of books, or tablets, under the title Ninw tlw sirwm, which are the first words of the Susa stele. As the seventh book ended with Scheil’s § 154, we may fairly assume that this edition was in twelve books. It was the habit of the Assyrian and Babylonian scribes to write commentaries on the works they studied. Now that the text of the Code is known, we ma expect that commentaries, like those published by L. W. King in his edition of the Creation Tablets, will be found and published. The monument not only contains the Code, but Hammurabi devoted some seven hundred lines to a prologue and epilogue, which narrated his glory and that of the gods whom he worshipped, and blessed those who should respect his inscription, while they cursed the future vandals who should injure or deface it. This part of the inscription is either conventionally phrased or very difficult, and many editors have done wisely in ignoring it altogether. There are, however, several note- worthy points about these portions of the inscrip- tion which help to fix our views as to its date. We may first sketch briefly what is known as to the king’s life and reign. Much fresh information has come to light since the article BABYLONIA (in vol. i.) was written. : iv. HAMMURABI’S LIFE AND REIGN.—1. The fresh sources for Hammurabi’s reign are chiefly the Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, published by L. W. King in three magnificent volumes acan London, 1898-1900). They consist of fifty- five letters written by Hammurabi to his vassal Sin-idinnam of Larsa ; ten of his great inscriptions, besides a multitude of other letters and inscriptions relating to the other kings of his Dynasty. Most important of all is the Chronicle of the Kings ot the First Dynasty of Babylon (pp. 212-252). In the Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum (vols. ii. iv. vi. viii ) were also published a large number of contracts, lists, and letters from the same period. They 586 CODE OF HAMMURABI CODE OF HAMMURABI were copied by T. G. Pinches. Professor Scheil, in various numbers of the Recueil de Travaux, and more fully in Une Saison de Fouilles & Sippar (Cairo, 1902), has added many more contemporary documents (quoted as 8). Dr. Pinches published a few in his Babylonian Tcblets in the possession of Sir H. Peck, Bart. (London, 1888). Strassmaier had ees a large collection of tablets, found by W. K. Loftus at Tell Sifr, in the Verhandlungen des V internationalen Ovientalisten Congresses (Berlin, 1882) (quoted as B). Dr. Meissner in his ‘Das altbabylonische Privatrecht’ published the text of many more, chiefly from the collection brought home by E. A. W. Budge, and registered in the British Museum as Bu. 88-5-12 (quoted here as B), and the collection of J. Simon in the Berlin Museum (quoted as V.A.Th. The collection made by Dr. Budge, registered in the British Museum as Bu. 91-5-9, is quoted as B’). Dr. E. Lindl in his article ‘Die Datenliste der ersten Dynastie von Babylon’ (Beitriige zur Assyriologie, iv. pp. 338-402), Dr. G. Nagel in ‘ Die Briefe Ham- murabi’s an Sinidinnam’ (Beitrége zur Assyrio- logie, iv. pp. 434-483), with remarks by Professor Delitzsch (pp. 483-500), Dr. Mary W. Montgomery’s Briefe aus der Zeit des babylonischen Kénegs Ham- murabi (A. Pries, Leipzig), Dr. S. Msiches, Alé- babylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Hammurabi-Dynastie (Hinrichs, Leipzig), all-deal with the same period. Important studies of the proper names of this period have been made by Hommel in Ancient Hebrew Tradition, and Ranke in Die Personen- namen in den Urkunden der Hammurabidynastie (Franz, Munich, 1902). Other literature is quoted in these works. T. G. Pinches’ Old Testament in the light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia (S.P.C.K., London) is a mine of in- formation for the period. The second edition has a fresh translation of the Code. It will be seen from the above that we are ex- ceptionally well informed about the times of the First Dynasty of Babylon. These very numerous documents illustrate by actual practical examples the working of Hammurabi’s laws. They furnish innumerable parallels for the rare words and ex- pressions. 2. According to the Babylonian King-Lists A and B (see Rogers, Hist. Bab. Assyr. p. 312f.), Hammurabi was the sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, being son of Sin-muballit, grandson of Apil-Sin, great-grandson of Zabum, who was son of Suma-lailu and grandson(?) of Sumu-abi, founder of the Dynasty. In the Susa inscription (col. iv. ll. 68-70) the king names himself ‘ Hammurabi, son of Sin-muballit, descend- ant of Sumu-lailu.? There can therefore be no possible doubt as to his identity. His son Samsu- uuna calls Sumu-lailu the ‘fifth father of my father’ (King, iii. p. 205). A later king (King, iii. p. 208), Ammiditana, calls himself ‘descendant of Sumu-lailu,’ so that it seems as if the family traced back descent only as far as Sumu-lailu. The King-Lists also do not say that Sumu-lailu was son of the founder Sumu-abi. 3. The nationality of the First Dynasty has been much discussed, and is of considerable im- portance in determining the origin of the Code itself; as, if the Dynasty was foreign, the Code may reflect non-Babylonian influence. There is no doubt that the names of the kings, except Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit, are not of the usual Babylonian type; though Jensen (Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, x. p. 342) maintains that they are. They, and other names of this period, exhibit many peculiarities: such as Samsu instead of the usual Babylonian Samas; the enigmatic Swmu pethaps for Swmu; imperfects like iamlik in place of the Babylonian imlik; strange words like zaduga, ditana, ammi (if not a Divine name), zimri, besides strange gods like Elali, Wadd, ‘Anat. But scholars are greatly divided as to the nation- ality indicated by such names. Hommel, Sayce, A. Jeremias, and Ranke favour Arabian, especially in its old forms as preserved in Minzean att Sabeean inscriptions. Winckler and Delitzsch call these names West Semitic or North Semitic, as belonging to the group of Canaanite dialects— Pheenician, Moabite, Hebrew, Aramean. §, A. Cook, after reviewing opinions, wisely says that we know too little of the earlier history of the languages of Arabia and Canaan. We may con- tent ourselves with saying that these people were a freshly arrived Semitic race who retained, in Babylonia, names and words which they brought from a former home. In the 7th cent. B.c. the | Harran census (Assyriologische Bibliothek, xvii.) | shows many of these peculiarities in names | borne by the serfs under Assyrian rule. The may, then, belong to a race recently transplan by Assyrian conquests, or, if indigenous, may point — to a nationality descended from those who raised _ the First Dynasty to empire. So far as cuneiform — sources go, we lind most affinity with the names | of Canaanites in the time of the Tel el-Amarna — tablets. But this distinctly foreign influence — appears not only in names. ‘lhe Code shows it in such words as s¢tin for ‘ two-thirds.’ < 4. The name Hammurabi has long been well ] known. In vol. i. of Rawlinson’s Cuneiform In- | scriptions of Western Asia, 1861 (p. 4, Nos. 1, 2,3), three inscriptions of his were published. Inserip- tions in the Louvre were given by Oppert in 1863 in his Lapédition scientifique en Mesopotamie. The — Babylonian scribes of a later period regarded the name as foreign, for they drew up a list of the | names of the kings who reigned ‘after the Flood,’ | with their explanations of those names. Someof | the names are Sumerian, or Kassite; but among |] them is Hammurabi, whose name is transla f Kimtarapastum. Another is Ammizaduga, whose | name is translated Kimtum-kittum. Hence they, regarded hammu as the same word as ammi, and — equivalent to kimtu, ‘family.’ The variants of a Hammurabi’s name, such as Ammi-rabi, Ammu- — rapi (late Assyrian), Hammum -rabi, etc., show t that they were partly right (King, ili, p. Ixy, | note 4). But it is doubtful if they were right in | rendering it himtum. Ammu or Hammu may | well be the name of a god. In compounds like | Sumu-hammu, Jasdi-hammnu, Zimri-hammu, it 4 can hardly mean ‘family,’ unless this was deified. | The element radi is so very common in Baby- | lonian that we can hardly be wrong in rendering | it ‘is great.’ The name is like Sin-rabi, Samas- | rabi, and may well mean ‘Ammu is great.” The | adjective rapastu, applied to the feminine kimtu, | is ‘wide’ or ‘great’ also; and in that the old grammarians were right. : 5. The date to be assigned to the First Dynasty of Babylon has been much disputed. The King- Lists, if taken in their integrity, would put the | beginning of the Dynasty at B.c. 2454, and Ham- | murabi’s accession at B.C. 2342. But many doubts | attach to these figures. Nabonidus puts Hammu- | rabi seven hundred years before Burnaburiash, who cannot be much before B.C. 1400. Rost reduces the | length of the Kassite Dynasty by a hundred and eighty years, and so places the beginning of the Dynasty in B.C, 2232, which agrees with Berosus” as explained by Peiser, and with Simplicius on one reading. The whole question is well discu by Rogers in his History of Babylonia and Assyria, ch. xii.; but no definite result can be expected from present materials. Even the lengths of the reigns are in doubt now. d e, —— See q B me CODE OF HAMMURABI The Babylonians at this period gave each year Aname. ‘The year-name recorded some prominent event—the building of a shrine, or an expedition, for example. Now the Chronicles published by g give the year-names for the reigns of the kings, and assign forty-three years to Hammu- rabi, while the King-Lists give him fifty-five. The difference may be accounted for by the proved fact that the same year had sometimes two separate names. The g-Lists may have counted all ear-names, and so have made the reigns too long. ut this is not always the case: thus, in the King- List, Samsu-iluna has only thirty-five years, while the Chronicle gives him thirty-eight. Here, again, we must await further evidence. But we can place the monument approximately in the reign. For, when we recall what we know from various sources, we find that Rim-Sin was reigning in Larsa till the 30th year of Hammu- rabi’s reign. Then Hammurabi defeated Elam and overthrew Rim-Sin. The following year he conquered Iamutbal, a province of Elam. Now, Hammurabi boasts in the prologue (col. ii. ll. 32-36) that he had ‘avenged Larsa and renovated Ebab- bar,’ the temple of Shamash there. This he could hardly have done while Rim-Sin was still ruling. We may therefore date the stele after the thirtieth year of his reign. Of some interest is the usually received identi- fication of Hammurabi with the Amraphel of Gn 14. With this is bound up the question whether Arioch of Ellasar is Rim-Sin of Larsa., For this view, which has the support of most Assyriologists, see especially Pinches (Old Testa- ment, ete., ch. vi.); on the other side, see King (i. pp. xxvf., xlixf.). An ingenious method of dis- posing of the superfluous final 7 in Amraphel has en suggested by Hiising, who would join it to the next word, and read, ‘And it came to pass in the days of Amraph, as Arioch king of Ellasar was over Shinar, that Chedorlaomer,’ ete. But Arioch is nearly as difficult, and the whole inci- dent is quite inconsistent, unless the configuration of the country has entirely changed since. The same uncertainties remain as to date on both chronologies. 6. The Chronicle gives us the following skeleton outline of the events of this reign, being the list of ear-names. (1) The year in which Hammurabi ecame king. (2) The year in which Yammurabi established the heart of the land in righteousness. This has been taken to refer to the initiation of legal reforms; but the same formula is used of Sumu-lailu (B? 2177 A), and may only mean religious reform. The Code was probably not promulgated this year. (3) The year in which the throne of Nannar was made, Nannar was god of Erech, but this throne was made in Babylon. We cannot, therefore, con- clude that Hammurabi was already ruler in Erech. (4) The year in which the wall of Malgd was de- stroyed. Hammurabi also destroyed the fortress of Maer in this year. Malga is probably not the saine place as the frequently named Malgia, which was close to Sippara. aer was an important shipping town. eissbach thinks both were on the Euphrates, near its junction with the Habur (Bubylonische Miscellen, p. 13). These fortresses were later repaired. The date of the fifth year is not preserved, but some god’s temple was probably restored. The sixth year is noted for the restora- tion of some fortress. Some event at Isin marked the seventh year. (8) The year in which... on the bank of the canal Nuhus-nisi. The meaning of the name is ‘the abundance of the people.’ An inscription in the Louvre is devoted to the record nf the completion of this canal. Hammurabi built on the banks of it a lofty fortress, which he called after his father, Dér-Sin-muballit-abim- walidia, CODE OF HAMMURABI 587 and the gap in the Chronicle here may have con- tained the name of this fortress. (9) The year in which the canal Hammurabi was dug. It is not clear whether this canal or the one called Tisid- Bél was meant here. The latter ran from the Euphrates to Sippar. This event may have been used only to date Sippar documents. (10) The year in which the .. . inhabitants of Malgi. This probably refers to a reinstatement of the people, on the restoration, of Malgi and Maer. Some event connected with a city dated the next year. (12) The year in which the throne of Sarpanitum was made. This goddess was the consort of Mar- duk. The date of the next year is not made out clearly. (14) The year in which the throne of Istar of Babylon was made. (15) The year in which the seven images were made. (16) The year in which the throne of Nabt@ was made. Next year another image was made; the year following, something for Bél. The next year something was said about ‘the mountain’?, (20) The year in which the throne of Adad was made. (21) The year in which the wall of Bazw was made. The city Bazu was close to Sippara, and not far from Kish. Next year perhaps a canal was cut or an image of Hammu- rabi set up. Then something seems to have been done at Sippara. Then something was done for Bél. (25) Lhe year in which the wall of Sippara was made. It was the foundation that was laid this year, and it was ‘the great wall,’ probably an outer circle. The next year records a great flood. Then a great temple was built. (28) The year in which the temple E-NAM-HE was built. This was the temple called ‘the house of abund- ance,’ the temple of Adad at Babylon. (29) The year in which the image of the goddess Sala was made. Sala was the consort of Adad. (30) The year in which the army of Elam was defeated. (31) The year in which the land of Iamutbal was annexed. A fuller form of this date is, ‘ The year of Hammurabi the king, in which with the help of Anu and Bél he established his good fortune, and his hand cast to the earth the lana of Iamutbal and Rim-Sin the king.’ A further conquest is recorded for the next year, perhaps of the land Duplias. (33) The year in which the canal of Hammurabi ... This may refer to the com- pletion of the work begun in the ninth year, or to a new canal whose name is not preserved. (34) The year in which for Anu, Istar, and Nand (the temple H-TUR-KALAMA was restored). ‘This date is restored from contemporary documents. The next year perhaps the great wall named Kara-Samas was built. The dates of the next two years are lost. (38) The year in which the city of Dupliag was destroyed by flood. This date is restored from contemporary documents. An alter- native date for this year is, The year of Hammu- rabi the king in which the people of Turukku, Kakmum, and Subé. . . . Whether they were destroyed by flood or conquered does not appear. The dates of the next five years are lost, but the Chronicle gives the total length of the reign as forty-three years. We know several other year- names for this reign, but are not able to place them yet. The year in which Ibik-Adad captured the city of Rabiku. Another date refers to the building of the walls of Rabiku and K&ér-Samas, The latter was built on the banks of the Tigris. The year of Hammurabi the king in which the goddess Ta&smétum made favourable her word. The year of Hammurabi the king im which the temple E-ME-TE-UR-SAG was restored and the temple IGI-E-NIR-KIDUR-MAH was built for Zamama and Ninni, and its summit made high like the heavens. (For further details, see King and Lindl). 7. This sketch we may fill out by the details 588 CODE OF HAMMURABI CODE OF HAMMURABI given in letters and contracts. appears as an energetic benevolent ruler, who kept the chief business of importance under his own direction. Most of his letters are addressed to one Sin-idinnam, who, if not a vassal king of Larsa, was the governor of that city. If he was set in the place of Rim-Sin, who was independent king of Larsa for the first thirty years of Hammu- rabi’s reign, we may suppose all these letters dated after that event. But, in any case, it is unlikely that Hammurabi could give such minute orders to Sin-idinnam as long as Rim-Sin reigned there. We find that Sin-idinnam exercised authority also over Erech and Ur. At one time Sin-idinnam had a military command, for the king ordered him to send certain Elamite goddesses, who had been cap- tured, under escort to Babylon; and when the same goddesses were sent back to their temples, under the escort of Inuhsamar and his troops, Sin-idinnam was told to attack the Elamites first, lest it might seem to be a confession of weakness. The earliest known reference to Assyria occurs in these letters, when 240 men of the ‘King’s com- pany’ are said to have left Assyria. The Code also names Ashur, the city, and Nineveh (col. iv. ll. 55-63); but last among the list of subject- towns. The name of the god Asur already occurs in the reign of Sin-muballit (B13, B!14). 8, The king’s piety and care for the worship of the gods appear not only in the prologue to the ele where he boasts of having built, restored, or adorned the temples of the chief cities of the empire, but also in the above list of year- names. Further, in his letters we find him direct- ing the collection of temple revenues and super- intending their shepherds and herdsmen. He postponed the hearing of a trial because one of the parties was on duty at a festival in Ur. He controlled the calendar, sending Sin, idinnam notice that the month now beginning was to be a second Elul. He is, however, careful to add that this must not be taken as an excuse for post- poning payments for a month. The king also gave directions as to the canals. We have seen that he constructed several. In one letter he orders the dwellers on the banks of a certain canal to clear it out. In another case a canal was so badly dredged that ships could not come to Erech. Hammurabi orders the work to be done ‘in three days.’ Even the Euphrates (?) stream had to be cleared. But it is in the administration of justice that this king is seen in the most favourable light. Apparently, he was accessible to all. Bribery he dealt with promptly; he enforced a merchant’s claim for a debt against a city governor; he sent instructions as to how cases were to be treated. Against money-lenders he was severe, and several letters deal with loans or debts. He orders the parties concerned to be sent to Babylon, and gives instructions for their being guarded. The collection of revenue, the due care of the royal flocks and herds, the audit of accounts, the regulation of food supplies, shipping and other transport, labour on mubhe works, and the proper exeinptions from duty, are all frequently dealt with in the letters. For fuller details and the parallels from other reigns of the First Dynasty, see King’s Letters of Hammurabi. The period of Hammurabi’s Dynasty was one of great literary activity. Many of the tablets in Assurbanipal’s library are ascribed to this period by their characteristic forms of expression; but no works are definitely ascribed by the documents themselves to this king. Still, the view is general among Assyriologists that this period produced most of the masterpieces which later generations chiefly reproduced. There the king —s The picture of monarchy which these sources and the Code reveal is by no means unpleasing. Like all Oriental despotisms, it is ideally a strong, energetic, benevolent monarchy. In the words of Hammurabi, he was indeed ‘a father of his people’ (col. xxv. 21f.) and ‘the sun of Babylon’ (col. v. 4). His Code amply justifies his boast, if it was carried out. That is rendered probable by the host of contemporary documents, not only for his reign, but for those of his predecessors and successors, So far as they refer to the class of cases con- sidered in the Code, they confirm its working. Of course a large number of cases, especially criminal cases, were not the subject of written records, We have no records of trials for murder, rape, incest, or the like grievous wrongs. But we have not only contracts of marriage, partnership, loans and commissions, and other commercial business, but also a number of legal decisions. These mostly relate to property disputes, but a few touch crime as well. So far as they go, they prove that the Code was literally carried out. urther, they show that it was no new invention, but codified the customary law of the country. The king was a quasi-Divine person. This is shown not only by the invocation of his name along with those of the gods in solemn oaths, but by such names as Hammurabi-ilu, ‘ Hammurabi is god’; Hammurabi-samsi, ‘ Hammurabi is my sun.’ Men swore by ‘Samas, Aia (his consort), and Hammurabi the king,’ as also by the name of Marduk or of Rim-Sin, other gods or other kings, See a list of these oaths in Kohler-Peiser, i. p. 107f. The king was often accorded the title ite as a prefix to his name. This custom continued in use until late in the Kassite Dynasty. In the pro- logue to the Code (col. ii. 48), Hammurabi calls himself the ‘Divine shelter,’ i-lw sululu, of his land, (col. iii. 16) the ‘ Divine king of the city,’ 2-du Sar ali, (col. v. 4) the ‘Divine sun’ of Babylon, i-lu Samsu. As one consequence of this sacred majesty of the king, he does not directly appear as party to any commercial or business transaction. This was not so in early times. In one of the oldest monuments of Babylonia which we possess, the stele of Manis- tusu, king of Kish (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, tom. ii. p. 1ff.), we find the king buying | lands, like any other person, to make up an estate for his son Mesalim, afterwards king of Kish also. But in all later times the rule holds good. The king’s stewards, shepherds, and other officials buy | and sell, obviously for their master, but hisname | does not come into the transaction. 9. The extent of Hammurabi’s empire can be gathered only partly from the Code. He names in the prologue the cities of Babylon, Sippara, Nippur, Darilu, Eridu, Ur, Larsa, Erech, Isin, sh, Cuthah, Borsippa, Dilbat, Shirpurla, Hallab, Kar- kar, Maskan-sabri, Malka, Agade, Ashur, Nineveh, but only as having done benefits to the temples there. The list covers all Assyria and Babylonia. He is called king of Martu in an inscription set up | in his honour, and that is usually taken to mear the ph ccliane or Palestine (King, Letters, iii. p 195 f.). v. SOCIAL GRADES RECOGNIZED 1N THE CODE. | —The Code recognizes three grades of society: the | amélu, the muskénu, and the ardu. 1. The first grade were the men of gentle birth, men of family, and very likely were largely of the same race as the royal family. Winckler has com- pared them with the amélu of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, where it is still a distinct title, and with — early Arabie “li, wlai (Altorientalische Forschung- — en, li. p. 318). The king himself seems to be ad. | sree by the title amélu Sa Marduk liballitsu | ‘the amélu to whom may Marduk grant life,’ He CODE OF HAMMURABI thus held the position of the First Gentleman of Babylonia. In many passages amélu is distinctly equivalent to ‘officer.’ By courtesy it was ex- tended, like our ‘Sir’ or ‘ ages to mark every person of position not otherwise titled. Even in the Code it is usually applied to all free citizens, when no distinction from the muskénw is necessary. It is also used as a determinative before names of trades and occupations. Thus the potter, the tailor, the stone-cutter, carpenter, builder, and other artisans, who are paid a daily wage but may have belonged to old trade guilds, are amélé ; but not the doctor, the veterinary surgeon, or the brander. In some cases this may be accidental, but must be remembered in case further evidence should come to light. He was an officer when performing military service. His residence peyears to be called an ékallu, which is best rendered ‘mansion’; the usual rendering ‘ palace’ is apt to suggest the royal residence. It seems probable that every town contained one or more such ‘mansions.’ They are named in contracts as being built for persons who were certainly not kings (B? 333, B? 381). Consequently the slave of the ‘ palace’ is not necessarily a royal slave (§§ 175- 176). 2. The muskénu, whose name passed into Hebrew as [20 (miskén), Ital. meschino, meschinello, Portug. mesquinho, French mesquin, etc., occupies a lower rank. His penalties are less, but so are his com- Sea for injury. He is specially legislated or (§§ 8, 140, 198, 201, 204, 208, 211, 216, 219, 222). The rendering of the name is difficult. The translation ‘poor man’ is not very good. For he was no pauper, certainly not a beggar. He had slaves (§ 15) and goods. Miiller calls him an Armen- stiftler ; but there is no evidence of his receiving any pension. Kohler and Peiser give Ministerial ; but there is no evidence of his having any special association with the court, or any special duties. The name itself may be taken to mean a ‘sub- ject,’ originally ‘suppliant.’ We take it he was a ‘commoner,’ one of the plebs, perhaps of the conquered race. At any rate he was free, but apparently subject to the corvée, perhaps obliged to serve in the ranks of the army. We find that his offering in the temple was allowed to be less than others (Meissner, Bettrdge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion, p. 176f.). In Assyrian times the Babylonians complained that they were being treated as muskénu, not so much ‘ poor men,’ but subject to indignities. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets Amenophis quotes the letter of Kadasman- Bél to him, inquiring after his daughter Suharti. The Babylonian king says the Egyptian had his sister to wife; but no messenger of his had ever been able to see the princess, or know whether she was alive or dead. A certain lady they had seen, but mindi martu isten muskénu, ‘whether she was the daughter of some muskénu,’ they could not tell. In omen tablets it is a curse that a man muskénttu allak, ‘ should some to poverty’ (Bezold, Catalogue, p. 1566). 3. The slave (ardu) was treated very much as a chattel. He could be sold or pledged (§§ 118, 147) ; damage done to him had to be paid for, but the compensation went to his master (§§ 213, 214, 219, 220). A repudiation of servitude on his part was punished by mutilation (§ 282). The master is not said to have power of life and death ; indeed his power seems expressly limited to mutilation. The slave could acquire wealth, and act in business as a free man, but his master had to be cognizant of his transactions. If he was living in his master’s house he could not buy or sell, except by power of attorney, or written licence from his master (§ 7). But many slaves married and had homes of their own. Then the master acted as patron, and CODE OF HAMMURABI 589 recovered their debts for them. A slave who married one of his master’s slave girls was able to acquire wealth, but his master was his sole heir, and his children were slaves. On the other hand, a slave, at any rate if in the service of a ‘great house,’ or of a muskénuw, could marry a free woman. In that case the children were free (§ 175), and the free woman’s marriage portion remained hers, for her children, on her husband’s death (§ 176). The property which the pair acquired after marriage was divided into two equal portions: the master, as his slave’s heir, took one half, the wife and children the other half. A slave could buy his freedom with his savings. This must have been a free bargain between slave and master. The former had to choose between freedom and poverty on one side, and service and comfort on the other. The master accepted a present gain in lieu of a deferred reversion of the slave’s property. The Code does not notice this point. A female slave could become her master’s con- cubine. Her children were free (§§ 170-171); and so was she, at her master’s death. If her master chose he could acknowledge her children, and then they inherited equally with the children of his free wife ; but these had first choice in the sharing of his property (§ 170). If she was the property of a free woman who was married, the slave irl might be given by her mistress to her hus- ene to bear him children (§ 144). Her mistress retained the right to punish bees and insolence by degradation to full slavery again; but the slave girl, if she had borne children to her master, could not be sold. At his death she was free (§§ 146, 147). The slave was not always contented with his lot. He might run away. His captor was bound to bring him back to his master, and was then rewarded by statute with a payment of two shekels (§ 17). But if the captor kept him in his own house, and did not give him up on demand, he was punished with death ($19). So was any one who enticed a slave away from his master (§ 15). The slave seems to have had liberty to go about freely in the city where his master lived, but not to leave the city without his master’s consent (§ 15). A slave usually had his owner’s name, or some mark by which he could be recog- nized, branded or tattooed on his arm. If a cap- tured fugitive slave would not name his owner, he had to be taken to the ‘ palace’ or governor’s residence, and there put to the question, and so restored to. the owner (§ 18). We find from the letters that the officers over the levy claimed, for the corvée, unowned slaves (B? 419). The tattoo- ing of the slave’s mark was the business of the gallabu, who could also render it irrecognizable again. To do this without the consent of the owner, rendered the gallabu liable to have his hands cut off (§ 226). If he had been deceived into doing this by some one who was judged to have designs on that slave, the gallabu could swear to his innocence and be let off; but the fraudulent holder of the slave was treated as aslave stealer, and put to death (§ 227). To ‘mark’ a man was equivalent to reducing him to slavery. This might be done to a rebellious child by the Sumerian laws. Also it might be inflicted on a man for slander (§ 127), or on a rebellious or insolent slave (§ 146). <A fugitive slave might be put in chains by hismaster. Harbouring a fugitive was punished with death (§ 16). The slaves were probably recruited principally from captives taken in war. We see that certain persons might be bought abroad and brought back by merchants. These would, no doubt, be offered for sale as slaves. But, if they were natives of Babylonia, their relatives, their town temple, or, 590 CODE OF HAMMURABIL CODE OF HAMMURABI in the last resort, the State, would ransom them (§ 382). If they had been slaves before, in Babylonia, it seems that they had to be set at liberty on being brought back (§ 280). But the Code may only mean that they returned to their former con- dition. Foreigners, once slaves in Babylonia, captured thence in war, bought abroad by a merchant and again offered for sale by him in Babylonia, if recognized by a former master, might be re-bought by him at the price the merchant gave for them abroad (§ 281). The Code appar- ently aims at excluding a profit on the trans- action, but leaves the price to be settled by the merchant’s oath as to the money paid by him. There is no trace in the Code, or contemporary documents, of serfs, or glebe adscripti, such as were so common in Assyria and the district about Harran in the 7th cent. B.c. (see ‘ Harran census,’ Assyriologische Bibliothek, xvii.). The serf seems to have held his lands by inheritance, and had property of his own. The class was largely re- cruited from slaves and town artisans. <A serf’s father is usually named. He was sold wich the land, and subject apparently to military service. Many captives taken in war were settled as serfs, and the Assyrian kings usually assigned lands to the transported peoples. The slave proper usually appears as fatherless ; but a number of cases occur at all periods, when parents sell their children. Free men might be sold for debt, or reduced to slavery as punishment for crime. In the latter case they probably became public slaves. Slaves were subject to the corvée, as king’s servants. Even female slaves owed ser- vice to the State—usually work, such as weaving or spinning. It was of great importance to a buyer of a slave whether this duty had -been discharged, and he often demanded a guarantee that it was no longer due. It probably was confined to a number of years—six seems likely in the case of the Harran serfs. great many slaves were skilled workmen; they were often apprenticed to learn a trade. But in early times the trades were in the hands of free men. Slaves might be adopted as children by free men and women, usually to care for the old age of one whose own family had already grown up and left the home. Such adopted children became free, and usually inherited their adoptive parents’ property. Further details on the status of slaves, especially in later times, will be found in Meissner, de Servitute, Pries, Leipzig; and S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses, ete., ch. vii. , The value of a slave varied much with age, accomplishments, sex, etc. The Code avoids the question by awarding ‘slave for slave’ (§§ 219, 231), ‘half his price’ (§§ 199, 220). A maidservant was worth twenty shekels of silver (§ 214), her unborn babe two shekels (§ 213). In contemporary docu- ments a male slave sold for as little as six shekels or as much as twenty. <A female slave might fetch as little as four and a half, or, with a babe, as much as ninety-four shekels. The reward for restoring a fugitive to his master (§ 17), or for curing a slave (§§ 217, 223), was two shekels of silver, evidently calculated as one- tenth of the ordinary value. This value of twenty shekels remained constant as the average to the times of the Second Babylonian Empire. vi. CLASS LEGISLATION A FEATURE OF THE CopE.—A distinctive feature of the Code is its class legislation. Not only are the aristocrat, the commoner, and the slave treated separately, but the Code legislates separately for certain classes of the community. 1. The first class are feudal landowners. They hold lands of the crown by service. Their names, 1.1 sdbé and b@tru, are difficult to translate, be- cause we have no modern officials whose functions exactly correspond to theirs. (a) For the first we propose ‘levy-master.’ The ‘levy, master’ was over the corvée. He had to make up the local uota for the army, or for forced labour. On the ormer side he might answer to the field-cornet, commandant, pressgang officer, Feldwebel, Stattver- treter; and, on the other, to the ganger on public works. He may have had other duties, such as the maintenance of local order, but these chiefly appear in the letters of the time (see King’s Letters of Hammurabi, under ‘ ridi,’ iii. p. 290). To their gangs were condemned fugitive slaves, if unclaimed (B? 419). The king in various letters orders the exemption of temple takers, royal shepherds or herdsmen, and patésis from the tlku, or ‘duty,’ of these officers. Further, it is certain that on some occasions this duty was military service, on others public works. It is not, however, clear that we have always a class exemption. : The Code fixes their status very clearly in some ~ respects. They might be sent on ‘ the king’s way,’ perhaps a term for a military expedition, but probably including any royal business. It was a capital offence not to go. To send a hired sub- stitute involved death, and the substitute took over the appointment (§ 26). For a magistrate to | allow such personation was punished by death also | (§ 33). If such an officer was captured abroad, and | there was bought by a Babylonian slave-dealer, he had, on his return, to be ransomed from his own | means, failing that, by the temple treasury of his town, failing that, by the State (§ 32). But his holding could not be sold for the purpose. It } consisted of land, house, garden, and stock given | him by the king, as well asa salary, and could not | be sold, pledged, or exchanged (§ 34). The penalty for its alienation was that it had to be returned, and — the buyer, lender, or exchanger lost what he had — given for it. The officer could not be oT by | the governor, neither robbed, defrauded of salary, | let out on hire, nor wronged in court, on pain of death (§ 34). The officer could not leave his hold- | ing to his wife or daughter, nor any part of it (§38). | He had, of course, full power over hisown acquired | property (§ 39). He could name his son as locum | tenens in his absence, if capable of discharging | the duties of his office, which therefore were not | solely military. If his son could not take the | duty, being a child, one-third of the estate was | sequestered to the child’s mother for his mainten- ance, and a locum tenens put in by royal authority. | To secure the estate from dilapidation, the locum | tenens acquired a prescriptive right to it, if the | absentee was away three years or more. Thisheld | good only if the absentee had been a neglectful — holder. In any case, one year’s absence did not invalidate his claim to resume it on hisreturn, | (5) In nearly every case the 6@’iru is associated — with this officer. The term means simply ‘ catcher,” and is used of fishermen and hunters alike. contemporary documents it seems always to be | used of fishermen. Perhaps they, too, were a privi- — leged class, as being necessary to the provision of — food for the palace. It appears that they had | their special fisheries reserved in each district, and — | were not allowed to poach on other fisheries (Hing, at Letters, p.121f.). But it isnot quite clearthat the | b@iru, or ‘catcher,’ may not have been, like theold | ‘catchpole,’ a sort of constable. He could, like the ‘levy-master,’ be sent ‘on the king’s way,’ might |} be captured abroad, held the same sort of estate, | could make the same arrangements as to his son’s taking his duty. He is not expressly exempted | from the governor’s oppressions, but ‘surely waa — not meant to be at his mercy. This rafher goes to — prove that 0@’iru is almost a synonym / or rid sdbé, ; beat ition es es a Wi is ps) mt Sy F _ enter one, on pain of pane vacned (§ 110). | Marduk supreme, even over | over it. CODE OF HAMMURABI (c) So far as inalienability of holding was con- serned, the nds bilti, or ‘ payer of tribute,’ was in the same position as the rid s4bé and the b@’iru. It seems, therefore, that land was held of the crown, as in other Oriental countries — notably Morocco now—on two forms oftenure. One carried an obligation to personal service, the other only a rent or tribute. Both were thus inalienable, but might be hereditary. Land could also be held by others, who might alienate: votaries, merchants, and foreign residents are named (§ 40); but the duty, whatever it was, went with the land, and must be discharged by the buyer. Some land was freehold (zaki#) ; and it is expressly laid down as a special privilege that the estates of a Marduk votary were thus exempt from the ‘duty.’ There is no express mention of tithe, but that probably grew out of the ‘duty.’ 2. The votary was also the subject of special legislation., She might be devoted to the service of a god (Sama and Marduk are named in the Code ; Sin, Anunit, and others elsewhere) by her parents; or she might herself elect to become a votary. She thus became a ‘bride’ of the god, and might be dowered by her father as for marriage (§ 178). Her father could give her complete power over her property, or not. In any case, she had the life interest in it (§ 179). If not absolutely at her own disposal,—on her father’s death, her brethren, who had the reversion of it, might assume possession and maintain her. If they did not do this to her satisfaction, she had the power to appoint a steward, who would administer it as she wished. In any such case it reverted at her death, unless her father had granted her the dis- en of it by a special deed of gift. If he gave er no allowance of this sort, she did not forfeit her rights as a daughter in his estate, but came in for one-third of a son’s share at his death (§ 180). To all appearances, the votary was vowed to perpetual virginity ; but she might marry, and give her hus- band a maid to bear him children (§ 146). If she broke her vow and had children, they were not recognized as in her power ; they could be adopted by any one without her having power to claim them back (§ 193). From Sarak documents we find that votaries often adopted children, mostly other votaries, doubtless to care for their old age. Normally, the votaries lived in a convent (§ 110), or common home, called ‘the bride chamber.’ It was a very large establishment, and is often named as a neighbour in sales of lands. If they did not live there, they were expected to be staid in their be- haviour. They might not open a peorshor. ‘gee e o one might Gder ain of being branded on the forehead (§ 127). e read of IltAni, daughter of king Ammizaduga, as a vo (V.A.Th. 630). They had a common scribe (B? 2175 A) and a ‘lady superior’ (B! 61). The votary of Marduk had special treatment, as was natural for a king who had made Babylon the capital of his empire, and amas in Sippara. were highly respected. them, on | She was, even if not dowered by her father, able _ to claim one-third of a son’s share in his property at his death, and had full testamentary powers She had no ‘duty’ to discharge (§ 182). We continually meet with votaries in contemporary documents, chiefly devoted to Samas. They were clearly a wealthy body, and carry on business freely. They agree with brothers about their estates, put in stewards, leave property, and carry on ordinary contracts. Many marry. Nowhere in the Code or elsewhere is there any trace of the evil reputation which Greek writers assign to these ladies, and the translations which make them Prostitutes, or unchaste, are not to be accepted. CODE OF HAMMURABI Greek influence may later have corrupted their morals. 3. Men were also vowed to the service of a god, but the Code does not refer to them. The rather obscure manzdz pani, who ‘stood in the presence’ of the king, were naturally celibates, Their wives could not be tolerated in the palace. Their chil- dren, if they had any, were treated as homeless (§ 192), and could be adopted by any one without the father’s consent. There is no ground for assum- ing any vicious habits on their part, as the term included some of the highest officials of the State. 4. Special professions were also legislated for. The beer-shop was usually kept by women. Even as late-as the Second Babylonian Empire we find a master setting up a female slave in a wine-shop. The price of beer was not to be dearer than corn, measure for measure ($108). Corn was legal tender, and silver was not to be demanded by the great weight. The beer-seller had to give information of all treasonable conspiracy she overheard in her shop (§ 109). She was severely dealt with: if she broke these rules, death was the penalty. There is no hint that her house was a brothel, though later custom suggests it. 5. The doctor does not seem to hold a high profes- sion. He is not an amélu. The fee for a successful operation, involving surgery (removal of a cataract with the bronze lancet is probably meant), is fixed and graded according to ike position of the patient (§§ 215-217). An unsuccessful operation is penalized by loss of the hands, reparation, or a fine ($§ 218- 220). A cure of an injured limb, or a rupture (?), is similarly treated (§§ 221-223). The veterinary surgeon is likewise dealt with (§§ 224, 225). The brander, who may also be a barber, and perhaps ashearer, naturally follows a surgeon. His special treatment concerns his attempting to efface a slave’s tattooed mark. If he did this wittingly, he lost his hands. If he was deceived, he aaulds get free on oath of innocence, but the procurer suffered death (§§ 226, 227). 6. Builders are treated much the same. The builder’s fee is fixed according to the size of the house. His bad workmanship is punished if it leads todamage. He has to make good all loss, and repair at his own expense ; and, further, suffer the same damage in his own person as he has brought on the house-owner (§§ 228-233). The boatman gets a fixed fee according to the size of the boat he builds. “~Damage due to bad workman- ship appearing within a year’s time has to be made good, or the boat replaced (§§ 234, 235). A boatman had to make good a boat lost through his carelessness, if hired to navigate it. He was re- sponsible for the freight, if any. If he sank a boat, but raised it again, he paid half value. His hire was fixed (§§ 236-239). vii. AGRICULTURE. —1. Land was already private property, subject to its duty to the State. An impost was levied upon the crop, and was clearly proportional to its amount (miksu). How men came into possession of waste or unreclaimed land, which might be expected to be common, does not appear. The reclamation may have constituted a title. At any rate, the Code contemplates land being given to a farmer to reclaim (§ 44), and the contracts show the practice to have been common (B! 186, ete.). The unreclaimed Jand was usually taken along with arable land (double in amount), and without rent for a time. Then, say in the fourth year, fixed rent was expected from all—that from the virgin soil being threefold the ordinary. The landlord further made an allowance of pro- visions towards the farmer’s keep. The penalty fixed by the Code for neglect to reclaim is that the farmer should leave it in good tilth, and pay a fair rent (§ 44). Ordinary arable land was tev, asually 592 CODE OF HAMMURABI CODE OF HAMMURABI at fixed rents, so much corn per acre, six GUR per GAN being very usual. A deposit was expected, and it was ordinary debt not to pay the rent. The Code only enacts that, if the rent had been paid, no rebate could be claimed if a storm destroyed the crop afterwards (§45). But if the rent was not paid, or if the land was let on the share-profit system, the damage done by storm was borne by landlord and tenant equally, or in proportion to their shares (§ 46). This system of produce-rent, or share-profit, was very common, the landlord taking half the crop, or two-thirds, according to agreement. In such a case the tenant’s neglect to do the proper work prejudiced the landlord as well as himself ; in this case the Code enacts that he shall pay an average rent, ‘like his neighbours,’ or ‘like right and left of him’ (§ 42, B? 1031). He had to leave it in proper tilth. An important measure of pre- caution, often stipulated for in the contracts (B? 361, 460), especially when the field lay some way from the town, was the erection of a farmer’s cot- tage on the field. He had to be present, as an old work on agriculture, often compared to Hesiod’s Works and Days, tells us, ‘to scare the birds, capture antelopes or wild goats, collect locusts.’ The landlord might have a cottage already there, and charge for it, stipulating that it be vacated with the field ; or he might stipulate that the tenant should put it up, and leave it at the end of the lense. ‘he Code contemplates the neglect to put up this cottage, and the tenant subletting the field, prohably to one who lived nearer. The land- lord could not object, if he had his proper rent at harvest, and if his field was duly cultivated by some one (§ 47). An important form of tenure was the metayer system, where the landlord found seed, implements, and oxen, besides paying a wage to the farmer. Here the farmer might embezzle the seed, or the provender, for which the Code enacts that his hands be cut off (§ 253), He might take the corn and starve the oxen (it was furnished partly for their food), for which he must restore from what le planted (§ 254). He might hire out the oxen to another, stealing their provender and not pro- ducing a crop, for which he had to pay a heavy line, sixty GUR per GAN (§ 255). If he could not pay, he was to be torn to pieces by the oxen on the field (§ 256). Gardens or plantations were usually let, if al- ready planted, at a rent of two-thirds produce, as fixed by the Code (§ 64). Neglect which would diminish the crop was guarded against by enacting that an average yielc should be returned (§ 65). Land was given to be planted as a garden, the owner often stipulating as to what plants he wished for. The terms were that the gardener paid no rent for four years, and in the fifth year he and his landlord divided the land equally (§ 60). If he left part uncultivated, that was reckoned in his share ($61). If he had failed to carry out his work, he was bound to do so before giving it up, and further fined an average year’s rent for the time be held it, if it was corn Jand (§ 62), or ten GUR of corn per GAN for each year, if it had been unreclaimed land (§ 63). 2. The Babylonian landowner was often in want of ready money despite his magnificent harvests, which often eee a hundredfold. He had to employ extra labourers to get in his harvest, find seed at seedtime, and wasliableto destructive floods. If he had borrowed money and a storm destroyed his crops, he might post-date the bond, and not pay interest on the loan that year (§ 48). He frequently pledged his field to a money-lender; but, whatever the terms of his offer, the Code enacted that he should always reap the crop himself, and from the produce pay off the loan, and the expenses of the an lender, if he had to find a cultivator (§§ 49, 50), Speculation in ‘futures’ was forbidden to the money-lender. Further, this man could not de. mand money ; corn or produce was legal tender in satisfaction of such loans (§ 51). It was a practice with money-lenders to stipulate for the return of a loan in the exact form in which it was borrowed, If the cultivator put in by the creditor does not produce a crop, as the owner had left the care of the field to the creditor, he must bear the loss; he can claim no rebate on that account (§ 52), Hence it was dangerous to mortgage for more than an average crop. Gardens or plantations were also protected from money-lenders’ speculations in the same way (§ X). he owner, whatever his | offer, must take the crop himself, and whatever is | over and above his debt and interest is his. He | was protected in other ways. No one could | distrain upon a working ox, except under fine of | one-third of a mina of silver (§ 241). The ox was — not only used for ploughing, it was constant] employed to work the watering machines, which sometimes required as many as eight oxen. It was also needed for threshing. ss 3. Babylonian culture was dependent upon water supply. On the one side, floods were frequent, and had to be provided against by an elaborate system — of ditches and canals; on the other, the summer | heat turned all herbage to dust, unless watered. | One chief claim to the gratitude of poster on | the part of kings and priests was the furnishing of | new canals. Once made, these were expected to | be kept in order by the riparian landowners. The | work of repairs, dredging, and cleaning was always | considerable, from the floods, silt, and rapid growth | of water vegetation. Hammurabi’s letters often | deal with the needs of the canals (King, Letters, | pp. 15, 16, 18, 64, Ixiv f., xxxvi f.). z= The ordinary repair of the bank was the duty of | the man whose field adjoined it. If he neglected | to strengthen it, a burst was likely. e was — responsible for the damage done to the neighbours’ — crops (§ 53). He and all his possessions could be | sold to pay the damage (§ 54). Hehad the rightto | open a runnel to water his field; but, if he left | it running and swamped his neighbours’ crops, he | had to compensate (§ 55) according to the extent of | the damage (§ 56). The theft of a watering machine, | probably that consisting of a pole and bucket, was | penalized by five shekels of silver. The bucket | alone, or a harrow, was protected from theft by a fine of three shekels (§§ 259, 260). 4 4. Considerable attention is paid by the Code to fixing wages, or hire. The harvester had to be paid eight GUR of corn per year (§ 257). An ordinary labourer was paid six SZ of silver per day for the first five months, five SE for the remaining seven (§ 273). This would be about twelve GUR of corn per year. A working ox could be hired fo four GUR of corn per year (§ 242), a milch cow for three GUR (§ 243). An ox for threshing fetched twenty K4 of corn per day, an ass ten KA, a calf 1 KA (§§ 268-270). A waggon, with its driver and oxen, cost one hundred and eighty KA of corn pei day (§ 271). As the waggon alone cost forty K4 (§ 272), and two oxen another forty KA (§ 268), we may take it that a man cost one hundred KA per day for carting. A cart might be hired for ten KA a day (S 572). An ox-driver had six GUR of corn per year as wages (§ 258). a The care of the hired animals was strictly guarded. A lion might kill ox or ass, and the owner had to bear the loss (§ 244). But neglect or ill-treatment had to be paid for (§§ 245, 246). Partial injury was assessed (§§ 247, 248). The hand of God was the owner’s loss (§ 249). The responsibility for a savage bull was decided. If the animal suddenly got out of hand ard killed a man, i CODE OF HAMMURABI it was treated as an accident (§ 250). But if the animal was known to be vicious and his owner took no means to prevent his doing harm, the owner had vo pay blood money (§§ 251, 252). The price of a three year old ox was twenty shekels (B? 448). 5. Vast herds and flocks were owned. Hundreds of sheep are named as under the care of one man. The king had occasion to call as many as forty-seven shepherds to account at one time (King, iil. p. 70). The sheep had to be taken some distance to pas- ture. The shepherd gave a receipt for the animals entrusted to him, and was bound to return them with reasonable increase in the amount by breed- ing. He was allowed to use a certain number for his keep and that of his underlings. He had to face perils from wild beasts and robbers. The Sutf nomads were specially feared. We find a Sutu hired to protect the flocks from his clansmen (B} 532). The shepherd or herdsman was paid eight GUR of corn per year (§ 261). He had to restore ox for ox, shee a sheep (§ 263). He had to see that the flock did not waste or prove un- rofitable, or else make good the deficiency (§ 264). ilful embezzlement was to be repaid tenfold (§ 265). Loss by the hand of God or wild beasts was the owner’s loss (§ 266). But carelessness was to be made good (§ 267). When the sheep were taken out or brought home, they had to traverse the meadows, and must be kept from eating the growing crops. To let his flock eat the corn ina field without consent of the owner of the field, was oes by a fine of twenty GUR of corn per GAN. his was when the crop was green and the owner might expect the corn to recover and bear a crop (§ 57). It was worse if the crop was nearly ripe and the sheep had already reached the common fold within the city, where they were fed on corn by the shepherd. If he then allowed them to stray in a standing field of corn, he had to take entire responsibility for the field, and make what he could of it, but had to pay sixty GUR of corn per GAN (§ 58). viii. SHIPPING, AND TRADE AND COMMERCE.— 1. The shipping trade was considerable. We are not altogether in a position to say what the ships were like at this time, but freight boats of sixty GUR capacity were common, and one of seventy-five GUR is named (King, Letters, iii. p. 67). On the canals, at least, they seem to have been propelled with poles, which were also used to fasten them. They were numerous; as many as twenty-five to- gether were anchored at the quay of Samas, in Sippara, at one time (S 160). At all times there is evidence of considerable activity in commerce and fishing along these waterways. (For later times, see Meissner and Knudtzon, Vienna Oriental Journal, iv. p. 129f.; Pinches, Sir H. Pechk’s Tablets, p. 82 f ). The temple ships are named in § 8. The same word was used for boatbuilder and boatman. If he had completed (literally ‘caulked,’ ‘closed’) a ship of sixty GUR for a man, he was entitled to two shekels of silver as a fee; the owner probably found the materials (§ 234). He had to give a year’s guarantee with it, replac- ing it with a sound ship if it showed faults within that time (§ 235). The boatman who navigated the ship was paid six GUR of corn per year (§ 239). . The hired boatman was responsible for the care of the ship, restoring ship for ship if lost (§ 236) ; also for the cargo, if lost by his carelessness (§ 237). But if he refloated a ship he had sunk, and it was sound, he only paid half value (§ 238). A ship which ran down another at anchor was held re- sponsible for the damage (§ 240). The hire of a passenger or fast boat was two and a half $z of silver per day (§ 276), that of a freight ship of sixty GUR, a sixth of a shekel of silver per day (§ 277), twelve times as much.