way to cover gifts embodied in a deed, we usually find a list of property
donated. These lists give rise to insuperable difficulties to the
translator. The difficulties are not so much due to the imperfections of
our knowledge of Babylonian methods of writing as to the practical
impossibility of finding exact terms in one language for the terms
relating to domestic furniture in another. Even in the case of languages
so well known to us as French and German are, we are obliged to transfer
their words unaltered into our own tongue. The most skilled translator
must leave a French or German _menu_ untranslated. We know for instance
that the signs, _GIŠ-GU-ZA_ were used to denote the Babylonian _kussû_.
When a god or king sat upon a _kussû_ we may be satisfied with the
rendering “throne,” but when we find a lady leaving her daughter six
_kussê_ we feel that “throne” is rather too grand. But whether we elect to
call them chairs, stools, or seats, we are guilty of some false
suggestion. A careful examination of the sculptured and pictured monuments
may give us a clearer idea of what seats were used. The reader may consult
Perrot and Chipiez, or the dictionaries of the Bible, under the articles:
chairs, couches, _et cetera_, for illustrations. Unless we can find a
picture with a named article upon it we are still left a wide margin of
conjecture. The picture of Sennacherib receiving the tribute and
submission of Lachish gives the contemporary representation of a _kussû
nimedu_, but we cannot argue that every _kussû_ was of the same pattern.
We may decline to attempt a solution and merely give the original word, we
may make a purely arbitrary rendering, or we may accompany the original
word with an approximate indication of what is known of its nature. In
neither case do we translate, for that is clearly impossible. But the
reader needs a word of caution against the translations which show no
signs of hesitancy. They are not indicative of greater knowledge, but of
less candor. Further, to scholars a reminder is needed that even the
syllabaries and bilingual texts do not give exact information. Thus
alongside _GIŠ-GU-ZA_ we find a number of other ideograms, all of which
are in certain connections rendered _kussû_, adequately enough no doubt,
but that they all denoted exactly the same article of furniture is far
from likely. A closer approximation to an exact rendering may come with
the knowledge of a large number of different contexts, each of which may
shade off something of the rough meaning. One of the great difficulties of
the translator is that the same word often occurs again and again, but
always in exactly the same context. This is especially the case in the
legal documents, filled as they are with stock phrases.
(M411) According to the Sumerian laws disinheritance appears to have been
simply the result of repudiation of a child by a parent, who has said to
him, “You are not my son.” The penalty for a child’s repudiation of
parents is to be reduced to the condition of a slave. There may also be a
reference to renunciation on the part of an adopted child, but there are
no legal documents to clear up the point.(409)
(M412) The Code is much clearer. Here the father is minded to cut off his
son. But the disinheritance must be done in legal form. The father must
say to a judge, “I renounce my son.” The judge must then inquire into the
grounds of this determination. A grave fault must be alleged. What this
was we are not told. But rebellious conduct, idleness, and failure to
provide for parents are probable. A parent had the right to his son’s
work. An adoptive parent had a right by the deed of adoption to
maintenance. If the fault could be established as a first offence, the
judge was bound to try and reconcile the father. If it was repeated,
disinheritance took place legally. It was done by a deed duly drawn up.
The Sumerian laws show that a mother had the same power as the father.
Whether this was only exercised when there was no father, or whether a
wife could act in this way independently of her husband in disinheriting
children, does not appear. But possibly she had power in this respect only
over her own property.(410)
It has been suggested that disinheritance sometimes took place as a legal
form and with consent of a child, in order to admit of his adoption into
another family or to free the parents from responsibility for the business
engagements of the son.
(M413) An adoptive parent, who had brought up a child and afterwards had
children of his own, could not entirely disinherit his adopted child. He
was bound to allow him one-third of a child’s share. But he could not
alienate to him real estate.(411)
XVII. Slavery
(M414) In modern thought slavery concerns personal rights. But it was not
thus regarded by the Babylonians, for the slave was an inferior domestic,
and, like the son in his father’s house, _minor capitis_. That he was
actually a chattel is clear from his being sold, pledged, or deposited. He
was property and as such a money equivalent. He might be made use of to
discharge a debt, according to his value. Hence, while some account of
slavery belongs with the discussion of the family, it is also a part of
the section dealing with property, since the slave was a piece of
property.
(M415) But the slave had a great amount of freedom, and was in no respect
worse off than a child or even a wife. He could acquire property, marry a
free woman, engage in trade, and act as principal in contract with a free
man. Only, his property, at his death, fell to his master. He was bound to
do service without pay, though he had the right to food and drink. He
could not leave his master’s service at his own will, but he might acquire
enough property to buy his freedom. He was tied to one spot, not being
allowed to leave the city, but might be sent anywhere at command.
(M416) His status was, however, a complex of seeming inconsistencies. Yet
it was so well understood that we rarely get any hints as to the exact
details. It is only by collecting a vast mass of statements as to what
actually occurred that we can deduce some idea of the actual facts.
Professor Oppert in his tract, _La Condition des Esclaves à Babylone,
Comptes Rendues_, 1888, pp. 11 ff.; and Dr. B. Meissner, in his
dissertation, _De Servitute Babylonico-Assyriaca_, have gathered together
the chief facts to be gleaned from the scattered hints in the contracts.
Professor Kohler and Dr. Peiser discussed the question thoroughly in their
_Aus Babylonische Rechtsleben_. Many articles discussing the contracts,
and most of the histories touch upon the subject. We shall come back to it
later under the head of Sales of Slaves. It is very difficult to
disentangle facts from the mass of scattered hints, often consisting of no
more than a word or two in a long document.
(M417) The institution of slavery dates back to the earliest times. We
cannot in any way attempt to date its rise.
Already in the stele of Manistusu we find a slave-girl used as part of the
price of land and worth thirteen shekels;(412) while nine other slaves,
male and female, are reckoned for one-third of a mina apiece. This
remained a fair average price for a slave in Babylonia down to the time of
the Persian conquest. For the variations, see later under Sales of
Slaves.(413) The Code shows that the slave was not free to contract except
by power of attorney,(414) and that it was penal to seduce him from his
master’s service,(415) or to harbor him when fugitive.(416) It fixes a
reward for his recapture,(417) makes it penal to retain a recaptured
slave,(418) and deals with his re-escape.(419) It shows that he was
subject to the “levy.”(420) It also determines the position of a
slave-woman who bears children to her master,(421) or of a slave who
marries a free woman.(422) In each case the children are free. It fixes
the fees to be paid by the slave’s master for his cure,(423) deals with
injuries done to a slave,(424) damages being paid to his master;(425)
enacts that if captured and sold abroad he must be freed, if
re-patriated,(426) and a native of Babylonia, otherwise he returned to his
master.
(M418) By far the greatest number of references to the slave condition
occur in documents relating to the sale of slaves. These may be summarized
here. One peculiarity always marked the sale of a slave, it was not so
irrevocable as that of a house or field. For a slave might not be all he
seemed. He might be diseased, or subject to fits, he might have vices of
disposition, especially a tendency to run away. A female slave might be
defective in what constituted her chief attraction. Hence there was
usually a stipulation that if the buyer had a legitimate cause of
complaint he could return his purchase and have his money back. In fact,
an undisclosed defect would invalidate the sale. These defects might be
physical, inherent, contingent, or legal.
(M419) There seems to have been a dreaded disease called the _bennu_.
Professor Jensen(427) has shown how largely it bulks in the literature,
and what dire effects are ascribed to it. But it was not the only severe
disease from which men suffered then. It is associated with several others
as bad. Hence in legal documents we may take it as a typical example of a
serious disease, which would so detract from the value of a slave that the
purchaser would not keep him. It is evident that it was something that the
purchaser could not detect at sight. Perhaps it was a disease which took
some time to show itself. It is mentioned in the Code and in the sales of
slaves of the First Dynasty of Babylon. It also occurs in Assyrian deeds
of sale, down to the end of the seventh century B.C. The Code and the
contemporary contracts allow one month within which a plea could be raised
that the slave had the _bennu_. The purchaser could then return him and
have his money back. In the Assyrian deeds one hundred days is allowed.
In the Assyrian deeds _ṣibtu_ is also allowed a hundred days. This is
often associated with _bennu_ in the mythological texts as equally
dreaded. It affected the hands or the mouth. We may render it “seizure,”
and think of some form of “paralysis.”
(M420) The objections which come under the head of legal defects are
summed up in the Code as a _bagru_, or “complaint.” In the contracts and
Code this could be pleaded at any time. So in Assyrian times a _sartu_, “a
vice,” could be the ground for repudiation at any time. This might arise
from the disposition of the slave. The sale might also be invalidated by a
claim on him for service to the state; by a lien held by a creditor; by a
claim to free citizenship. But we are not yet in a position to state
definitely what was the exact nature of these claims. Doubtless the
recovery of further codes will fix them finally.
In later Babylonian times Law B specially provides for the return of the
slave at any time, if a claim be made on him.
(M421) In Assyrian times sales of slaves are very frequent, and we learn
much more about the status of the slave. The slave was certainly a social
inferior, but probably had more freedom than any other who ever bore the
name. He certainly had his own property and could contract like a free
man. A young slave lived in his master’s house up to a certain age, when
his master found a wife for him. This was usually a slave-girl. The female
slaves remained in the house as domestic servants to old age, unless they
were married to a slave. Married slaves lived in their own houses for the
most part. Many such men seem to have taken up out-door work, gardening,
agricultural labor, or the like, on their master’s estates. Others engaged
in business on their own account. But from all the master had a certain
income. This was, within a little, the average interest on the money-value
of a slave. And that interest was usually twenty-five per cent. per annum
in Assyria.
(M422) Theoretically a master owned his slave’s property. What this
ownership amounted to is hard to say. But the slave was rarely separated
from it. His family at any rate was sacred. When sold, he was sold with
his family. This, of course, does not exclude the sale of a young man at a
time when he would naturally leave his father’s home. Young women were
taken into domestic service, and after a time sold. But there was none of
that tearing of children from parents, which so shocked people in the
modern examples. It is probable that a slave could not marry without his
master’s consent. He certainly could not live where he liked. But he was
free to acquire fair wealth, and his property was so far his own that he
could buy his own freedom with it.
(M423) In Assyria there was a large body of serfs, _glebae adscripti_.
They could be sold with the land. But they were free to work as they
chose. Usually they cultivated a plot of their master’s, but often had
lands and stock of their own. They were not free to move, and probably
paid a rent, one or two thirds of their produce. But they were mostly on
the metayer system, and could claim seed, implements, stock, and other
necessary supplies from their master. This class evidently possessed
privileges highly esteemed, for their ranks were recruited from all
classes of artisans in the towns, cooks, brewers, gardeners, washermen,
and even scribes. Some of these were probably free men, others certainly
had been slaves.
(M424) The three classes, domestic slaves, married slaves, and serfs, were
continually exchanging their condition. Not a few free men, whether from
debt, judicial sentence, or choice, were added to these classes. For these
men, if dependent, were cared for and provided with the necessaries of
life. They were, if domestic, clothed, housed, and fed; if they married
and lived out, they were given a house, and either were provided with land
that brought them a living, or engaged in business.
(M425) The army and corvée, or levy for forced labor, were chiefly
obtained from the slaves, and above all from the serfs. A head of a
family, or mother, was not liable. But young men and women had to serve a
certain number of terms of service, seemingly six.(428) Hence it was of
importance to the buyer of a slave to receive a guarantee that this claim
had been satisfied.
(M426) We have many examples of slaves who were skilled artisans. They had
been taught a handicraft. Later we shall come across cases of
apprenticeship of slaves to learn a craft. But all the artisans were not
slaves. Indeed, some of the craftsmen, as goldsmiths, silversmiths,
carpenters, were wealthy persons.
(M427) As a rule, though the slave is named, his father is not. But, just
as in mediæval times, a serf’s father is named. The serf’s holding seems
to have been hereditary. But we have too few examples to be sure of our
ground here. The slave’s father was not concerned in the sale, and that
may be the sole reason why he is not named. Fathers sometimes sold their
children to be slaves, then they are named. Such sales are not so
unnatural as they appear. It was a sure provision for life for a child to
sell him as slave to a family in good position.
(M428) In the later Babylonian times, the almost total disappearance of
the serf has been noted as very remarkable. But this may be entirely due
to the nature of our documents. The temples owned a great deal of land and
their slaves were in the condition of serfs.
(M429) In later Babylonian times we have a very large number of examples
of slave sales. So far as the formula of a deed of sale is concerned,
there is nothing to distinguish from a sale of the ordinary type, thus
marking the slave as a chattel.
(M430) But there are several clauses, which directly illustrate the
possession of slaves, their position and liabilities. One clause, frequent
when slaves were either pledged or sold, was a guarantee on the part of
the owner against a number of contingencies. These are not easy to
understand.
(M431) First we have the _amêlu siḫû_. _Siḫu_ means rebellion or civil
war. Sennacherib was slain in such an uprising.(429) It may be that then
the slave would be impressed for defence of law and order. Or it may be
that _amêlu siḫû_ is the rebel, or mob, who might carry off the slave. Or
the contingency contemplated may be that the slave should turn rebel and
refuse to do his master’s bidding. The fact that a ship was also
guaranteed against _amêlu siḫû_,(430) renders this less likely. A ship
could not turn rebel. It is not unlikely that slaves often joined in the
rebellions.
(M432) That a slave would escape by flight was always a danger. The slave
had great freedom and many opportunities of getting away. The only
security was that wherever he went he was likely to be recognized as a
slave and anyone might recapture him. However, the captor had a right to a
reward and so the owner would have to pay to get him back, besides losing
his services for a time. Hence a slave who had a fancy for running away
was likely to be troublesome and costly. That might lead to his being
sold. But the purchaser protected himself by a guarantee on the seller’s
part that the slave would not run away. Then if the slave fled and was
brought back, the captor gave a receipt for the sum paid him, and the
owner reclaimed it from the seller.
(M433) The captor might retain the slave until he was paid.(431) In other
cases the seller had to recover the slave for the buyer. In Assyrian times
the seller guaranteed also against death. Here it has been argued that the
guarantee meant only that the slave had not fled or was not dead at the
time of sale. This is not likely in the case of death. Surely no man could
buy a slave who was dead. He would not pay, if the slave was not
delivered. But he might bargain for recompense, if the slave died within a
short time after purchase, as the seller might have had reason to know
that he was ill.
(M434) A guarantee was also given against the _pakirânu_. This is
literally “the claimant.” What claim he had is not stated. When the slave
was pledged, this might be a creditor to whom he had previously been
pledged. But it covers all claims on the slave.(432)
(M435) Another indemnity is the _arad šarrûtu_, or in the case of female
slaves, the _amat šarrûtu_. This was the status of an _arad šarri_, or
_amat šarri_, king’s man or maid. The king, or state, had a right to the
services of certain slaves. How long this was for, how it was discharged,
and how a private person could give a guarantee against it, we do not
exactly know. It may have been limited to slaves taken in war; it probably
consisted in forced service; it may have been for a limited period, so
that the guarantee amounted to an assurance that it was over. But it is
possible that it would be compounded for, or a substitute provided. At any
rate the seller held the buyer indemnified against this claim.(433)
(M436) There was also a guarantee against _mârbanûtu_, the status of a
_mâr banû_, or “son of an ancestor.” The difficulty which this raised was
that, if a man was a scion of a noble family, he might be redeemed by it.
The same result would follow from his being adopted. Hence some consider
_mâr banû_ to mean “adopted son.” But it does not always mean that. We
have no good example of a slave being redeemed on this ground. But we know
that they sometimes laid claim to be free men. This would of course
involve a loss and at any rate a trouble to the owner. But we have not yet
very full information on the point.
(M437) Finally there is mentioned a claim called _šušanûtu_. This occurs
in Persian times only(434) and may be the status of a _šušanu_, _i.e._, a
Susian, or one of the conquering race. Such it may have been illegal to
buy or hold in slavery. But in Assyrian times an official in the service
of the royal house is called _šušanu_. We do not yet know what his duties
were, but it may be that this official was one who could be called up for
service at any time and therefore was undesirable as a slave.
(M438) The _abuttu_ which the Code(435) contemplates a mistress putting on
an insolent maid and so reducing her to slavery, or which the phrase-books
contemplate a master laying upon a slave, or which an adoptive parent may
set on a rebellious adopted son before selling him into servitude,(436)
has usually been taken to be a fetter. But in the case of a man, who being
sold as a slave, had escaped and was claimed by the levy-master, we find
the latter saying, _ellita abuttaka gullubat_, “thy _abuttu_ is clearly
branded,” or tattooed. Hence it may only be a mark.
(M439) There is frequent mention in early times of a mark upon slaves. The
Code(437) talks of marking a slave, but in a way that is difficult to
understand. The verb usually rendered “brand” has been shown by Professor
P. Jensen(438) to include incised marks. Hence the penalty which was once
rendered “shear his front hair” is thought to mean “brand his forehead.”
The Code fixes a severe penalty for the putting of an indelible mark on a
slave without his owner’s consent. This could hardly be enforced for
merely giving the slave a bald forehead, like the Hebrew _peôt_, or like a
“tonsure.” The mark borne on the forehead by Cain, or by the “sealed” in
the Apocalypse, is far more to the point as a parallel. The slaves also
wore little clay tablets with the name of their owner inscribed upon them.
There are a number of these preserved in the Louvre. On one now in the
British Museum we have this inscription: “Of the woman Ḥipâ, who is in the
hands of Sin-êresh. Sebat, eleventh year of Merodach-baladan, King of
Babylon.”(439) How these were attached to the slave is not very clear. But
they must have been anything but an indelible mark. In the later
Babylonian times we have(440) a slave marked by a sign on his ears and a
white mark in his eye. Both may denote natural marks.(441) A more definite
example is a slave “whose right hand has written upon it the name of
Ina-Esagil-lilbur”;(442) and another “on whose left hand was written the
name of Meskitu.”(443) These were the names of the owners, not of the
slaves themselves. This renders it probable that the branding and the like
was always an incised mark, a species of tattoo, which of course was
indelible. That the same person who tattooed men should brand animals, or
even shear them, is not an insuperable objection. But there is no reason
to suppose that the brander ever was a sheep-shearer.
(M440) In respect to the names of slaves we may regard them with some
interest as helping to determine the sources from which slaves were
recruited. Some bear good Babylonian names, and perhaps when the father’s
name is also Babylonian we may conclude that they had been born free, but
were either sold into slavery by the head of the family, or, having once
been adopted, had been repudiated and reduced to slavery again, or had
been sold for debt. We have examples of all such cases. A father and
mother sold their son;(444) a mother who had adopted two girls repudiated
them again;(445) a brother gave a younger brother as a pledge.(446)
(M441) When the slave’s name is not Babylonian or Assyrian, a foreign
nationality is nearly certain. These names are very valuable when they can
be assigned to their nationalities, as confirming the historical claims of
the kings to conquest. Sometimes they are actual gentile names, as
Miṣirai, “Egyptian,” Tubalai, “man from Tubal.” But many may have been
directly purchased abroad and sold to Babylonians. A great many foreign
slaves doubtless received native names. Thus an Egyptian woman was called
Nanâ-ittîa.(447) Some of the names of slaves are true Babylonian, but of a
rare and odd form, which has caused some to imagine them to be foreign.
But this is not necessary. Servants are often renamed after the families
to which they belong, and finally become known by names which were never
theirs. Masters seem sometimes to have given their own names to slaves.
Their names are often contracted,(448) and some even appear to have had
two.(449)
(M442) The slaves were not only captives taken in war, but were bought
abroad, and not a few were reduced to that condition from being freeborn
citizens. Slavery awaited the rebellious child or the contentious wife.
But it was not allowed by the Code for a man to sell his maid outright,
who had borne him children. And if he sold his wife or child to pay a
debt, the buyer could not keep them beyond a certain time. But in all
periods parents sold their children, and there does not seem to be any
clause demanding any future release.