It has been suggested that the claim of Aqabi-îlu to all his brother’s

property was based upon the fact that he was the eldest of the family.

This, however, is hardly likely to have been the case, the Babylonian law

concerning the wife’s dowry—_i.e._ that it was her own in any event—being

clear and incontrovertible. The probability therefore is, that he claimed

the property hoping that she might not be able to prove her right. The

clear statements of this document, and the common-sense judgment delivered

by Nabonidus’s judges are full of simplicity and dignity, and show well

the Babylonian character.

The Final Repayment Of The Loan To Iddina-Marduk.

A tablet recording the payment of interest has already been translated (p.

461), and from that it would seem that no repayment on account of the

money lent to Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu took place until after the

former’s death. When the last payment was made is unknown, but it must

have been some time after the lawsuit. From the portion of the tablet

recording it, it would seem that the amount remaining to be paid was 2

mana and 10 shekels, which was paid jointly by Abil-Addu-amari and

“Bunaniti, his mother,” who probably lived on the property with him and

her daughter.

Thus ends the life-story of this Babylonian family, as far as at present

known.

In addition to the names Abil-addu-nathānu and Abil-Addu-amara (or

-amari), both of which contain the name of the deity Abil-Addu or

Ben-Hadad, the name of the brother, Aqabi-îlu, is interesting. It is

naturally a synonym of a Hebrew name found under the form of Aqabi-yāwa,

the Talmudic Aqabiah, with _-yāwa_ or _-iāwa_ for _-iah_, as in Šanîāwa,

which appears on p. 458.

Ê-Sagila-Râmat And Her Father-In-Law’s Slave.

“Ikîšā, son of Kudurru, descendant of Nûr-Sin, sealed a tablet of adoption

for Rêmanni-Bêl, his slave, whose name is called Rêmut, for the giving of

his food and his clothing. Rêmanni-Bêl, whose name is called Rêmut, after

he had sealed the tablet of his adoption, ran away, and he did not give

him food, oil, and clothing. Ê-sagila-râmat, daughter of Zērîa, descendant

of Nabâa, wife of Iddina-Marduk, son of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin,

reverenced him, feared him, and befriended him, and gave him food, oil,

and clothing. Ikîšā, son of Kudurru, descendant of Nûr-Sin, in the joy of

his heart, annulled the tablet of the adoption of Rêmanni-Bêl, and sealed

and bequeathed him to Ê-sagila-râmat and Nûbtâ, her daughter, daughter of

Iddina-Marduk, descendant of Nûr-Sin. He shall reverence Ê-sagila-râmat

and Nûbtâ, her daughter. Afterwards Ê-sagila-râmat shall leave him to

Nûbtâ, her daughter. Whoever changes these words, and destroys the

contract Ikîšā has drawn up and given to Ê-sagila-râmat and Nûbtâ, her

daughter, may Merodach and Zēr-panitum command his destruction.”

The names of four witnesses and the scribe follow. Date: “Babylon, month

Iyyar, day 9th, year 13th, Nabû-na’id, king of Babylon.” Postscript: “At

the sitting of Bissā, daughter of Ikîšā, descendant of Nûr-Sin.”

From this it would seem that Ikîšā made Rêmanni-Bêl his heir, freeing him

from the position of a bondsman, in exchange for his (Ikîšā’s) keep, but

that Rêmanni-Bêl, declining the advantage and the responsibility, ran

away, whereupon the burden fell upon Ikîšā’s daughter-in-law,

Ê-sagila-râmat. This the last-named seems to have undertaken willingly,

and in return, Ikîšā annulled Rêmanni-Bêl’s adoption, and bequeathed him,

as a slave, to Ê-sagila-râmat and her daughter. Means probably existed for

bringing back the runaway, when the news of his return to his old

condition would be communicated to him. Ê-sagila-râmat’s husband,

Iddina-Marduk, is the one who advanced to Abil-Addu-nathānu and Bunanitu

the money to make up the price of their house.

Iddina-Nabû Sells His Egyptian Slave And Her Infant.

“Iddina-Nabû, son of Mušêzib-Bêl, has cheerfully sold Nanaa-ittîa, his

slave, and her daughter, a child of three months, Egyptians captured by

his bow, for 2 mana of silver, the complete price, to Itti-Marduk-balaṭu,

son of Nabû-âḫê-iddina, descendant of Êgibi. Iddina-Nabû has received the

money, 2 mana of silver, the price of Nanaa-ittîa and her daughter, from

the hands of Itti-Marduk-balaṭu. Iddina-Nabû guarantees against the

existence of any liability of defeasor (?), legal claimant, royal service,

or freedmanship with regard to Nanaa-ittîa and her daughter.”

Here come the names of four witnesses and the scribe.

“Babylon, month Kisleu, day 23rd, year 6th, Kambuzîa (Cambyses), king of

Babylon.

“Besides the contract of 240 gur of fruit, from Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, which

was unto (or due from) Iddina-Nabû.”

This document may be held to testify to the reality of Cambyses’ campaign

in Egypt, which took place in his 5th year (525 B.C.). It is also a proof

that the Babylonians took part in the campaign.

It is noteworthy that three copies of this document exist, one being in

the British Museum, another in the Museum of Art at New York, and the

third in the museum founded by the late Sir Henry Peek at Lyme Regis. The

tablet recording the contract for the 240 gur of fruit also exists, and is

preserved in the British Museum.

Among the tablets of the time of Nabonidus, translations of all the

records known which refer to the family of Ben-Hadad-nathan or

Abil-Addu-nāthanu have been given, and examination of the numerous other

tablets of the reigns of his predecessors and his successors down to the

time of Darius, and perhaps Xerxes, shows that similar more or less

complete family histories could be made. One of the most interesting of

these, and the most complete on account of the number of documents (by far

the greater number of the contracts from Babylon and its neighbourhood, of

the period to which he belongs, contain his name) are those referring to

Širku, a tablet from whose slave Dâan-bêl-uṣur has been given above (p.

454). This man’s history has been tentatively dealt with by the present

author in Part IV. of the catalogue of tablets belonging to the late Sir

Henry Peek. From a tablet in the Louvre, we find that Širku was not his

real name, but that he was called Marduk-naṣir-âbli. The curious thing

about this double naming of Širku, however, is that the majority of the

tablets where he is called Širku say that he was the son of Iddina, and

the majority of those calling him Marduk-naṣir-âbli say that he is the son

of Itti-Marduk-balaṭu. Fortunately documents exist reversing this

parentage, and showing conclusively that Širku and Marduk-naṣir-âbli are

one and the same personage. Were it otherwise, we should have to credit

his slaves with two masters, and his wife with two husbands, a state of

things probably unknown in Babylonia.

From a tablet dated in the first year of Darius, we learn that he bought a

field before the great gate of Uraš in the province of Babylon, this field

being beside that of his wife Âmat-Bau, which she had brought as her

dowry. Other documents record that he made loans of silver and produce,

both alone and associated with his brothers. In these his proper name is

generally used, but sometimes he was called Širku. The hiring and letting

of houses, the buying and selling of slaves, etc., are also recorded of

them. In the third year of Darius he and his brothers came into

considerable property in Babylon, sharing it among them, and there is also

record of Marduk-naṣir-âbli paying his father’s debts. This increase in

their resources naturally enabled them to deal in the produce of their

fields, and in all probability they managed his wife’s as well, whilst

there is at least one record that she lent money on her own account. To

enumerate all the interesting points which the tablets reveal to us

concerning their various transactions, however, would naturally take too

much time and space.

In exchange for the slave Dâan-bêl-uṣur, the slave’s wife, their six

children, and a cornfield upon the canal called Ṭupašu, which

Marduk-naṣir-âbli gave to his wife Âmat-Bau, he received from her two sums

of silver and one of gold, a ring, and two slaves, who had been part of

her dowry. The slaves he gave her, though now her property, were in all

probability still at his disposition, but Dâan-bêl-uṣur seems to have

served him so well when in charge of his affairs, that after having parted

with him, though only to his wife, he must have found, to his regret, that

he and his family were naturally not so much at his disposition as when he

could call them his own.

Under the name of Marduk-naṣir-âbli, he appears before us principally in

the character of an agriculturalist and dealer in produce, combining with

this money-lending on occasion. As Širku, he dealt largely in ships, and

apparently also in boats for pontoon bridges. In the fifth year of Darius

he was in Elam, and there is a reference to the sending to him of a

messenger, “with the charioteers of Bêl-âbla-iddina, captain of Babylon.”

Many years afterwards Širku is said to have received the rent of a house

situated “upon the _giššu_ of Borsippa,” and the question naturally

arises, whether _giššu_ may not be for _gišru_, “bridge,” though a house

upon a bridge crossing a comparatively narrow canal near Babylon is

certainly not what one would expect.

On the 16th of Sivan in the twenty-sixth year of Darius, Širku was the

scribe who drew up a contract referring to two ships, one apparently for

service on the Euphrates, the other for the bridge. Later on, he borrowed

some money upon the security of two of his female slaves, Mušêzibtum and

Narû, the wrist of the former being inscribed with the name of one of his

relations, the other with his own name, Širku (it is given as Šišku on the

tablet). This loan is distinctly stated to be for the purpose of acquiring

“a ship for the bridge” (_êlippu ša giširi_), and this he seems to have

bought two months later, unless there was another contract for a vessel

which has not come down to us. In the Peek collection is a large tablet

referring to the completed bridge, the traffic upon it, and the ships

moored to it, suggesting that a portion of it at least was used as a quay

or landing-stage. More research is needed, however, ere its precise nature

will be clear—perhaps the etymology is misleading, and _gišru_ or _giširu_

means, in Babylonian, “pier” or “landing-stage” simply.

The following is one of the inscriptions which refer to his hiring a ship—

“(Concerning) the ship of Iddina-Bêl which is with Šamaš-iddina, son of

Bêl-iddina, for navigation. He has given the ship for hire as far as

_bištum ša ṣêrûa_ (= _birtum ša ṣêrûa_, ‘the fortress of _ṣêrûa_’) for 1/3

of a mana of white silver, coined, to Širik (Širku), son of Iddinā,

descendant of Êgibi. The silver, 1/3 of a mana, the hire of the ship, and

its provisions, he has received. The ship shall not cross the great

(water), if it pass, he shall pay 5 mana of silver. Each has taken (a copy

of this contract).”

The names of three witnesses and the scribe follow this, after which is

the date—

“Babylon, month Adar, day 6th, year 26th, Darius, king of Babylon and

countries.”

The tablets in which Marduk-naṣir-âbli, _alias_ Širku, are mentioned,

prove that Babylonia maintained its character as a maritime nation to a

very late date. As, however, voyages on the ocean are not provable, it is

doubtful whether their ships sailed to any great distance—in all

probability they confined themselves to making coast-voyages only. Judging

from the penalty attached to taking the ship across the great (water), the

question naturally arises, whether the sea (the Persian Gulf) may not have

been intended. The word used in the original is _rabbu_, which would then

correspond with the last word of the poetic expression, “the rolling

main.”

Such, as far as space allows, was life at Babylon and the chief cities of

Babylonia, where the Israelites dwelt for so many years, and colonies of

them existed until a very late date, as the drinking bowls inscribed with

charms against sickness and evil spirits in Hebrew and Aramaic show. Some

of the Hebrew names contained in the tablets from Babylonia have already

been referred to (p. 458), and to these several others may be added, such

as Banāwa or Beniah; Gamariāwa or Gemariah; Malakiāwa or Malchiah, who had

a son bearing the heathen name of Nergal-êṭir; together with several

similarly-formed but otherwise unknown names (as was to be expected).

Examples of these are, Azziāwa, Ḫuliāwa, Nirîāwa and Agirîāwa. The

Gemariah mentioned above was witness, with his compatriot Barikîa

(Berechiah) and others, on the occasion when Ša-Nabû-duppu sold

Nanaa-silim, his Bactrian slave-girl. The scribe’s name on this occasion

was Marduka (Mordecai), son of Épeš-îli. Mordecai means “the Merodachite,”

and is interesting as showing how Babylonian monotheism, such as it was,

reconciled the Jews to accept what they would otherwise have regarded as a

heathen name.

Interesting in the extreme would it be, if we could know what the Jews

thought of the country and the city of their captivity. In that enormous

walled tract known as the city of Babylon were large open spaces covered

with gardens, and cornfields, and orchards, mostly, perhaps almost

exclusively, of date-palms, the fruit of which formed such an important

part of the food of the people. These were the trees, in all probability,

on which the Jewish captives hung their harps when, in their captivity,

they mourned for the city of Sion, from which they were so far away. The

rivers of Babylon, of which the well-known psalm speaks, were the Tigris

and the Euphrates, with the innumerable canals and watering-channels which

the nature of the country rendered so necessary to the fertility and

productiveness of the land, and without which it would have been a desert.

There, too, they looked upon the buildings of old time, the fanes which

were there when their forefather Abraham was a dweller in the land,

changed, doubtless, beyond recognition. Chief among these was the great

temple of Belus, joined to the tower called “the temple of the foundation

of heaven and earth,” and which Nebuchadnezzar speaks of as “the tower of

Babylon.” There, too, were the shrines dedicated to Zēr-panitum, consort

of Merodach, the goddess Nin-maḫ; Nebo, the god of wisdom; Sin, the

Moon-god; Šamaš, the Sun-god; Gula, the goddess of healing, and many other

divinities. Whilst the Jews were there, they must have seen many of this

king’s building operations—the strengthening of the fortresses and the

walls, and the repair and extension of the moats and ditches; the raising

of the level of the great street, Aa-ibûr-sabû (the remains of which have

just been found by the German explorers on the site of the city), along

which, yearly, at the beginning of the year, processions went, and the

images of the gods were in all probability carried. Then there was the

rebuilding of the royal palace, with its roof and doors of cedar, the

latter being also overlaid with bronze, probably after the manner of the

bronze gates of Shalmaneser found by Mr. Rassam at Balawat. The thresholds

were also of bronze, and the palace was adorned, in other parts, with

gold, silver, precious stones, and various other costly things.

They must have seen, also, the construction, between the two great

fortifications called Imgur-Bêl and Nē-mitti-Bêl, of that great building

which was to serve as a castle and a royal residence at the same time.

This was in connection with the old palace of Nabopolassar,

Nebuchadnezzar’s father, built, as already stated, in a fortnight. Chief

among the shrines restored by Nebuchadnezzar with great magnificence must

be mentioned Ê-kua, the sanctuary of Merodach, in the temple Ê-sagila (the

temple of Belus), and that called Du-azaga (“the glorious seat”),

otherwise described as “the place of fate,” where yearly, on the new

year’s festival (the 8th and 9th of Nisan) the statue of the god Merodach,

“the king of the gods of heaven and earth,” was placed, and the king’s

future declared on the question being put. Doubtless the glory of the

place attracted not a few, causing them to decide to stay there

permanently, and these, mingling with the native population, were lost to

Israel, like their brethren of the ten tribes, and even as Nergal-êṭir,

son of Malakiāwa (see above) seems to have been.

CHAPTER XIII. THE DECLINE OF BABYLON.

The Jews who remained at Babylon and other cities of the

land—Alexander the Great’s intentions with regard to the city, and

the result of their non-fulfilment—A Babylonian lamentation dated

in the reign of Seleucus Nicator and his son—The desolation of the

city after the foundation of Seleucia—The temples still

maintained—Antiochus Epiphanes and the introduction of Greek

worship—His invasion of Egypt—The Arsacidæ—A contract of the time

of Hyspasines—Materials for history—Further records of the time of

the Arsacidæ—The latest date of Babylonian worship—The Christians

of Irak or Babylonia.

Notwithstanding the return of large numbers of Jews to Jerusalem, a

considerable portion of the nation had become attached to the land of

their captivity, and remained in Babylon and the other cities of Chaldea,

as well as in Persia. These, no longer captives, but settlers by their own

free will, had probably decided to stay in the land either from the desire

to continue the businesses which they had started there, the relinquishing

of which would have meant, in all probability, ruin to themselves and

their families; or because of aged relatives for whom the journey to

Jerusalem, however much they might have desired it, would have been an

impossibility; or because of official and civil positions which they held

either at court or in the employment of rich or influential personages, by

whose support they hoped to be able to aid their compatriots; or because

of the attractions of a great city, whose origins must for them have

possessed a special interest (notwithstanding the horrors of the captivity

which their forebears must have experienced there), and whose position for

thousands of years as the capital of a large province gave it a

preponderating influence, not only in the country of which it was the

capital, but in all the civilized world at the time.

This being the case, there numbers of the Jews stayed, and there they

witnessed the gradual departure of the sceptre from that city which one of

their own writers had described as the glory of kingdoms, and the beauty

of the Chaldees’ excellency. After the passing of the kingdom into the

hands of the alien Persian kings, things went on as usual under their rule

for a considerable time—the people lived on their land, and bought and

sold, and transacted their ordinary business, and trade seems to have been

good (judging from the number of documents which have been preserved)

until the end of the reign of Darius Hystaspis. Thereafter there was

either a great falling off, or else the documents were deposited in other

places, or a more perishable material was used for them. In any case, they

become comparatively scarce, and their rarity may be due to the departure

of trade from the capital, brought about by the removal of the court from

Babylon, and the consequent migration of her merchants to other places.

Things had been going, in fact, from bad to worse for Babylon, and among

the clay records left, some of the royal names which we should like to see

are to all appearance absent. It was still, however, a place of great

importance, when, in the year 331 B.C., it opened its gates to Alexander

the Great, surrendering, like Susa and Persepolis, without striking a

blow. Doubtless to them it was perfectly indifferent under which foreign

potentate they lived, and a change in that respect could not make their

condition worse, and might be to their advantage. Had he not died long

before the term which nature has fixed, the city might have taken upon it

such a renewed lease of life as would have caused it to exist as a great

capital to the present day. As it happened, the Babylonians began to see

their fondest hopes realized, for it must soon have become noised abroad

that the new conqueror of Asia intended to make Babylon his Eastern

capital, and they saw the clearing away of the rubbish which was the

preliminary to the restoration of the great and renowned temple of Belus,

Ê-sagila (or Ê-sangil as they called it at that time), actually

proceeding, not only during the reign of Alexander, but also during that

of his successor, Philip, as well. The mental calibre of the latter,

however, who came to the throne on the death of Alexander in the year 323

B.C., must soon have told the Babylonians that the realization of his

great predecessor’s schemes was hopeless, and the downward course of the

city’s star, arrested as it were for a moment, soon began again.

The next change of rulers was that following upon the unworthy bearing of

Antigonus with regard to Seleucus, Alexander the Great’s favoured general,

who had espoused his claims to the throne of the Eastern empire. After

aiding Ptolemy of Egypt against Demetrius, son of Antigonus, he set out

with a small force, and gathering recruits in his course, especially among

the Babylonians, with whom he was popular, he entered their capital

without opposition in 312 B.C., from which date the era of the Seleucidæ

is regarded as beginning. How the Babylonians took the foundation of

Seleucia on the Tigris, which is often mentioned in the numerous

astrological tablets of this period, is not recorded, but from the way in

which they speak of the migration of the inhabitants of Babylonia to

Seleucia implies that they took it greatly to heart.

“Blessed shall he be who serveth thee as thou hast served us,” sang the

Psalmist when lamenting the captivity of the Jews at Babylon, and if

success in conquest be a sign of blessedness, then Seleucus must have been

happy indeed. The Babylonians could not have regarded the continual and

increasing desolation of their city with indifference, however, and it is

not impossible that their loyalty to their king suffered somewhat in

consequence. This, to all appearance, found vent in expressions of regret,

and an old lamentation, referring to the depredations of the Qutû at a

period so remote that we can hardly, at this distance of time, estimate,

and of which a copy was made for a certain Bêl-zēr-lîšir, might well

express their feelings at this period:

“For the misfortunes of Erech, for the misfortunes of Agadé, I am

stricken.

The Erechitess wept, that departed was her might, the Agaditess

wept, that departed was her glory (?);

The daughter of Erech wept, the daughter of Agadé cried aloud;

As for the daughter of Larancha, in her garment her face was

hidden.

The Ḫursagkalamitess wept, that her husband was in trouble;

The Ḫulḫutḫulitess wept, that cast down was her sceptre;

The Mašitess wept, that her 7 brothers were slain, that her

brother-in-law was stricken.

The Agaditess wept, that her elder was slain, the lord of her

well-being;

The Kešitess wept—they have wrought destruction (?) for the name

of her house: ‘My helpers are shattered’;

The Dunnaitess wept, ‘Who has a resting-place, who has leave to go

forth?

Whose is it to defeat (?) the enemy, (with) the exits cut off?’

The daughter of Niffer wept, for the raging (?) Qutû assembled,

She bowed down her face on account of the trouble of the husband

of her well-being.

The Dûr-îlitess wept, for the Qutû collected,

For the son of her city destroyed, the overthrow of her father’s

house.

Weep for Erech, ravaging (and) shame has she received—

As for me, in the storm a place of refuge I know not.

Weep for Larancha (for the spoiling?) of (my) mantle I am in

trouble.

My eyes see not my ..., the mothers are cut off from the child.

Weep for Niffer, as for me, (with) abundance of affliction (?)

Heaven has bound me fast;

The throne of my glory has been caused to pass away from me;

The bridegroom, the husband of my well-being, Bêl has taken away

from me.”

“Like its original written, made clear, and acquired.

Tablet of Bêl-zēr-lîšir, son of Bêl-âba-usur, descendant of the

sculptor.

(By) the hands of Bêl-bulliṭ-su, his son. He who fears the king

shall not take (?) (this) tablet (?) away.

“Babylon, month Elul, day 15th, year 25th, Siluku and Antiukusu

(Seleucus and Antiochus), king of countries.

By those same “rivers of Babylon” where the Israelites had mourned in

captivity, thinking of Jerusalem, there the Babylonians themselves came at

last to lament the departed glories of their land. Many a time, it is

true, they had seen the country which was their fatherland overrun by

enemies, but it had always recovered, and risen to a greater height of

prosperity. This time, however, there was to be no healing of her wound.

The large and well-peopled space within the walls of the great city

gradually became uninhabited, and the houses fell into ruin. A time even

came at last when the great walls had to be demolished—or at least

practically so—in order that they might not afford protection to the

lawless bands which infested the country, and were only too ready to make

the most of such an advantage.

Notwithstanding the desolation of the city, however, a certain number of

people continued to inhabit the site, probably officials of the temples

(whose services still continued), and tradesmen who supplied the wants of

those whose duty held them attached to the place. Here, year after year,

the usual sacrifices were offered to the old gods of the Babylonians,

especially “My Lord and Lady,” _i.e._ Bêl (Merodach) and Beltis

(Zēr-panitum, his consort), and prayers were made for the king at the time

reigning, and also for his sons (if he had any). That inscriptions may

come to light which will show more clearly the state of things in that

vast ruined city is exceedingly probable, and a sufficient number of

tablets referring to this period are known to exist even now, and show in

some measure the state of the city and the kind of people who dwelt in

such parts of it as had been reserved for that purpose.

To those who inhabited Babylon’s desolation, the most important thing, in

all probability, was the worship, with all the old rites and ceremonies,

of the deities whose temples and shrines still existed there. But those

old priests and temple scribes occupied their time in another way, namely,

the keeping of careful records of every historical event for the purpose

of being able to tell the future. These historical notices are preceded by

indications of the positions of the moon and the planets, together with

the price of grain or other produce, during the period referred to. The

positions of the planets, etc., were combined afterwards, by the “monthly

prognosticators,” with the historical happenings, for the purpose of

foretelling events, which at that late period was probably done much more

systematically than during earlier ages, to the great advantage of the

modern student of this period.

The following will give an idea of these historical notices:—

(Month Ab, 143rd year, Anti’ukusu, king = 168 B.C., reign of Antiochus

Epiphanes.)

“An., the king, marched victoriously among the cities of the land of

Meluḫḫa, and ... the people (_puliṭē_(144) the Greek πολίτης)

(constructed?) idols (_puppē_, evidently a Greek word, probably meaning

‘images of gods’) and works like a shrine (of?) the Greek(s?)....”

The inscription then goes on to speak of the appointment of a _zazak_

(apparently a grade of priests) by the king, the handing to him of the

gold in the treasury of Ê-saggil for the great (shrine) of Bêl, the

(dedication?) of an unsuitable or an untimely image of the god Uru-gala on

the 8th day of the month, and other similar occurrences. From the lines

translated above, it will be seen that the Babylonians had not by any

means escaped from the influence of Greek civilization, not only Greek

words, but also, to all appearance, Greek gods and shrines having made

their appearance. The word used in speaking of the image of the god

Uru-gala is _tamšil_, but the things which the citizens made were _puppē_,

possibly used like our word “idol.” It is possibly to this period, or a

little later, that the transcriptions into Greek of Babylonian tablets

(which promise to be of considerable value for the study of the

Assyro-Babylonian language) belong.

If the translation given above be correct, it would confirm the account in

the second book of Maccabees (vi. 2), from which it would appear that this

ruler tried to habituate the Jews to Greek customs, and also to the Greek

religion, going even so far as “to pollute also the temple in Jerusalem,

and to call it the temple of Jupiter Olympus; and that in Garizim, of

Jupiter the Defender of strangers, as they did desire that dwelt in the

place” (vi. 2). “The abomination of desolation” which was set on the altar

at Jerusalem (1 Macc. i. 54) is understood by commentators to mean an

idol-altar, though almost any heathen image would suit the sense, and a

statue of a god, with or without a shrine, might be meant. The reference

to Meluḫḫa in all probability refers to one of his expeditions to Egypt,

and is generally supposed to indicate Ethiopia.

Another change which the Babylonians experienced was when the rule of

their Greek masters was exchanged for that of the Parthians, and the

Seleucidæ gave way to the Arsacidæ. Concerning the period of the change,

and the way in which it came about, very little is known. The varied

fortunes of the Seleucid princes is illustrated by the fact that a satrap

of Media named Timarchus, in 161-160 B.C., had succeeded in proclaiming

himself king of Babylon; and from 153-139 B.C., Arsaces VI. (Mithridates

I.) was in possession of all the district east of the Euphrates—Babylonia,

Elam, and Persia. After his death, however, all this portion seems to have

returned to the rule of the Seleucidæ, and their era was in all

probability restored. After the death of Antiochus Sidetes, in 129 B.C.,

the province of Kharacene became independent under a ruler named

Hyspasines or Spasines, who, two years later, seems to have made himself

master of Babylon. An interesting tablet dated in the reign of this king

(who used the Seleucian era) shows something of the state of things on the

site of the old city, and that somewhat vividly.

(The inscription is preceded by five introductory lines, which are

unfortunately imperfect, but do not seem to affect the transaction as a

whole.)

“In the month Iyyar, the 24th day, year 185th, Aspāsinē (being) king,

Bêl-lûmur, director of Ê-saggil, and the Babylonians, the congregation of

Ê-saggil, took counsel together, and said thus—

“’Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, chief of the construction over the artificers (?) of

the houses of the gods, scribe of Anu-Bêl, son of Iddin-Bêl, who formerly

stood (?) at the side of Aspāsinē, the king, who (relieved?) want in the

gate of the king; lo, this is for Bêl-âḫê-uṣur and Nabû-mušêtiq-ûrri, his

sons—

“ ‘(As) they find the whole of his keep, a sum (?) has been collected (?)

in the presence of the aforesaid Bêl-lûmur and the Babylonians, the

congregation of Ê-saggil.

“ ‘From this day of this year we will give 1 mana of silver, the

sustenance of Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, for their father, to Bêl-âḫê-uṣur and

Nabû-mušêtiq-ûrri, from our (own) necessities. The amount, as much as

Itti-Marduk-balaṭu, their father, has taken, they shall keep for (his)

keep, and they shall give the grant for this year.’

“(Done along) with Bêl-šunu; Nûr; Muranu; Iddin-Bêl; Bêl-uṣur-šu, the

scribe of Anu-Bêl, and the deputy-scribes of Anu-Bêl.”(145)

Though the translation is necessarily, from the mutilation of the text,

not altogether satisfactory, certain items of information which it

contains will hardly admit of doubt. There were still inhabitants of the

city, there were temple-servants, who were probably under a kind of

overseer of the works, and these apparently attended to all the temples.

Whether this man was too old to work or not is doubtful, but it would seem

that it was considered too much that his sons should keep him altogether,

hence the drawing up of the document here quoted.

It is noteworthy that, instead of Merodach, or Bêl-Merodach, the god of

Babylon, who became the chief deity of all Babylonia, a new deity appears,

namely, Anu-Bêl, _i.e._ Anu the Lord, or, paraphrased, the Lord God of

Heaven, probably the god Merodach identified with Anu. The religion of the

Babylonians probably underwent many changes during this later period, when

those who belonged to it came into contact with foreigners, many of them

most intelligent men, whose teaching must have had with them great weight.

Another important inscription, in the British Museum, gives many details

of the period of this little-known king, Aspāsinē. From this we learn that

the Elamites made incursions in the neighbourhood of the Tigris.

Pilinussu, the general in Akkad, apparently carried on operations against

another general, and seems to have gone to the cities of the Medes before

Bāgā-asā, the brother of the king. A man named Te’udišī also seems to have

opposed the general in Akkad. Yet another inscription of the same period

states that Ti’imūṭusu, son of Aspāsinē, went from Babylon to Seleucia (on

the Tigris), showing that the former renowned place was still regarded as

one of the cities of the land. At this time one of the opponents of

Aspāsinē’s generals was “Pittit, the enemy, the Elamite.” Elam, to its

whole extent, was smitten with the sword, and Pittit (was slain, or

captured). Sacrifices were made to Bel, probably on account of this

victory.

Similar inscriptions of the time of the Arsacidean rule in Babylonia also

exist, and would probably be useful if published. Unfortunately, they are

all more or less damaged and mutilated, but of those which I have been

able to make notes of, one may be worth quoting. The following extract

will show its nature:—

“This month I heard thus: Aršakā the king and his soldiers departed to the

city of Arqania.... (I) heard thus: The Elamite and his soldiers departed

to battle before the city Apam’a which is upon the river Ṣilḫu....”

The remainder is very mutilated, and requires studying in conjunction with

all the other inscriptions of the same class, though even then much must

necessarily be doubtful.

In many of these inscriptions each of the long paragraphs ends with a

reference to the sacrifices which had been made in the temples of Babylon

among the ruins, and sometimes, though rarely, they refer to something of

the nature of an omen. The following will serve as an example:—

“... descended to Babylon from Seleucia which is upon the Tigris. Day 10,

the governor of Akkad ... the congregation of Ê-saggil, (sacrificed) one

ox and 4 lambs in the gate Ka-dumu-nuna of Ê-saggil, (and) made (prayer

for the lif)e of the king and his preservation. On the 5., one ox and 3

lambs (they sacrificed). The congregation of Baby]lon came to Ka-dumu-nuna

of Ê-saggil, offerings like the former ones were made ... went forth from

Sippar. This month a goat brought forth, and the litter was 15.”

Contract-tablets, some of them of a very late date indeed, within a decade

or two of the Christian era, show that the temples still existed, and that

sacrifices and services still went on, probably uninterruptedly, at the

temples of Babylon, and this implies that, though the country had no

national existence, the beliefs of the people survived for many centuries

the downfall of their power. In all probability, what took place at

Babylon had its counterpart in other places in the country—the fanes

renowned of old—as well. Indeed, it is known that, at the most perfectly

preserved of the temple-towers of Babylonia at the present day—that at

Borsippa, now and for many centuries known as the Birs Nimroud, “the tower

(as it is explained) of Nimrod,”—the services and worship were continued

as late as the fourth century of the Christian era. The worship of Nebo,

the god of wisdom, or, rather, letters, had always been extremely popular,

hence, in all probability, the continuation of his cult until this late

date. But this was to all appearance the last remnant of the powerful and

picturesque creed of old Babylon, and details of its slow and gradual

disappearance from the religious beliefs of the world would probably be as

interesting as the story of its growth and development.

“The Church at Babylon,” mentioned in 1 Peter v. 13, is generally

understood allegorically, as of the Church in the world, or that in the

great Babylon of the time when the apostle wrote, namely, Rome. Though it

is unknown whether a Christian Church existed in his time anywhere in

Babylonia, it is probably certain that the native Christians of Baghdad

(and ’Irāq in general) are pure descendants of the ancient Babylonians, to

whom, in form and stature, as well as in character, and their tendency to

progress, they have a great likeness. The same may be said of the native

Christians of Assyria.

Could we but know the history of Assyria at this period, it is very

probable that we should find it to resemble in certain things—perhaps in

the main—that of Babylonia after her downfall. From the religious point of

view, also, there must have been similarity. They, too, knew the worship

of the “merciful Merodach,” to them a type of Christ, and his father Êa

(from whom he obtained the means of helping mankind), in name and position

a type of Jah, God the Father, whom the Christians worshipped. But we

shall never in all probability know whether they thus analyzed and

compared the two faiths, though it is very possible that they did, for it

is said that the Egyptians were attracted to Christianity by the

comparison of Christ with their Osiris. Such, however, is the tendency of

the mind of mankind. Ever unwilling to break with the old, he seeks for

some analogy in the new, to form a bridge whereby to pass to higher

things. Minor deities have ever tended to become Christian saints, and

such may have been—indeed, probably was—the case with the Babylonians and

the Assyrians.

APPENDIX. THE STELE INSCRIBED WITH THE LAWS OF ḪAMMURABI.

This monument was found at Susa, in the excavations undertaken by the

French Government, by MM. de Morgan and Prof. V. Scheil. It is a column of

diorite, measuring about 7 feet in height, tapering slightly from the

bottom upwards. The circumference of the base is about 2 yards, and at the

summit about 5 feet 5-½ inches. As, however, the stone is not square, it

may be described as measuring, roughly, 22 inches broad at the base, and

16 inches just above the bas-relief at the top, where it is rounded

somewhat irregularly.

The bas-relief, which is in perfect condition, measures about 2 feet 2

inches in height, and represents Ḫammurabi standing, facing to the right,

towards the sun-god Šamaš, who sits on a throne of the usual recessed

design. The god is bearded, clothed in a flounced robe, and has his hair

looped up behind. His hat is pointed, and is adorned with four (eight)

horns, rising at the side, and coming forward, where their points are

turned up. His right shoulder is bare, and in his right hand he holds a

staff and a ring, emblematic of authority and eternity, or his apparent

course in the heavens. His right hand is held against his breast, and wavy

lines, probably representing his rays, arise from his shoulders.

Ḫammurabi, who stands before the seated god, is clothed in a long robe

reaching to his feet, and held up by his left arm. His right shoulder and

arm are bare, and the hand is raised as if to emphasize the words he is

uttering. Like the god, he is heavily bearded. On his head he wears the

globular thick-brimmed hat distinctive of men in authority for many

hundred years before his time, and for a considerable period afterwards.

The inscription, which is in horizontal columns, covers all four sides of

the stone, and is divided into two parts, called by Prof. Scheil, who

first translated it, the “obverse” and the “reverse” respectively. The

former is in 16 columns, after which come 5 columns which have been

erased, probably, as Prof. Scheil remarks, to insert the name and titles

of an Elamite king, Šutruk-Naḫḫunte, who has his inscription placed on

several other monuments of Babylonian origin found there. For some reason

or other, the space on the stele of Ḫammurabi still remains blank. The

“reverse” has 28 columns of inscription. The columns are narrow, and the

lines consequently short, but as the latter are no less than 3638 in

number, the text is a very extensive one, and when complete, must have

consisted of over 4000 lines.

The inscription consists of three portions: the Introduction, consisting

of 4 columns and 25 lines, detailing all the benefits which Ḫammurabi had

conferred on the cities and temples of the land; the Laws, which occupy

the remainder of the obverse, and 23 columns of the reverse (in all, 40

columns less 25 lines); and the Conclusion, occupying the remaining 5

columns, in which he recounts his own virtues, and in a long curse, calls

upon the gods whom he worshipped to punish and destroy any of his

successors who should abolish or change what he had written, or destroy

his bas-relief.

The Laws Of Ḫammurabi.

Introduction.

When the supreme God, king of the Annunaki,(146) and Bel, lord of the

heavens and the earth, who fixes the destinies of the land, had fixed for

Merodach, the eldest son of Aê, the Divine Lordship over the multitude of

the people, and had made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by

its supreme name, caused it to be great among the countries (of the

world), and caused to exist for him in its midst an everlasting kingdom,

whose foundation is as firm as heaven and earth.

At that time Ḫammurabi, the noble prince—he who fears God—me—in order that

justice might exist in the country, to destroy the evil and wicked, that

the strong might not oppress the weak,—God and Bel, to gladden the flesh

of the people, proclaimed my name as a Sungod(147) for the black-headed

ones,(148) appearing and illuminating the land.

Ḫammurabi, the shepherd proclaimed of Bel am I—the perfecter of abundance

and plenty, the completer of everything for Niffur (and) Dur-an-ki,(149)

the glorious patron of Ê-kura;(150)

The powerful king who has restored the city Êridu to its first state, who

has purified the service of Ê-apsû;(151)

The best of the four regions, who made great the name of Babylon,

rejoicing the heart of Merodach, his lord, who daily stays (at service) in

Ê-sagila;(152)

The kingly seed whom the god Sin has created, who endows with riches the

city of Ur;(153) humble, devout, he who brings abundance to

Ê-kiš-nu-gala;(154)

The king of wisdom, favourite of Šamaš, the powerful one, he who founded

(again) the city of Sippar, who clothed with green the burial-places of

Aa,(155) who made supreme the temple Ê-babbara,(156) which is like a

throne (in) the heavens;

The warrior benefiting Larsa,(157) who renewed the temple Ê-babbara(158)

for Šamaš his helper;

The lord who gave life to Erech, procuring waters in abundance for its

people, he who has raised the head of the temple Ê-anna, completing the

treasures for Anu and Innanna;(159)

The protector of the land, who has reassembled the scattered people of

Nisin, who has made abundant the riches of the temple E-gal-maḫ;(160)

The unique one, king of the city, twin brother of the god Zagaga, he who

founded the seat of the city of Kiš, who has caused the temple

Ê-mete-ursag(161) to be surrounded with splendour, who has caused the

great sanctuaries of the goddess Innanna to be increased;

Overseer of the temple of Ḫursag-kalama, the enemies’ temple-court, the

help of which caused him to attain his desire;(162)

He who has enlarged the city of Cuthah, made great everything for the

temple Meslam;(163)

The mighty steer who overthrows the enemy, the beloved of the god

Tutu;(164)

He who causes the city of Borsippa to rejoice, the supreme one, he who is

tireless for the temple Ê-zida;(165)

The divine king of the city, wise, alert, he who has extended the

agriculture of Dilmu,(166) who has heaped up the (grain) receptacles for

the powerful god Uraš;(167)

The lord (who is) the adornment of the sceptre and the crown, with which

the wise goddess Mama has crowned him;

Who has defined the sanctuaries of Kêš, who has made plentiful the

glorious feasts for the goddess Nin-tu;

The provident and careful one, who set pasturages and watering-places for

Lagaš and Girsu, he who procured great offerings for Ê-ninnû;(168)

He who holds fast the enemy, the favourite of the divinity, he who fulfils

the portents of the city Ḫallabu, he who has gladdened the heart of

Ištar;(169)

The prince undefiled, whose prayer(170) Addu(171) has heard, he who gives

rest to the heart of Addu, the warrior, in the city Muru;

He who set up the ornaments in the temple E-para-galgala, the king who

gave life to the city of Adab;

He who directs the temple E-maḫ, the prince who is the city-king, the

warrior who is without rival;

He who has given life to the city Maškan-šabri, who has caused abundance

to arise for the temple Mešlam;

The wise, the active one, who has captured the robbers’ hiding-places,

sheltered the people of Malkâ in (their) misfortune, caused their seats to

be founded in abundance, (and) instituted pure offerings for Aê and

Damgal-nunna, who have made his kingdom great for ever.

The prince who is city-king, who subjugated the settlements of the

Euphrates, the boundary (of) Dagan, his creator, who spared the people of

Mera and Tutul;

The supreme prince, who has made the face of the goddess Ištar to shine,

set pure repasts for the divinity Nin-azu, who cared for his people in

(their) need, fixing their dues within Babylon peacefully;

The shepherd of the people, whose deeds are good unto Ištar, who set Ištar

in the temple Ê-ulmaš within Agadé of the (broad) streets; he who makes

the faithful obedient, who guides the Race;(172)

Who returned its good genius to the city of Asshur, who caused (its)

splendour (?) to shine forth;

The king who in Nineveh has caused the names of Ištar to be glorified in

Ê-mešmeš;(173)

The supreme one, devoted in prayer to the great gods, descendant of

Sumula-ilu, the mighty son of Sin-mubaliṭ, the eternal seed of royalty;

The powerful king, the Sun of Babylon, he who sends forth light for the

land of Šumer and Akkad, the king causing the four regions to obey him,

the beloved of the goddess Ištar, am I.

When Merodach chose me to govern the people, to rule and instruct the

land, law and justice I set in the mouth of the land—in that day did I

bring about the well-being of the people.

The Laws.

1. If a man ban a man, and cast a spell upon him, and has not justified

it, he who has banned him shall be killed.

2. If a man has thrown a spell upon a man, and has not justified it, he

upon whom the spell has been thrown shall go to the river,(174) (and)

shall plunge into the river, and if the river take him, he who banned him

may take his house. If the river show that man to be innocent, and save

(him), he who threw the spell upon him shall be killed; he who plunged

into the river may take possession of the house of him who banned him.

3. If a man in a lawsuit has come forward (to bear) false witness, and has

not justified the word he has spoken, if that lawsuit be a lawsuit of

life,(175) that man shall be killed.

4. If he has come forward (to bear) witness concerning wheat or silver, he

shall bear the guilt of that lawsuit.

5. If a judge has given judgment, and decided a decision, and delivered a

tablet (thereupon), and afterwards his judgment is found faulty, that

judge, for the fault in the judgment he had judged, they shall summon, and

the claim which is in question(176) he shall (re)pay twelvefold, and in

the assembly they shall make him rise up from his judgment-seat, and he

shall not return, and he shall not sit again with the judges in judgment.

6. If a man has stolen the property of a god, or of the palace, that man

shall be killed; and he who has received the stolen thing from his hand

shall be killed.

7. If a man has bought either silver, or gold, or a man-slave, or a

woman-slave, or an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or anything whatever, from

the hands of the son of a man or the slave of a man, without witness or

contract, or has received it on deposit, that man is a thief—he shall be

killed.

8. If a man has stolen either an ox, or a sheep, or an ass, or a pig, or a

ship—if it be from a god or from the palace, he shall (re)pay thirtyfold;

if it be from a poor man, he shall restore tenfold. If the thief have not

wherewith to (re)pay, he shall be killed.

9. If a man who has lost his property meet with his lost property in the

hands of a man, (and) the man in whose hands the lost thing has been found

say “a certain seller sold it—I bought it before certain witnesses,” and

the owner of the lost object say “Let me bring witnesses who will

recognize my lost object,” the buyer shall bring forward the seller who

sold it, and the witnesses before whom he bought (it), and the owner of

the lost object shall bring forward the witnesses who will recognize his

lost object. The judge shall see what they have to say, and the witnesses

before whom the purchase was made, and the witnesses knowing the object

lost shall speak before God,(177) and (if) the seller is the thief, he

shall be killed. The owner of the lost object shall take (back) his lost

object; the buyer shall receive (back) from the house of the seller the

silver which he has paid.

10. If the buyer has not brought forward the seller who sold it to him and

the witnesses before whom he bought (it), (and) the owner of the lost

object has brought forward witnesses recognizing his lost object, the

buyer is a thief—he shall be killed; the owner of the object lost shall

take (back) the lost object.

11. If the owner of the lost object has not brought forward witnesses

recognizing his lost object, he is a rogue, (and) has made a false

accusation—he shall be killed.

12. If the seller has gone to his fate, the buyer shall receive from the

house of the seller the claims of that judgment fivefold.

13. If that man have not his witnesses at hand, the judge shall grant him

a delay of six months,(178) and if he have not procured his witnesses in

six months,(179) that man is a rogue—he shall bear the guilt of that

judgment.

14. If a man has stolen the young son of a man, he shall be killed.

15. If a man has caused to go forth from the gate either a slave of the

palace, or a handmaid of the palace, or the slave of a poor man, or the

handmaid of a poor man, he shall be killed.

16. If a man has sheltered the escaped male or female slave of the palace

or of a poor man in his house, and at the request of the steward has not

sent him forth, the master of that house shall be killed.

17. If a man has met the escaped male or female slave in the fields, and

has taken him back to his master, the master of the slave shall give him

two shekels of silver.

18. If that slave will not name his master, he shall take him to the

palace, his intention shall be inquired into, and they shall return him to

his master.

19. If he has shut up that slave in his house, and afterwards the slave

has been found in his hands, that man shall be killed.

20. If a slave escape from the hands of the man who has found him, that

man shall call God to witness(180) unto the master of the slave, and shall

be held blameless.

21. If a man has made a breach in a house, in front of that breach they

shall kill him and bury him.

22. If a man has exercised brigandage, and has been taken, that man shall

be killed.

23. If the brigand has not been captured, the man who has been robbed

shall take the thing which he has lost before God, and the city and the

authorities within whose territory and boundaries the brigandage has been

exercised shall make up to him what he has lost.

24. If (it be a question of) a life, the city and authorities shall pay

one mana of silver to his people.

25. If the house of a man has been set on fire,(181) and a man who went to

extinguish it has raised his eyes to the property of the owner of the

house, and taken the property of the owner of the house, that man shall be

thrown into that same fire.

26. If an army-leader or a soldier, who has been commanded to go his way

on a royal expedition, does not go, and has hired a mercenary, and his

substitute is taken, that army-leader or soldier shall be killed, he who

changed with him shall take his house.

27. If an army-leader or a soldier, who by the king’s misfortune is kept

prisoner, afterwards they have given his field and plantation to another,

and he has carried on its administration; if (the original owner) then

return and reach his city, they shall return to him his field and

plantation, and he himself shall carry on its administration.

28. If the son of an army-leader or a soldier, who is kept prisoner by the

king’s misfortune, is able to carry on the administration, they shall give

to him the field and plantation, and he shall carry on the administration

for his father.

29. If his son is young, and is unable to carry on the administration for

his father, the third part of the field and plantation shall be given to

his mother, and his mother shall bring him up.

30. If an army-leader or a soldier neglect his field, his plantation, and

his house on account of the burden, and leave it waste, (and) another

after him has taken his field, his plantation, and his house, and has

carried on its administration for three years, if he return and wish to

cultivate his field, his plantation, and his house, it shall not be given

to him—he who took and has carried on its administration shall continue to

administer.

31. If for one year (only) he has let (them) lie waste, and has returned,

his field, his plantation, and his house they shall give to him, and he

shall carry on his administration himself.

32. If a merchant has redeemed an army-leader or a soldier who has been

kept prisoner upon a royal expedition, and has caused him to regain his

city—if in his house there be (the wherewithal) for his redemption, he

shall then redeem himself. If in his house there be not (the wherewithal)

for his redemption, in the house of his city’s god he shall be redeemed.

If in the house of his city’s god there be not (the wherewithal) for his

redemption, the palace shall redeem him. His field, his plantation, and

his house shall not be given for his redemption.

33. If a governor or a prefect have a substitute,(182) or for a royal

expedition accept a mercenary as substitute and incorporate (him), that

governor or prefect shall be killed.

34. If a governor or a prefect take the property of an army-officer, ruin

an army-officer, lend an army-officer for hire, grant an army-officer in a

lawsuit to a magnate, take the gift which the king has given to an

army-officer, that governor or prefect shall be killed.

35. If a man purchase from the hands of an army-officer the cattle and

sheep which the king has given to the army-officer, he shall forfeit his

money.

36. Field, plantation, and house of an army-officer, soldier, and

tax-payer he(183) shall not sell for silver.

37. If a man buy the field, plantation, or house of an army-officer,

soldier, or tax-payer, his contract shall be broken, and he shall forfeit

his money. The field, plantation, or house shall return to its owner.

38. Army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer shall not leave to his wife or his

daughter (anything) from the field, plantation, and house of his

administration, and shall not give them for his indebtedness.

39. He may leave to his wife and his daughter (any part) of the field,

plantation, or house which he has bought and owns, and may give it for his

indebtedness.

40. But to an agent or other official, he may give his field, his

plantation, or his house for silver, (and) the purchaser shall carry on

the administration of the field, plantation, and house which he has

bought.

41. If a man has enclosed the field, plantation, or house of an

army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer, and given substitutes, the

army-officer, soldier, or tax-payer may return to his field, plantation,

or house, and take the substitutes which have been given to him.

42. If a man has hired a field for cultivation, and has not caused wheat

to be in that field, they shall summon him for not having done work in the

field, and he shall give to the owner of the field wheat like his

neighbour.

43. If he has not planted the field, and has let it lie, he shall give to

the owner of the field wheat like his neighbour, and the field which he

has let lie he shall break up for cultivation, shall enclose (it) and

return (it) to the owner of the field.

44. If a man has hired an uncultivated field for cultivation(184) for

three years, and he has been idle and has not cultivated the field, in the

fourth year he shall break up the field for cultivation, shall hoe (it),

and shall enclose (it) and return (it) to the owner of the field, and for

every 10 _gan_ he shall measure (to him) 10 _gur_ of wheat.

45. If a man has given his field for rent to a planter, and has received

the rent of his field, and afterwards a storm(185) has inundated the

field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, the loss belongs to the

planter.

46. If he have not received the rent of his field, and has let the field

for a half or a third (of the produce), the planter and the owner of the

field shall share the wheat which has been produced in the field

proportionately.

47. If the planter, because his husbandry did not yield profit(186) in the

first year, direct the field to be cultivated (by another), the owner of

the field shall not object. The planter then shall cultivate his field,

and shall take the wheat at harvest-time, according to his contract.

48. If there be interest (upon a loan) against a man, and a storm(187)

inundate his field, or has (otherwise) destroyed the produce, or by want

of water there is no wheat in the field, that year he shall not return any

wheat to the creditor.(188) He shall damp his tablet (? to alter it), and

shall not pay interest(189) for that year.

49. If a man has borrowed money from an agent, and has given to the agent

a field laboured for wheat or sesame, (and) has said to him: “Plant the

field, and gather and take the wheat or the sesame which will be

produced;” if the planter has caused wheat or sesame to be in the field,

at harvest-time the owner of the field may take the wheat or sesame which

has been produced in the field, and shall give to the agent wheat for his

silver and his interest(190) which he received from the agent, and (for)

the cost of the cultivation.

50. If he has given (as security) a planted field, or a field planted with

sesame, the owner of the field shall take the wheat or sesame which is

produced in the field, and shall return the silver and its interest to the

agent.

51. If there be no silver (wherewith) to repay, he shall give to the agent

sesame at their market-price for his silver and his interest, which he

received from the agent, according to the tariff of the king.

52. If the planter has not caused wheat or sesame to be in the field, it

does not annul his contract.

53. If a man has neglected to stren[gth]en his [dyke], and has not

streng[thened his] dyke, [and] a breach has o[pened] in [his] dyke, and

water has inundated the enclosure, the man in whose dyke the breach has

been opened shall make good the wheat which it has destroyed.

54. If the wheat does not suffice to make good (the damage), they shall

sell that (man) and his goods for silver, and the people(191) of the

enclosure, whose wheat the water carried away, shall share together.

55. If a man has opened his irrigation-channel to water, (and) has been

negligent, and the water has flooded the field of his neighbour, he shall

measure (to him) wheat like(192) (that of) his neighbour.

56. If a man has opened the water, and the water flood the work of the

field of his neighbour, he shall measure (to him) 10 _gur_ of wheat for

each 10 _gan_.

57. If a shepherd has not agreed with the owner of a field for grass to

pasture his sheep, and without the owner of the field has pastured sheep

(in) the field, the owner shall reap _his_ fields; the shepherd who,

without the owner of the field, pastured sheep (in) the field, shall pay

to the owner of the field 20 _gur_ of wheat for every 10 _gan_ besides.

58. If, after the sheep have left the enclosure, (and) the whole flock has

passed through the gate, the shepherd place the sheep (again) in the

field, and cause the sheep to pasture (in) the field, the shepherd shall

keep the field (where) he has pastured them, and shall measure to the

owner of the field, at harvest-time, 60 _gur_ of wheat for every 10 _gan_.

59. If a man, without (the permission of) the owner of a plantation, has

cut down a tree in the plantation of a man, he shall pay half a mana of

silver.

60. If a man has given a field to a gardener to plant as a plantation,

(and) the gardener has planted the plantation, he shall tend the

plantation for four years. In the fifth year the owner of the plantation

and the gardener shall share equally; (thereafter) the owner of the

plantation shall apportion and take his share.

61. If a gardener has not completed the plantation of a field, and has

left an uncultivated place, they shall set for him the uncultivated place

in his share.

62. If he has not planted the field which has been given him for a

plantation, if (it be) grain, the gardener shall measure to the owner of

the field the produce of the field, for the years during which it has been

neglected, like his neighbour; and he shall do the work of the field, and

return (it) to the owner of the field.

63. If the field (was) waste land, he shall do the work of the field, and

return (it) to the owner of the field, and he shall measure for every year

10 _gur_ of wheat for each 10 _gan_.

64. If a man has given his plantation to a gardener to cultivate, the

gardener, as long as he holds the plantation, shall give two-thirds of the

produce of the plantation to the owner of the plantation, (and) shall take

a third himself.

65. If the gardener has not cultivated the plantation, and has diminished

the produce, the gardener [shall measure to the owner of the field]

produce (like) his neighbour.

(Five columns have here been erased, apparently by the Elamite king who

intended to inscribe his name upon the monument. Prof. Scheil estimates

that this contained about 35 sections of the laws, containing the

remaining sections referring to the cultivation of plantations or

orchards, the letting of houses, and the laws relating to commercial

transactions, of which a portion is preserved after the gap. As pointed

out by Prof. Scheil, the following sections, from fragments of tablets

found at Nineveh by Hormuzd Rassam and the late Geo. Smith, probably came

in here.)

[If a man has borrowed silver from an agent, and has given] to the agent

[a date-orchard, and] has said to him: “Take for thy money the dates, [as

much as] will be produced in [my] orchard, for thy money;” (if) that agent

be not in agreement, the owner of the orchard shall take the dates which

are produced in the orchard, and return to the agent the silver and its

interest, according to his tablet; and the owner of the orchard may ta[ke]

the surplus dates which have been produced in the orchard.

[If a man has hired a house, and] the man has paid to the owner of [the

house] the complete money for his rent for a year, [and] the owner of the

house, before the days are full, command the ten[ant] to go [forth],—the

owner of the house, [as] he sends the tenant [forth] from his house before

the time,(193) [shall return to the tenant a proportionate sum, for having

gone forth from his house], from the money which the tenant has pai[d to

him].

[If a man] owe (?) wheat (or) silver, and has not wheat or silver

[wherewith] to [pay], but possess (other) goods, whatever is in his hands

he shall gi[ve] to the agent, before witnesses, as profit, [and] the agent

shall not f[ind fault], and shall ac[cept it].

(Portions of other laws are also preserved, but they are too fragmentary

to enable the sense to be gathered.)

100. [If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner, and he has had

good fortune in the place to which he went], he shall write down the

profits of his silver, as much as he has received, and the day when they

make up their accounts he shall pay (it) to his agent.

101. If he found no profit where he went, he shall make up the silver

which he took, and the commissioner shall repay it to the agent.(194)

102. If an agent has advanced silver to a commissioner for profit, and he

found loss where he went, he shall return the capital of the silver to the

agent.

103. If, whilst going on his way, an enemy caused him to lose what he was

carrying, the commissioner shall call God to witness(195) and shall go

free.

104. If an agent has given to a commissioner grain, wool, oil, or any

other goods for trading, the commissioner shall write down the silver

(received), and shall return it to the agent. The commissioner shall take

a sealed document of the silver which he gives to the agent.(196)

105. If the commissioner has been negligent, and has not taken a sealed

document of the silver which he has given to the agent, the silver not

certified shall not be placed in the business.(197)

106. If a commissioner has taken silver from an agent, and dispute

(withhold it from) his agent, that agent shall summon the commissioner

before God and the witnesses concerning the money taken; the commissioner

shall repay to the agent the silver, as much as he has taken, threefold.

107. If an agent act unjustly to a commissioner, and the commissioner has

returned to the agent everything which the agent had given to him, (and)

the agent dispute with the commissioner (concerning) anything which the

commissioner has repaid to him, that commissioner shall summon the agent

before God and the witnesses, and the agent, for having disputed (with)

his commissioner, anything which he has received he shall repay to the

commissioner sixfold.

108. If a wine-woman has not accepted wheat as the price of drink, (but)

has accepted silver by the large stone, or has set the tariff of the drink

below the tariff of the wheat, they shall summon that wine-woman, and

shall throw her into the water.

109. If a wine-woman, (when) riotous fellows are assembled at her house,

does not seize those riotous fellows and take them to the palace, that

wine-woman shall be killed.

110. If a devotee who dwells not in a cloister open a wine-house, or enter

a wine-house for drink, that female they shall burn.

111. If a wine-woman has given 60 _qa_ of second (?) quality drink, for

thirst, she shall take 50 _qa_ of corn at harvest-time.

112. If a man is travelling,(198) and has given to (another) man silver,

gold, (precious) stones, and his other property(199) and has caused him to

take them for delivery, (and) that man has not delivered what he was to

transmit at the place to which he was to transmit (it), and has taken it

away, the owner of the consignment shall summon that man for anything

which he took and did not deliver, and that man shall give (back) to the

owner of the consignment fivefold anything which had been given to him.

113. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and

without the owner of the wheat has taken wheat from the barn or the

depository, they shall summon that man, for having taking wheat, without

the owner of the wheat, from the barn or depository, and he shall return

the wheat, as much as he took, and he shall forfeit whatever it may be, as

much as he lent.(200)

114. If a man have no (account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make

his distraint, for every distraint he shall pay one-third of a mana of

silver.

115. If a man have (an account of) wheat or silver against a man, and make

his distraint, and the person distrained(201) die, by his fate, in the

house of the distrainer, that lawsuit has no claim.

116. If the person distrained die in the house of the distrainer by blows

or by ill-treatment, the owner of the person distrained shall summon his

agent;(202) and if (the person distrained) was the son of the man, they

shall kill his (the distrainer’s) son; if he was the servant (slave) of

the man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver; and he shall forfeit

whatever it may be, as much as he lent.

117. If a man has contracted a debt, and has given his wife, his son, (or)

his daughter for the money, or has let (them) out for service, three years

they shall serve the house of their purchaser or master, in the fourth

year he shall grant their freedom.

118. If he let out a male or female slave for service, (and) the agent

pass (them) on (and) give them for silver, there is no claim.

119. If a man has contracted a debt, and has sold his female-slave who has

borne him children, the owner of the slave may (re)pay the silver which

the agent has paid, and redeem his slave.

120. If a man has delivered his grain for storage in the house of a man,

and a deficiency appears in the granary, or the master of the house has

opened the storehouse and taken the grain, or he has disputed as to the

total of the grain which was delivered at his house, the owner of the

grain shall claim his grain before God, and the master of the house shall

cause the grain which he has taken to be made up, and shall give (it) to

the owner of the grain.

121. If a man has delivered grain (for storage) at the house of a man, he

shall pay yearly 5 _qa_ of grain for every _gur_ (as) the price of the

storage.

122. If a man give silver, gold, or anything else, to a man on deposit, he

shall show the witnesses everything, whatever he gives; he shall make

contracts, and (then) give (it) on deposit.

123. If he has given it on deposit without witnesses and contracts, and

they dispute (this) to him where he gave it, that lawsuit has no claim.

124. If a man has given silver, gold, or anything else, to a man, before

witnesses, on deposit, and (the man) dispute with him, he shall summon

that man, and whatever he has disputed, he shall make up and give (back).

125. If a man has given his property on deposit, and where he gave (it),

his property disappeared, with the property of the owner of the house,

either through a breaking in or through a trespass, the master of the

house which was in fault shall compensate for his property which he gave

him on deposit and (which) was lost, and he shall make (it) up to the

owner of the property. The master of the house shall seek his lost

property, and take it from the thief.

126. If a man, his property not being lost, say that his property is lost,

he shall bring forward his deficiency. As his property has not been lost,

he shall state his deficiency before God, and whatever he has claimed they

shall cause him to make up, and he shall give (it) to (make up) his

deficiency.

127. If a man has caused the finger to be raised against a devotee or the

wife of a man, and has not justified it, they shall set that man before

the judges, and mark his forehead.

128. If a man has taken a wife, and has not made her contract,(203) that

woman is not a wife.

129. If the wife of a man is taken in adultery with another male, they

shall tie them together, and throw them into the water. If the owner of

the wife spare his wife, and the king spare his servant....

130. If a man force the wife of a man who has not yet known a male, and

(who) dwells in the house of her father, and has lain in her bosom, and

they have found him, that man shall be killed, the woman shall be allowed

to go.

131. If the wife of a man has been accused by her husband,(204) and he has

not found her on the couch with another male, she shall swear by God,(205)

and return to her house.

132. If, on account of another male, the finger has been pointed at the

wife of a man, and she has not been found with another male on the couch,

she shall plunge into the river for her husband(’s sake).

133. If a man has been made captive, and there is in his house the

wherewithal to eat, (and) his [wife] has [gone] forth [from] her [house],

[and afterwards?] has [en]tered into another house, [as] that woman has

not guarded her homestead, and has entered another house, they shall

summon that woman, and throw her into the water.

134. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in the house the

wherewithal to eat, his wife may enter another house; that woman is not in

fault.

135. If a man has been made captive, and there is not in his house the

wherewithal to eat,(206) (and) his wife has entered another house, and has

borne children, (and) afterwards her husband return, and reach his city,

that woman shall(207) return to her husband; the children shall go to

their father.

136. If a man has abandoned his city and fled, (and) afterwards(208) his

wife has entered another house, if that man return, and (wish to) take his

wife, as he hated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter shall(209)

not return to her husband.

137. If a man set his face to repudiate a concubine who has borne him

children, or a wife who has caused him to have children, he shall return

to that woman her (marriage) gift, and shall give to her the usufruct of

field, plantation, and goods, and she shall bring up her children. After

she has brought up her children, they shall give to her, from the property

which has been given to her children, (a share of) the produce like (that

of) one son, and she may marry the husband of her choice.(210)

138. If a man (wish to) repudiate his spouse, who has not borne him

children, he shall give to her silver, as much as was her dower, and he

shall restore to her the wedding-gift which she brought from the house of

her father, and shall repudiate her.

139. If there be no dower, he shall give her one mana of silver for the

repudiation.

140. If (he be) a poor man, he shall give her one-third of a mana of

silver.

141. If the wife of a man, who dwells in the house of the man, set her

face to go forth, commit foolishness (?), ruin her house, despise her

husband, they shall summon her, and if her husband say: “I have divorced

her,” he shall let her go her way. (As for) her repudiation(-gift),

nothing shall be given to her. If her husband say: “I have not repudiated

her,” her husband may marry(211) another woman; that woman shall dwell in

her husband’s house like a servant.

142. If a woman hate her husband, and say: “Thou shalt not possess me,”

her reason for that which she lacks shall be examined, and if she has been

continent, and have no fault, and her husband go out, and neglect her

greatly, that woman has no defect; she shall take her wedding-gift, and

shall go to the house of her father.

143. If she has not been continent, and has gone about, she has ruined her

house, (and) despised her husband; they shall throw that woman into the

water.

144. If a man has married a wife, and that wife has given a maid-servant

to her husband, and she has had children, (if) that man set his face to

take a concubine, they shall not allow that man—he shall not take a

concubine.

145. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have

children, and he set his face to take a concubine, that man may take a

concubine, (and) may introduce her into his house, (but) he shall not make

that concubine equal with (his) wife.

146. If a man has married a wife, and she has given a maid-servant to her

husband, and (the maid-servant) has borne children, (if) afterwards that

maid-servant make herself equal with her mistress, as she has borne

children, her mistress shall not sell her for silver; she shall place a

mark(212) upon her, and count her with the maid-servants.

147. If she has not borne children, her mistress may sell her for silver.

148. If a man has married a wife, and a malady has seized her, (and) he

has set his face to marry a second, he may marry. He shall not divorce the

wife whom the malady has seized; she may stay in the house he has made,

and he shall support her as long as she lives.

149. If that woman is not content to dwell in the house of her husband, he

shall deliver to her her marriage-gift, which she brought from the house

of her father, and she shall go her way.

150. If a man has presented to his wife a field, a plantation, a house,

and property, (and) has left her a sealed tablet, after her husband(’s

death) her sons shall make no claim against her. The mother may give her

property(213) to the son whom she loves,—to the brother she need not give.

151. If a woman who dwells in the house of a man contract with her

husband, and cause (him) to deliver a tablet, so that a creditor(214) of

her husband may not seize her, if that man have interest of money against

him before he marries that woman, his creditor shall not seize his wife,

and if that woman have interest of money against her before she enter the

house of the man, her creditor shall not seize her husband.

152. If interest accrue against them after that woman has entered the

house of the man, they shall both be responsible to the agent.

153. If the wife of a man cause her husband to be killed on account of

another male, they shall impale that woman.(215)

154. If a man has known his daughter, they shall expel that man from the

city.

155. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has known her,

(and if) he (himself) then afterwards has lain in her bosom, and they have

found him, they shall bind that man, and cast her into the water.(216)

156. If a man has chosen a bride for his son, and his son has not known

her, and he (himself) has lain in her bosom, he shall pay her half a mana

of silver, and shall restore to her whatever she brought from the house of

her father, and she shall marry the husband of her choice.

157. If a man, after his father, has lain in the bosom of his mother, they

shall burn them both.

158. If a man, after his father, be found in the bosom of her who brought

him up, (and) who has brought forth children, that man shall be turned out

of (his) father’s house.

159. If a man, who has brought to his father-in-law’s house furniture(217)

(and) has given a dower, pay attention to another woman, and say to his

father-in-law: “I will not marry thy daughter,” the father of the girl

shall take the property which has been brought to him.

160. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law,

(and) given a dower, and the father of the girl say: “I will not give thee

my daughter,” the property, as much as has been brought to him, he shall

cause to be equal,(218) and shall return.

161. If a man has brought furniture to the house of his father-in-law,

(and) given a dower, and his friend slander him, (and) his father-in-law

say to the husband of the wife:(219) “Thou shalt not marry my daughter,”

he shall cause to be equal the property, as much as has been brought to

him, and return (it), and his friend shall not marry his wife.

162. If a man has married a wife, (and) she has borne him children, and

that woman has gone to (her) fate, her father shall have no claim upon her

marriage-gift—her marriage-gift belongs to her sons.

163. If a man has married a wife, and she has not caused him to have

children, (and) that woman has gone to (her) fate, if his father-in-law

has returned to him the dower which that man took to the house of his

father-in-law, her husband shall have no claim upon the marriage-gift of

that woman—her marriage-gift belongs to the house of her father.

164. If his father-in-law has not returned to him the dower, he shall

deduct from her marriage-gift all her dower, and return (the balance of)

her marriage-gift to her father’s house.

165. If a man has presented to his son, who is foremost in his eyes, a

field, a plantation, and a house, (and) has written for him a tablet,

(and) afterwards the father has gone to (his) fate, when the brothers

share together, he shall take the gift which the father gave him, and they

shall share equally in the property of the house of the father besides.

166. If a man has taken wives for the sons which he has had, (and) has not

taken a wife for his youngest son, (and) afterwards the father has gone to

(his) fate, when the brothers share together, they shall set aside the

money of a dower for their youngest brother, who has not taken a wife,

from the property of the father’s house, besides his (lawful) share, and

shall cause him to take a wife.

167. If a man has married a wife, and she has borne him sons, (and) that

woman has gone to (her) fate, (and) after her he has married another

woman, and she has brought forth sons, (and) afterwards the father has

gone to (his) fate, the sons shall not share according to the mothers.

They shall take the marriage-gifts of their mothers, and the property of

the father’s house they shall share equally.

168. If a man set his face to discard his son, he shall say to the judge:

“I discard my son;” the judge shall inquire into his reasons. If the son

has not committed a grave fault which cuts him off from sonhood, the

father shall not cut off his son from sonhood.(220)

169. If he has committed against his father a grave fault which cuts him

off from sonhood, the first time (the father) shall refrain. If he has

committed a grave fault a second time, the father shall cut his son off

from the sonhood.

170. If a man’s wife has borne him children, and his maid-servant has

borne him children, (and) the father in his lifetime say to the children

whom the maid-servant has borne to him: “My children,” he has reckoned

them with the children of the wife. After the father has gone to (his)

fate, the children of the wife and the children of the maid-servant shall

share in the property of the father’s house equally; the son (who is) the

child of the wife shall choose and take at the sharing.

171. And if the father, during his lifetime, has not said to the children

whom the maid-servant has borne to him: “My children,” after the father

has gone to (his) fate, the children of the maid-servant shall not share

in the property of the father’s house with the children of the wife. (If)

he has set free the maid-servant and her children, the children of the

wife shall not claim the children of the maid-servant for service. The

wife shall take her marriage-gift and the dowry which her husband gave her

(and) recorded upon a tablet, and she shall sit in the seat of her

husband; as long as she lives, she shall enjoy (them)—she shall not sell

them for money—they belong to her children after her.

172. If her husband has not given her a dowry, they shall make up to her

her marriage-gift, and she shall take, from the property of her husband’s

house, a share like (that of) one son. If her sons afflict her, to send

her forth from the house, the judge shall inquire into her reasons, and

(if) he set the fault upon the children, that woman shall not go forth

from her husband’s house. If that woman set her face to go forth, she

shall leave to her children the dowry which her husband gave her. She

shall take the marriage-gift of her father’s house, and the husband of her

choice shall marry her.

173. If that woman, in the place where she has entered, has borne to her

second husband children, after that woman has died, the former and latter

children shall share her marriage-gift.

174. If she has not borne children to her second husband, then the

children of her (first) spouse shall take her marriage-gift.

175. If a slave of the palace or the slave of a poor man has married the

daughter of a (free) man, and has borne children, the owner of the slave

shall not make a claim upon the children of a (free) man’s daughter for

servitude.

176a. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of a poor man has married a

(free) man’s daughter, and when he has married her, she has entered the

house of the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man with a

wedding-gift from the house of her father, and after they have been

established, they have built a house and have property, (if) afterwards

the slave of the palace or the slave of the poor man has gone to (his)

fate, the daughter of the (free) man shall take her marriage-gift, and

they shall divide the property, which her husband and she had after they

were established, into two parts, and the owner of the slave shall take

half, (and) the daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her

children.

176b. If the daughter of the (free) man had no marriage-gift, the property

which her husband and she possessed after they were established they shall

divide into two parts, and the master of the slave shall take half, the

daughter of the (free) man shall take half for her children.

177. If a widow whose children are young set her face to enter another

house,(221) she shall not enter without the judge. When she enters another

house, the judge shall inquire concerning what remains of her first

husband’s house, and they shall entrust the first husband’s house to the

second husband and to that woman, and shall cause them to deliver a

tablet. They shall keep that house and bring up the young (children). They

shall not sell (any) utensil for silver. The buyer who buys a utensil of

the children of a widow shall forfeit his money; the property shall return

to its owner.

178. If a devotee, or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a

gift, (and) has written for her a tablet, (and) on the tablet which he has

written for her has not written for her (concerning) the giving of what

she should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has not let her follow the

desire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, her brothers

shall take her field and her plantation, and according to the amount of

her share shall give to her food, oil, and clothing, and shall satisfy her

heart. If her brothers have not given her food, oil, and clothing

according to the amount of her share, and have not satisfied her heart,

she may give her field and plantation to the farmer who may seem good to

her, and her farmer shall support her. Field, plantation, and property,

which her father gave her, she shall enjoy as long as she lives—she shall

not give (them) for silver, nor shall she be answerable (to) another

(therewith)—her share as daughter belongs to her brothers.(222)

179. If a devotee or a public woman, to whom her father has presented a

gift, (and) has written for her a sealed tablet, (and) on the tablet which

he has written for her has written for her (concerning) the giving of what

she should leave to whomsoever she pleased, and has let her follow the

desire of her heart, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall

give what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases—her brothers have no claim

upon her.

180. If a father has not presented a gift(223) to his daughter, who is a

recluse or a public woman, after the father has gone to (his) fate, she

shall take a share in the property of the father’s house like a son, and

enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she leaves belongs to her brothers.

181. If a father has brought to a god a hierodule or a virgin, and has not

presented to her a gift,(224) after the father has gone to (his) fate, she

shall share in the property of the father’s house a third (as) her

inheritance, and she shall enjoy (it) as long as she lives. What she

leaves belongs to her brothers.

182. If a father has not presented a gift to his daughter, priestess of

Merodach of Babylon, (and) has not written for her a sealed tablet, after

the father has gone to (his) fate, she shall share, with her brothers, in

the property of the father’s house a third part (as) her inheritance, and

she shall not carry on its administration. The priestess of Merodach may

give what she leaves to whomsoever she pleases.

183. If a father has presented a marriage-gift to his concubine-daughter,

given her to a husband, (and) written for her a sealed tablet, after the

father has gone to (his) fate, she shall not share in the property of the

father’s house.(225)

184. If a man has not presented to his concubine-daughter a marriage-gift,

(and) has not given her to a husband, after the father has gone to (his)

fate, her brothers shall give her a wedding-gift according to the amount

(of the property) of the father’s house, and shall give her to a husband.

185. If a man has adopted(226) a child by its name,(227) and has brought

it up, that foster-child cannot be claimed back.

186. If a man has adopted a child, and when he had adopted him, he

rebelled against his (foster-)father and his (foster-)mother, that

foster-child shall return to his father’s house.

187. The son of a favourite attending the palace, and the son of a public

woman, cannot be claimed back.(228)

188. If an artizan(229) has taken a child to bring up,(230) and has taught

him his handicraft, he cannot be claimed back.

189. If he has not taught him his handicraft, that foster-child(231) may

return to his father’s house.

190. If a man has not reckoned with his sons a young child which he has

adopted and brought up, that foster-child may return to the house of his

father.

191. If a man who has adopted a child and brought him up, has built a

dwelling, (and) after he has children (of his own) set his face to cut off

the foster-child, that child shall not go his way. His foster-father shall

give him one-third of his property as his inheritance and (then) he shall

go. He shall give him nothing of the field, plantation, and house.

192. If the son of a favourite or the son of a public woman say to his

foster-father and his foster-mother, “Thou art not my father, thou art not

my mother,” they shall cut out his tongue.(232)

193. If the child of a favourite or the child of a public woman come to

know his father’s house, and despise his foster-father and his

foster-mother, and go to his father’s house, they shall tear out his

eyes.(233)

194. If a man has given his child to a nurse, and that child has died in

the hands of the nurse, and the nurse, without [his] father and his

mother, rear another child, they shall summon her, and as she has rear[ed]

another child without [his] father and mother, they shall cut off her

breasts.

195. If a son smite his father, they shall cut off his hands.

196. If a man has destroyed the eye of the son of a man, they shall

destroy his eye.

197. If he has broken the limb of a man, they shall break his limb.

198. If he has destroyed the eye of a poor man, or broken the limb of a

poor man, he shall pay one mana of silver.

199. If he has destroyed the eye of a man’s slave, or broken the limb of a

man’s slave, he shall pay half his value.(234)

200. If a man has knocked out the teeth of a man of his rank, they shall

knock out his teeth.

201. If he has knocked out the teeth of a poor man, he shall pay one-third

of a mana of silver.

202. If a man has struck the head(235) of a man who is greater than he, he

shall be struck in the assembly sixty times with an ox-hide whip.

203. If the son of a man(236) has struck the head of the son of a man who

is like himself, he shall pay one mana of silver.

204. If a poor man has struck the head of a poor man, he shall pay ten

shekels of silver.

205. If the slave of a man has struck the head of the son of a man, they

shall cut off his ear.

206. If a man has struck a man in a quarrel, and do him hurt, that man

shall swear: “I did not strike him knowingly,” and he shall be responsible

for the physician.

207. If he die of his blows, he shall swear (the same). If (it was) the

son of a man, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.

208. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall pay one-third of a mana of

silver.

209. If a man has struck the daughter of a man, and caused what was within

her to fall from her, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for what was

within her.

210. If that woman die, they shall kill his daughter.

211. If by blows he has made what was within the daughter of a poor man to

fall from her, he shall pay five shekels of silver.

212. If that woman die, he shall pay one-half a mana of silver.

213. If he has struck a man’s slave-woman and made that which was within

her fall from her, he shall pay two shekels of silver.

214. If that slave-woman die, he shall pay one-third of a mana of silver.

215. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze

lancet, and cured the man, or opened the cataract of a man with a bronze

lancet, and cured the eye of the man, he shall receive ten shekels of

silver.

216. If it was the son of a poor man, he shall receive five shekels of

silver.

217. If it was a man’s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the

physician two shekels of silver.

218. If a physician has treated a man for a grave injury with a bronze

lancet, and caused the man to die, or opened the cataract of a man with a

bronze lancet, and destroyed the eye of a man, they shall cut off his

hands.

219. If a physician has treated a poor man’s slave for a grave injury with

a bronze lancet, and has caused (him) to die, he shall make good slave for

slave.(237)

220. If he has opened his cataract with a bronze lancet, and destroyed his

eye, he shall pay half his value in silver.(238)

221. If a physician has made sound the broken limb of a man, or saved a

diseased part, the patient(239) shall pay to the physician five shekels of

silver.

222. If it be the son of a poor man, he shall pay three shekels of silver.

223. If it was a man’s slave, the owner of the slave shall pay to the

physician two shekels of silver.

224. If an ox-doctor or an ass-doctor has treated an ox or an ass for a

grave injury, and has saved (it), the owner of the ox or the ass shall pay

to the physician one-sixth (of a shekel) of silver (as) his hire.

225. If he has treated the ox or the ass for a grave injury, and caused

(it) to die, he shall give to the owner of the ox or the ass a quarter of

its price.

226. If a barber, without the (knowledge of the) owner of a slave, has

marked an inalienable slave with a mark, they shall cut off the hands of

that barber.(240)

227. If a man has deceived a barber, and he has marked an inalienable

slave with a mark, they shall kill that man, and bury him in his house;

the barber shall swear: “I did not mark knowingly,” and shall go free.

228. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has finished it (well),

for a house of one _šar_, he shall give him two shekels of silver as his

pay.

229. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not done his work

strongly, and the house he has made has fallen down, and killed the owner

of the house, that builder shall be killed.

230. If it cause the son of the owner of the house to die, they shall kill

the son of that builder.

231. If it cause the slave of the owner of the house to die, he shall give

to the owner of the house a slave like (his) slave.

232. If it has destroyed the property, whatever it has destroyed, he shall

make good. And as he did not make strong the house he constructed, and it

fell, from his own property he shall rebuild the house which fell.

233. If a builder has made a house for a man, and has not caused his work

to be firm, and the wall has fallen over, that builder shall strengthen

that wall with his own money.

234. If a boatman has calked a vessel of 60 _gur_ (burthen) for a man, he

shall give him two shekels of silver as his pay.

235. If a boatman has calked a vessel for a man, and has not perfected his

work, and in that (same) year that vessel sail, (if) it have a defect, the

boatman shall alter that vessel, and repair (it) with his own capital, and

give the repaired vessel to the owner of the vessel.(241)

236. If a man has given his vessel to a boatman for hire, and the boatman

has been neglectful, and sunk or lost the vessel, the boatman shall

replace the vessel to the owner of the vessel.

237. If a man has hired a boatman and a vessel, and has freighted it with

wheat, wool, oil, dates, and any other kind of freight; (if) that boatman

be neglectful, and sink the vessel, and lose what is within (it), the

boatman shall replace the vessel which he has sunk, and whatever he lost,

which was within it.

238. If a boatman has sunk a man’s vessel, and refloated it, he shall pay

half its value(242) in silver.

239. If a man [has hired] a boatman, he shall give him 6 _gur_ of wheat

yearly.

240. If a down-stream vessel collide with an up-stream vessel, and sink

(it), the owner of the sunken vessel shall declare before God whatever has

been lost in his vessel, and (he) of the down-stream vessel which sank the

up-stream vessel shall replace for him his vessel and whatever was lost.

241. If a man has driven the ox (of another) to work, he shall pay

one-third of a mana of silver.

242 and 243. If a man has hired for a year, (as) hire of a draught-ox he

shall pay to its owner 4 _gur_ of wheat. (As) hire of a carrier(?)-ox, 3

_gur_ of wheat.

244. If a man has hired an ox (or) an ass, and a lion kill it in the

field, (the loss) is its owner’s.

245. If a man has hired an ox, and cause it to die by negligence or by

blows, to the ox’s owner he shall make up ox for ox.(243)

246. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its foot or cut its

nape,(244) to the ox’s owner he shall make up ox for ox.

247. If a man has hired an ox, and has poked out its eye, he shall pay to

the ox’s owner half its value in silver.

248. If a man has hired an ox, and has broken its horn, cut off its tail,

or pierced(245) its nostril, he shall pay a quarter of its value in

silver.

249. If a man has hired an ox, and God has stricken it and it has died,

the man who hired the ox shall swear by God,(246) and shall go free.

250. If a mad bull, in its onset, has gored a man, and caused (him) to

die, that case has no claim.(247)

251. If a man’s ox—goring for goring—has made known to him its vice,(248)

and he has not sawn off its horns, (if) he has not shut up his ox, and

that ox has gored the son of a man, and caused him to die, he shall pay

half a mana of silver.

252. [If] it be a man’s servant, he shall give one-third of a mana of

silver.

253. If a man has hired a man to stay upon his field, and [ha]nded to him

the produce (?), confided to him the oxen, [and] contracted with him [to]

cultivate the field, if that man has stolen the wheat or the vegetables,

and it is found in his hands, they shall cut off his hands.

254. If he has taken away the produce and deprived(249) the oxen, he shall

replace the amount of the wheat which he has wasted (?).

255. If he has let out(250) the oxen of a man for hire, or stolen the

wheat, and not made (it) to grow in the field, they shall summon that man,

and for every 10 _bur-gan_ he shall measure 60 _gur_ of wheat.

256. If his borough cannot respond for him, they shall leave him in that

field with the oxen.

257. If a man has hired a field-labourer, he shall give him 8 _gur_ of

wheat yearly.

258. If a man has hired an ox-herd (?), he shall give him 6 _gur_ of wheat

yearly.

259. If a man has stolen a watering-machine from the enclosure, he shall

give to the owner of the watering-machine five shekels of silver.

260. If he has stolen a shadoof or a plough, he shall give three shekels

of silver.

261. If a man has hired a herdsman to pasture oxen and sheep, he shall

give him 8 _gur_ of wheat yearly.

262. If a man an ox or sheep for....

263. ... If he has lost [an ox] or a sheep which has been given to [him],

he shall restore to [their] owner, ox for [ox], sheep for [sheep].

264. If a [herdsman], to whom oxen or sheep have been given to pasture,

has received his wages, everything (?) as agreed (?), and is

satisfied,(251) has reduced the oxen, (or) reduced the sheep, (or)

lessened (their) young, he shall give (back) young and increase according

to his contracts.

265. If a herdsman, to whom oxen and sheep have been given to pasture, has

acted wrongly, and changed the natural increase,(252) and has given (it)

for silver, they shall summon him, and ten times what he has stolen, oxen

and sheep, he shall make good to their owner.

266. If in the fold an act of God has taken place, or a lion has killed,

the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner of the

fold shall meet the destruction of the fold.

267. If the herdsman has been in fault, and has caused damage in the fold,

the herdsman shall make up the loss caused by(253) the damage which he has

brought about in the fold, (both) oxen and sheep, and shall give (them) to

their owner.

268. If a man has hired an ox for treading out (the corn), 20 _qa_ of

wheat is his hire.

269. If he has hired an ass for treading out (the corn), 10 _qa_ of wheat

is his hire.

270. If he has hired a young animal for treading out (the corn), 1 _qa_ of

wheat is his hire.

271. If a man has hired oxen, a cart, and its driver, he shall give 180

_qa_ of wheat daily.

272. If a man has hired the cart by itself, he shall give 40 _qa_ of wheat

daily.

273. If a man has hired a workman, from the beginning of the year to the

fifth month he shall give six grains(254) of silver daily; from the sixth

month to the end of the year, he shall give five grains of silver daily.

274. If a man hire an artizan, (as) wages of a ... five [grains] of

silver; (as) wages of a brickmaker (?)(255) five grains of silver; (as)

wages of a linen-weaver(256) five grains of silver; (as) wages of a

stone-worker(?)(257) ... grains of silver; (as) wages of a milkman (?) ...

[grains] of silver; (as) [wages] of a ... ... [grains] of silver; (as)

[wages] of a carpenter four grains of silver; (as) wages of a ... four

grains of silver; (as) [wages] of a house-superintendent (?) ... grains of

silver; (as) [wages] of a builder (?), ... grains of silver. [dai]ly [he

shall g]ive.

275. [If] a man has hired a small boat (?), three grains of silver is its

hire daily.

276. If he has hired a down-stream (vessel), he shall give two grains and

a half of silver (as) its hire daily.

277. If a man has hired a vessel of 60 _gur_, he shall give one-sixth (of

a shekel) of silver daily (as) its hire.

278. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and before he has

fulfilled his month an infirmity has fallen upon him, he shall return him

to his seller, and the buyer shall receive back the silver he has paid.

279. If a man has bought a male or female slave, and he is liable to be

reclaimed,(258) his seller shall respond to the claim.(259)

280. If a man, in a foreign country, has bought a male (or) female slave

of a man, (and) when they have arrived in the midst of the land, a

(former) owner of the male or female slave recognize his male or female

slave, if their male and female slave are children of the land, he shall

set them free without payment.(260)

281. If they are children of another land, the buyer shall declare before

God the money(261) he has paid, and the (former) owner of the male or

female slave shall give to the agent the money he has paid, and shall

recover his male or female slave.

282. If a slave has said to his master: “Thou art not my master,” he shall

summon him as his slave, and his master shall cut off his ear.

Decrees of equity, which Ḫammurabi, the able king, has established, and

has procured (for) the country lasting security and a happy rule.

Ḫammurabi, the accomplished king, am I. For the head-dark (ones),(262)

whom Bel assigned, (and whose) shepherding Merodach has given, I have not

been neglectful, I have not relaxed—peaceful localities have I found for

them,(263) I have opened the narrow defiles, light have I caused to go

forth to them. With the powerful weapon which Zagaga and Ištar have

conferred upon me, with the acuteness which Aê has bestowed, with the

might which Merodach has bestowed, I have rooted out the enemy above and

below.(264) I have dominated the depths,(265) I have made happy the flesh

of the land, the people of the dwellings (therein) have I caused to lie

down in security—fear caused I not to possess them. The great gods have

elected(266) me, and I am the shepherd giving peace, whose sceptre is

just, setting up my good shadow in my city. I have pressed the people of

the land of Šumer and Akkad in my bosom; by my protective spirit

fraternally (?) have I guided them in peace; in my wisdom have I protected

them. For the strong not to oppress the weak, to direct the fatherless

(and) the widow, I have raised its(267) head in Babylon, the city of God

and Bel. In Ê-sagila, the house whose foundations are firm like heaven and

earth, I have written on my monument my most precious words to judge the

justice of the land, to decide the decisions of the land, to direct the

ignorant; and I have placed (them) before my image as king of

righteousness.

The king who is great among the city-king(s) am I; my words are renowned,

my power has no equal; by the command of Šamaš, the great judge of heaven

and earth, may righteousness have power in the land;(268) by the word of

Merodach, my lord, may my bas-reliefs not have a destroyer; in Ê-sagila,

which I love, may my name be commemorated in happiness for ever. The

ignorant man, who has a complaint,(269) let him come before my image (as)

king of righteousness, and let him read my inscribed monument and let him

hear my precious words, and my monument explain to him the matter. Let him

see his judgment, let his heart expand, (saying): “Ḫammurabi is a lord who

is like a father, a parent to the people; he has caused the word of

Merodach, his lord, to be reverenced, and has gained the victory for

Merodach above and below. He has rejoiced the heart of Merodach, his lord,

and fixed for the people happiness(270) for ever, and (well) has he

governed the land.” Let him pronounce (it) aloud, and with his heart

perfect, let him pray before Merodach, my lord, (and) Zērpanitum, my lady.

May the winged bull, (and) the protecting spirit, the gods of the entrance

of Ê-sagila, (and) the wall of Ê-sagila, daily further (his) desires(271)

in the presence of Merodach, my lord, and Zērpanitum, my lady.

For the future, the course(272) of days for all time: May the king who is

in the land protect the words of righteousness which I have written on my

monument. Let him not change the law of the land which I have adjudged,

the decisions of the country which I have decided; let him not cause my

bas-relief to be destroyed. If that man have intelligence, and wish to

govern his country well, let him pay attention to the words which I have

written on my monument, and may this monument show him the path, the

direction, the law of the land which I have pronounced, the decisions of

the land which I have decided. And let him rule his people,(273) let him

pronounce justice for them, let him decide their decision. Let him remove

the evil and the wicked from his land, let him rejoice the flesh of his

people.

Ḫammurabi, the king of righteousness, to whom Šamaš has given (these)

enactments,(274) am I. My words are noble, my works have no equal—they

have brought forth the proud (?) to humility (?) the humble (?) to wisdom

(?) (and) to renown. If that man(275) is attentive to my words, which I

have written on my monument, and set not aside my law, change not my word,

alter not my bas-relief—that man like me, the king of righteousness, may

the god Šamaš make his sceptre to endure, may he guide his people in

righteousness. If that man regard not my words, which I have written on my

monument, and despise my curse, and fear not the curse of God, and do away

the law which I have ordained—(if) he change my word, alter my bas-relief,

destroy my written name, and write his (own) name, (or) on account of

these curses cause another to do so,(276) that man, whether king, or lord,

or viceroy, or personage who has been elected,(277) may the great God, the

father of the gods, proclaimer of my reign, take back from him the glory

of my kingdom, break his sceptre, curse his destiny. May Bel, the lord who

determines the destinies, whose command is unchangeable, he who has

magnified my kingdom, rouse against him revolts which his hand cannot

suppress, causing (?) his destruction upon his seat.(278) A reign of

sighing, days (but) few, years of want, darkness without light, death the

vision of (his) eyes, may they set for him as (his) destiny. May he decree

with his grave lips the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his

people, the taking away of his royalty, the annihilation of his name and

his record in the land. May Beltis, the great mother whose command is

supreme(279) in E-kura, the lady who makes my thoughts propitious, instead

of judgment and decision, make his word evil before Bel, may she

accomplish the ruin of his country, the loss of his people, the pouring

out of his life like water by the command of Bel the king. May Aê, the

great prince, whose decisions have the precedence,(280) the sage of the

gods, he who knows everything, who lengthens the days of my life, take

back from him understanding(281) and wisdom, bring him back into

forgetfulness.(282) May he dam up his rivers at (their) sources, (and)

cause grain, the life of the people, not to exist in his land. May Šamaš,

the great judge of heaven and earth, he who rules living things, the lord

my trust, destroy his dominion; may he not pronounce his judgment, may he

confuse his path, may he annihilate the course of his army. May he place

for him, in his oracles,(283) an evil design to snatch away the foundation

of his dominion and to destroy his country. May Šamaš’s word of misfortune

speedily attack him; may he snatch him from the living on high, beneath in

the earth may he deprive his spirit(284) of water. May Sin, lord of the

heavens, the god my creator, whose brightness(285) shines resplendent

among the gods, withdraw from him crown and throne of dominion. May he fix

upon him a grave misdeed, his great fault, which will not disappear from

his body, and may he cause the days, the months, the years of his reign to

end in sighing and tears. May he increase for him the burthen of his

dominion, may he fix for him as (his) fate a life which is comparable(286)

with death. May Hadad, lord of fertility, dominator of heaven and earth,

my helper, withhold from him the rains in the heavens, the flood in the

springs. May he destroy his country with want and famine, may he angrily

rage over his city, and turn his country to mounds of the flood.(287) May

Zagaga, the great warrior, the eldest son of (the temple) Ê-kura, he who

goes at my right hand, break his weapons on the battle-field. May he turn

for him day into night, and may he set his enemy over him. May Ištar, lady

of war and battle, who lets loose my weapons, my propitious genius, lover

of my reign, in her angry heart, in her great wrath, curse his dominion,

his favours into evils may she turn, may she turn.(288) In the place of

war and battles may she break his weapons, may she make for him confusion

and revolt, may she cast down his warriors, may she cause the earth to

drink their blood, may she cast down in the plain a heap of corpses of his

warriors, may she not cause his soldiers to have [burial?]. As for him,

may she deliver him into the hand of his enemy, and bring him as a captive

to the land which is hostile to him. May Nergal, the strong one among the

gods, unrivalled battle,(289) he who causes me to attain my victory, in

his great might burn(290) his people like a tiny bundle of reeds. With his

strong weapon may he subjugate him, and may he crush his members like an

image of clay. May Nintu, the supreme lady of the lands, the mother my

creator, withhold from him his son, and cause him to have no name, in the

midst of his people may she not produce a human seed. May Nin-Karrak,

daughter of Anu, she who announces my happiness, let forth from Ê-kura

upon his members a grave sickness, an evil pestilence, a grievous injury,

which they cannot cure, whose nature the physician does not know, which he

cannot ease with a bandage, (and which), like the bite of death, cannot be

removed. Until she take possession of his life, may he groan for his

manliness.(291)

May the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunna(292) in their assembly,

the divine bull of the house,(293) the bricks of Ê-babbara,(294) curse

that (man), his reign, his country, his army, his people, and his nation,

with a deadly curse—with powerful curses may Bel, by his word which cannot

be changed, curse him, and speedily may they overtake him.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

These laws, as being the oldest known, have attracted considerable

attention, and much has been said concerning their connection with the

Mosaic Code. Whatever connection there may be between them, however, it

must be kept well in mind, that they have been formulated and compiled

from totally different standpoints. Notwithstanding the references in the

Code of Ḫammurabi to religious things, there is no doubt that the laws

given therein are purely civil, and compiled either by the king as

temporal ruler of the land, or by his advisers, or by the judges who

“decided the decisions of the land.” Charitable enactments were therefore

as far from the intention of the compilers of the Babylonian code as such

things are from the intention of the legislation of this or any other

modern civilized community or nationality. The Law of Moses, on the other

hand, has long been recognized as a Priestly Code, into which all kinds of

provisions for the poor, the fatherless, the necessitous, were likely to

enter, and have, in fact, entered. From this point of view, Moses’ code is

immeasurably superior to that of the Babylonian law-giver, and can hardly,

on that account, be compared with it.

From existing duplicates of this inscription, we know that it bore a title

which, in accordance with the usual custom in ancient times, was taken

from the first few words of the inscription, in this case _Ninu îlu

ṣîrum_, “When the supreme God.” In the Ninevite duplicate in the British

Museum, however, a kind of title in the modern sense of the word is given,

namely, _Dinani Ḫammurabi_, “The Laws of Ḫammurabi,” the first word being

from the common Semitic root which appears, in Semitic Babylonian, under

the form of _dânu_, “to judge.” As far as our information goes, it would

seem that, whilst the Hebrew _tôrah_ was both judicial, ceremonial, and

moral, the Babylonian _dînu_ was judicial only. Ceremonial enactments are

entirely foreign to it, and morality, in the modern sense of the word,

though represented, does not hold a very high place, though it must not be

forgotten that five columns of the text are wanting.

That there should be, therefore, but few parallels between the Codes of

Moses and of Ḫammurabi was to be expected, though naturally likenesses and

parallelisms are to be found, the Hebrews being practically of the same

stock as the Babylonians, and also, as has been shown, under the influence

of the same civilization. It will be noticed, in reading through the code,

that not only are there no laws against sorcery, worshipping other than

the national god or gods, and prostitution, but there are actually

enactments referring to the first and the last, showing that they were

recognized. Moral, religious, ceremonial, and philanthropic enactments

are, in fact, entirely absent.

3-4. With the enactments concerning false witness, cp. Ex. xx. 16; Deut.

v. 20, etc. More especially, however, are the directions in Deut. xix. 16

ff. noteworthy. Here the direction is, to do to the false witness “as he

had thought to do to his brother.” In this case, too, the logical penalty

would be death, in a matter involving the life of a man.

7 (liability to be regarded as a thief on account of the purchase or

receiving of things without witnesses or a contract) is to a certain

extent paralleled by Lev. vi. 2 ff., where, however, the penalty for

wrongful possession is not death, but the restoration of the object

detained, with a fifth part of the value added thereto.

8 (theft of live-stock) is illustrated by Ex. xxii. 1, where it is ordered

that the thief restore five oxen for a stolen ox, and four sheep for a

stolen sheep. All laws dealing with theft seem to have been more severe

among the Babylonians than among the Hebrews, and inability to make the

object good, with the penalties attached thereto, was visited with death

(6-11, 14, 15, etc.).

14. This enactment is exactly parallel with Ex. xxi. 16: “He that stealeth

a man ... shall surely be put to death.”

21 (housebreaking). Ex. xxii. 2-4, justifies the killing of a burglar

caught in the act before sunrise, but not otherwise.

57. In the case of unlawful pasturing, it is probable that Ex. xxii. 5 may

furnish the key to the obscurities of this Babylonian enactment. According

to the Mosaic law, the owner of the cattle had to make the damage good

with the best of his field or vineyard. To ensure getting the best, and

his due share, the most satisfactory way would be to reap the offender’s

field, if he had one.

110. The opening (seemingly in the English sense) of a wine-house by a

temple-devotee, or her merely entering such a place, was in all

probability equivalent to prostituting herself, and if so, this law may be

compared with Lev. xxi. 9, in which the daughter of a priest, if she

profaned herself (and her father) by playing the whore, was to be put to

death by burning.

117. As is shown by the preceding enactments, the person of a man might be

seized for debt, but this shows that he might allow his wife, his son, or

his daughter to be taken to work it off, and in that case they were to be

set free in the fourth year. In Hebrew law (Ex. xxi. 2) an ordinary

purchased slave was free after six years’ service, but if a man sold his

daughter (v. 7), she did not “go out as the men-servants do.”(295)

125. The theft of things on deposit entailed only restitution if the

person with whom they were deposited were not in fault. In Ex. xxii. 7-9

the person condemned had to pay or restore double the value of the things

stolen.

129. In this law the conditional clause at the end is incomplete, but it

may be supposed that liberty was accorded therein to the king and to the

injured husband to exercise mercy, and commute the death-penalty in any

way they thought fit, attaching thereto any other penalty which might seem

good to them. According to Lev. xx. 10, the adulterer and the adulteress

were to be put to death, but in what manner is not stated. To all

appearance no mercy was given.

130. As this is a case of a married woman living in her father’s house,

Ex. xxii. 16 is not an exact parallel. The woman being unbetrothed, the

man who had violated her had to endow and marry her.

155. Incest of the nature referred to here is practically a complete

parallel with Lev. xx. 12, where, however, the nature of the death-penalty

is not stated. If the correction of the code of Ḫammurabi suggested in the

footnote (“they shall bind that man, and cast _him_ into the water”) be

the true one, the man would seem to have been regarded as the chief

sinner, and the woman was probably left to be dealt with by the son’s

family. The mere binding of the man, as in the text, would be no adequate

punishment, and the correction: “They shall bind _them_, and cast _them_

into the water,” pre-supposes a very serious mistake on the part of the

scribe.

157. This is a parallel with Lev. xviii. 8, and xx. 11, and the penalty is

death in both codes. The word “mother” in the Babylonian Code probably

includes “step-mother” as well.

195. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 15, where, however, the smiting of the

mother is included, and the more severe penalty of death is prescribed,

instead of merely cutting off the offending members as a punishment.

196, 197, 200, 210. These illustrate the dictum: “An eye for an eye, and a

tooth for tooth” (Ex. xxi. 24, 25; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21; Matt. v.

38). They were naturally the common punishments of the period when the

penalty of imprisonment could not be imposed.

199. The destruction of the eye of a man’s slave, or the fracture of his

limb, was apparently held to entail the diminution of his value by

one-half, which the person who inflicted the injury had to pay. Nothing is

said, however, concerning injury to a slave by his master, and this law,

therefore, has no parallel in the Mosaic ordinance given in Ex. xxi. 26,

27, where the master is spoken of as the possible aggressor, and had to

set his slave free on account of the injury he had received.(296)

206. The law regarding injuries inflicted upon a man in a quarrel is

parallel with Ex. xxi. 18, 19, except that the latter decrees that the

person inflicting the injury, in addition to causing the injured man to be

completely healed, has also to pay for his loss of time. On the other

hand, it is noteworthy that, in the Code of Ḫammurabi, he who committed

the injury had to swear that he did not do it knowingly—that is, with the

intention of injuring the man, otherwise he probably came under the law of

retaliation, Nos. 196, 197, and 200.

209. This is parallel with Ex. xxi. 22, but whereas the penalty for the

injury to the woman was fixed at ten shekels of silver, the law of Moses

allowed the husband to estimate the compensation, which was certified and

probably revised by the judges.

210. It was not only “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” but

also “a daughter for a daughter,” even when a mortal injury may not have

been intended. This is practically the same as Ex. xxi. 23: “And if any

mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”

241. As this law stands, it refers to the unlawful working of another

man’s ox, and not to an ox taken in pledge, for the working of which there

could be no remedy, any more than there was for taking a man’s wife,

child, or slave, in pledge to work out a debt.

244 (loss of an animal through attack by a wild beast). Compare Ex. xxii.

13: “If it (an animal delivered into the care of another) be torn in

pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that

which was torn.” Apparently there was no obligation to place the animal in

a safe place. Cf. Gen. xxxi. 39 (Jacob’s reproof to Laban): “That which

was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it.”

245 ff. These are to a certain extent illustrated by Ex. xxii. 14, 15, in

which passage, if the owner of the injured animal was not present, the

borrower had to make good any loss. If, however, the owner was there to

protect it, there was no penalty, as he could in all probability have

prevented the injury from being inflicted, and in any case might be

supposed to have control over the animal.

250. The owner of a furious bull was protected from loss, even though the

result was fatal, if he did not know that the animal was vicious. In Ex.

xxi. 28, though the owner of the offending ox was to go free, the animal

itself was to be stoned to death, and its flesh not eaten. There is no

doubt that this was hard on the owner, but it must have had an excellent

effect, and ensured the proper enclosing of all doubtful animals.

251. Even when the master knew that his ox was vicious, the Babylonians

were more lenient than the Hebrews, who, in such a case, besides the

destruction of the ox, decreed the death of the owner as a punishment for

his negligence (Ex. xxi. 29). As will be seen from verse 30, however, he

might be spared by paying such ransom as might be imposed upon him.

252. One-third of a mana of silver is equivalent to 20 shekels, so that

the sum here indicated as compensation for the death of a slave who has

been gored by a bull differs from that awarded in Ex. xxi. 32, by ten

shekels—one-sixth of a mana more.

266. This is in part covered by 244 (destruction of cattle by a lion), and

is parallel with Ex. xxii. 10, 11, where, also, an oath had to be sworn

between the parties, and the herdsman in whose care the cattle were, went

free of all obligation. The accident causing the loss, however, is not

there described as “an act of God.”

267. The wording of this law clearly indicates that it would apply if the

herdsman were in fault, and suggests that the same condition must be read

into Ex. xxii. 12, where, if the cattle were stolen from him, he had to

make the loss good.

Besides the enactments in the Code of Moses, however, we find, in the

interesting and important monument translated above, and in the legal

documents of the period to which it belongs, noteworthy parallels to other

parts of the Old Testament. Reference has already been made (pp. 174, 175,

and 185, 186) to the contracts of the period of Ḫammurabi’s dynasty which

illustrate the matter of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham because she herself

was childless (Gen. xvi. 1, 2). That this was the custom in Babylonia is

now confirmed by law 144, which also furnishes the reason why it was the

wife who chose her partner in the husband’s affections. It was because the

first wife preferred to choose herself the woman who was to replace her,

and in doing this, she chose one who would be her subordinate, not one who

might become a really serious rival. A parallel case is that of Bilhah

(Gen. xxx. 4). Hagar’s despising her mistress (Gen. xvi. 4) is illustrated

by law No. 146, which allows the mistress to reduce her to the position of

a slave again, which was agreed to by the patriarch, the result being that

Hagar fled (v. 6).

The determination to have the possession of the cave of Machpelah placed

upon a thoroughly legal footing (Gen. xxiii. 14-20) may, perhaps, be

illustrated by law No. 7, though there is not much parallelism between the

two instances, a field with a cave and trees being a difficult thing to

steal. There is hardly any doubt, however, that the patriarch desired that

no accusation should be brought against him or his descendants for

unlawfully using it, as is suggested by the fact that when Ephron offered

to give it, he said that he did so “in the presence of the sons of my

people” only, but when the transaction was completed as Abraham wished, it

was done not only in the presence of the children of Heth, but before all

who went in at the gate of his city (Gen. xxiii. 18), and naturally

included strangers as well.

Abraham’s seeking a wife for his son (Gen. xxiv. 4) is in conformity with

laws 155, 156, and 166; gifts are given (Gen. xxiv. 53 and laws No. 159,

160, etc.); seemingly the father-in-law retained the presents given by his

son-in-law, if he could get possession of them (Gen. xxxi. 15 and laws

159-161), and these belonged to the wife (wives) and the children (xxxi.

16 and laws 162, 167, 171, ff.).

Whether the theft of her father’s teraphim by Rachel (Gen. xxxi. 19) could

be construed as sacrilege or not is doubtful, but this may well have been

the penalty thought of by Jacob when Laban accused some of his household

of theft (Gen. xxxi. 32 and law No. 6), though theft, if there were no

restitution, was in Babylonian law always punishable with death.

The punishment of death by burning, which Judah decreed for his

daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 24), is parallel with that meted out

to a devotee opening or entering a wine-house (probably a place of

ill-repute), but the parallel ends there—there is no law in the code of

Ḫammurabi, as at present preserved, decreeing death by burning for a widow

who became a harlot.