dues paid to it. These consisted primarily of a _ginû_, or fixed customary
daily payment, and a _sattukku_, or fixed monthly payment. How these arose
is still obscure. They were paid in all sorts of natural products, paid in
kind, measured by the temple surveyor on the field. Doubtless, these were
due from temple lands, and grew out of the endowments given to the temple.
These often consisted of land, held in perpetuity by a family, charged
with a payment to the temple. The land could not be let or sold by the
temple, nor by the family. Such land was usually freed from all other
state dues. The endowment was thus at the expense of the state. An
enormous number of the tablets which have reached us from the later
Babylonian times concern the payment of these dues. They mostly consisted
of corn and sesame, or other offerings, and the tablets are receipts for
them. In Assyrian times the _ginû_ also included flesh of animals and
birds. In some few cases we have long lists of these daily dues,
accompanied by precious gifts in addition. The gifts were perishable, but
were accompanied by a note specifying them, and the good wishes or purpose
of the donor.(538) These notes were preserved as mementos of the donor’s
good-will.
(M502) Temples, however, also possessed lands which they could let. They
also held houses which they might let.(539) In fact, the temples could
hold any sort of property, but apparently could not alienate any. Some
lands the temple officials administered themselves, having their own
work-people. We have mention of these lands from the earliest times
(_e.g._, the very early tablet referred to above),(540) right down through
the Sumerian period. We have almost endless temple accounts, many of which
relate to the fields of the temple, giving their dimensions and situation,
with the names of the tenants, or serfs, and the rents or crops expected
of them. Then, in the First Dynasty of Babylon, we find the lands,
gardens, courts, _et cetera_, of the gods named. We no longer have the
temple accounts, but the private business transactions of the citizens,
whose neighbors are often the gods themselves, as direct land-owners. In
Assyrian times the mention of temple lands is very common. In later
Babylonian times there is abundant evidence of the same custom. Dr. Peiser
devotes a considerable portion of the introduction to his _Babylonische
Verträge_ to this subject. How the temple became possessed of these lands
we do not know. We do know of large gifts of land by kings, rich
land-owners and the like, but we do not know whether originally the temple
started with land. When a king speaks of building a temple to a god, we
may understand that he really rebuilt it, or erected a new temple on the
site. Before kings, the _patêsis_ did the same. But did a _patêsi_ precede
a temple or _vice versâ_? and did the first founder, or the town, grant
the first temple lands?
(M503) The temples had further a variable revenue from private sources.
There were many gifts and presents given voluntarily, often as
thank-offerings. The temple accounts give extensive lists of these from
the earliest times to the latest. They were of all sorts, most often food
or money. But they were often accompanied by some permanent record, a
tablet, vase, stone or metal vessel, inscribed with a votive inscription.
These form our only materials for history in long spaces of time.
(M504) Sacrifices were, of course, largely consumed by the offerers and
those invited to share the feast. But the temple took its share. The share
was a fixed or customary right to certain parts. For one example, the
temple of Shamash at Sippara had its fixed share of the sacrifice, taking
“the loins, the hide, the rump, the tendons, half the abdominal viscera
and half the thoracic viscera, two legs, and a pot of broth.” The usage
was not the same at all temples. In the temple of Ashur and Bêlit at
Nineveh we have a different list.(541) For the parallels with Mosaic
ritual, and the Marseilles sacrificial tablet, see Dr. J. Jeremias, _Die
Cultus Tafel von Sippar_. The list was drawn up by Nabû-aplu-iddin, King
of Babylon B.C. 884-860.(542)
(M505) This was of course a variable source of income, depending upon the
popularity of the cult and the population of the district. It was also
perishable and could not be stored. It is certain that in some cases this
source of income was so large that the temple sold its share for
cash.(543) This must be carefully distinguished from the _ginû_ and
_sattukku_ mentioned on page 208, which were constant and regular
supplies.
(M506) The temple was also a commercial institution of high efficiency.
Their accumulations of all sorts of raw products were enormous. The temple
let out or advanced all kinds of raw material, usually on easy terms. To
the poor, as a charity, advances were made in times of scarcity or
personal want, to their tenants as part of the metayer system of tenure,
to slaves who lived outside its precincts, and to contractors who took the
material on purely commercial terms. The return was expected in kind, to
the full amount of advance, or with stipulated interest. Also in some
cases, especially wool and other clothing stuffs, in made-up material.
Definite fabrics, mostly garments and rugs or hangings, were expected
back. Some quantity was needed for garments and vestments for temple
officials, some for the gods. But a great deal was used for trade. We have
references to temple treasuries and storehouses from the earliest times to
the latest.
(M507) The temples did a certain amount of banking business. By this we
mean that they held money on deposit against the call of the depositor.
Whether they charged for safekeeping or remunerated themselves by
investing the bulk of their capital, reserving a balance to meet calls,
does not yet appear. But the relatively large proportion of loans, where
the god is said to be owner of the money, points to investment as the
source of a considerable income. Here a careful distinction must be made
between the loans without interest, or with interest only charged in
default of payment to time, and those where interest is charged at once.
The latter are banking business, the former were probably only the
landlord’s bounden duty to his tenant by the custom of his tenure. The
temples also bought and sold for profit.
(M508) The greater officials, of course, appear often at court. The king
was accompanied by a staff of priestly personages. They frequently appear
in the inscriptions and on the monuments. His court reproduced that of the
gods above. The officials in one answered, man for man and office for
office, with those above.
(M509) The king, by his religion, could do nothing without religious
sanction. The support of the priestly party was essential. In the more
unsettled times they were to a great extent king-makers. To estrange the
priests was a dangerous policy always. Besides their immense wealth they
had the sanctions of religion on their side. To all men certain things
were right, and the priests then had what right there was on their side. A
king was under obligation to come to Babylon to take the hands of
Bêl-Merodach each New Year’s Day. If he did not, he not only offended the
priests, but also committed a wrong in the eyes of his people.
(M510) But the kings were often inclined to rely upon conjurers,
soothsayers, magicians, and the like. It would be a fatal mistake to
confuse these with the priests. The best kings were those who set their
face against magic and supported the more rational local or national
worships. Sargon II., Esarhaddon, Nebuchadrezzar II., are examples of the
latter, while Ashurbânipal is a great example of the magic-ridden kings.
Ḥammurabi apparently strove to put down magic. The eternal struggle
between the “science” (falsely so-called) of magic and divination on the
one hand and the higher claims of religious duty on the other, is the key
to much that is misunderstood in the politics of the time. It would be too
much to say that the priestly party were always on the side of morality,
or that they were not often allied with the soothsayers, but it is certain
that what ethical progress there was, was due to them. In religious texts
alone have we aspiration after higher ideals. Who can fancy a wizard
troubled about ethics?
(M511) The priest proper, _šangû_, was a person of the highest rank. He
appears very little on the whole. His chief function was to act as
mediator between god and man, as over the sacrifice offered.
(M512) He had public duties outside his priestly office. He inspected
canals.(544) He often acted as a judge.
(M513) There was a college of priests attached to some temples, over which
was a _šangû maḫḫu_ or “high-priest.”
(M514) The general idea that _mašmašu_, “charmer”; _kalû_, “restrainer”;
(?) _maḫḫû_, “soothsayer”; _surru_; _lagaru_; _šâ’ilu_, “inquirer”;
_mušêlu_, “necromancer”; _âšipu_, “sorcerer”; all properly “magicians,”
are subdivisions of the general term _šangû_, is yet to be proved. Except
when, in rare cases, the same man was both, the scribes carefully
distinguish them. The idea seems to arise from the same modern confusion
of thought which starts by calling an unknown official first a eunuch,
then a priest. We do not yet fully know the functions or methods of these
officials. They remain to be studied.(545)
(M515) The _ḳêpu_, or “warden,” was over the temple servants. He let the
temple lands. He inspected the temple slaves and work-people.(546)
(M516) The _šatammu_ was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected
with the _šutummu_ or storehouse.
Certain officials, as surveyors or measurers, scribes, _et cetera_, may
have been of priestly rank and held these offices as well. But as a rule,
a man appears with an official title, without our being able to see
whether he was a priest or not.
(M517) The temple kept its artificers, who had board and wages. It had its
serfs, or land laborers, not actual slaves, but free except for their duty
to the temple. They lived on the produce of their holdings, subject to a
fixed, or produce-rent.
There were temple slaves, who performed the menial offices without wages,
but were clothed and fed.
Within these classes doubtless came some of those who appear as
slaughterers, water-carriers, doorkeepers, bakers, weavers, and the like.
A temple also had its shepherds, cultivators, irrigators, gardeners, _et
cetera_; but it is far from easy to determine the exact degree of
dependence in each case.
The temple even had its own doctor.(547)
(M518) In all these cases we may compare the monastic institutions of the
Middle Ages. We are not as a rule able to see whether they were “lay
brothers,” or had become “clerics,” as well as “clerks.” But there is no
sign of celibacy. Even the priests were married.
Attached to the temple were votaries.(548) In not a few cases the above
offices might also be held by women, even such an office as surveyor might
be held by a woman. There were many female “clerks.” All the temple staff
were maintained by the temple, boarded, fed, and clothed, at the temple
expense. But private persons might undertake to keep a definite temple
official, perhaps were bound to do so, by the terms of some
endowment.(549)
(M519) The right to serve in certain offices was hereditary in some
families. As these multiplied, the office was held in turn by members of
the family for a short time, so that it may well be that an individual
priest only exercised his functions for a very limited part of the year.
(M520) Great families took their clan name from their office; for example,
the Gula priests in later Babylonian times, or as the _mandidu_,
“measurer,” or “surveyor,” attached to a temple, became a clan name.
(M521) Hence arose property in temple incomes. That these were
considerable we know from the lists of temple accounts. These form the
bulk of the earliest documents. From them we learn that each day certain
officials received certain allowances, mostly food and drink. From later
documents we learn that men apparently not connected with the temple had
become lay impropriators of the temple allowances originally intended only
for temple officers.
(M522) The right to receive these was a valuable and negotiable asset.
Thus we read of a right to five days per year in the temple of Nannar,
sixteen days per year in the temple of Bêlit, and eight days in the shrine
of Gula as being the _namḫar_ of Sin-imgurâni and Sin-uzili.(550) This was
confirmed to them by a legal decision in the time of Rîm-Sin. We read also
of a right to act as _šatammu_, for six days per month, in the temple of
Shamash.(551) In later times the _mandidûtu_, or surveyorship, to the
temple of Anu, Ib, and Bêlit-êkalli, exercised in the temple, storehouse,
and field, was sold, shared, and pledged.(552) Another such right was
given on condition that it was not sold for money, granted to another,
pledged, nor diminished in any way, and should pass to the possessor’s
daughter on his death.(553) The porter’s post at Bâb Salimu was given as a
pledge. Shares in these incomes were regularly traded in, sold, and
pledged.
(M523) The position of a priest, or other official, carried with it an
endowment. On this point the Code is very explicit for the cases of the
_ridû ṣâbê_ and the _bâ’iru_, officials charged with the collection of
local quotas for the army and public works. They were recruiting
sergeants, press-gang officers, and post-office officials. The office was
endowed by royal grant. They were liable to be called on in the discharge
of their duties to make lengthy journeys and be absent from home for a
length of time, even years. In their absence, their duties could be
delegated to a son, if old enough, otherwise a substitute was put in. They
could claim reinstatement within a certain time. But their endowment was
inalienable from the office and could not be treated as private property.
(M524) Quite similarly the great state officials in Assyria had endowments
which were not personal, but went with the office. Thus we learn from the
Ḥarran census that certain lands paid rent or crops to certain offices.
(M525) In later times the rights to income are very prominent, perhaps
solely in virtue of the class of documents which has reached us.
Occasionally we are able to learn exactly what they were. For example, the
surveyor for the temple of Anu had a right to two _GUR_ of corn, two _GUR_
of dates, fifty _ḲA_ of wheat, six _ḲA_ of sesame, on every eighteen _ḲA_
of land. When the corn and dates were harvested, on one _GUR_, six _ḲA_
were levied.
(M526) It is not clear that a temple had any direct duties to the state.
Peiser thinks that they collected dues for the state. Certainly they had
attached to them the king’s storehouses. Certain amounts were paid in for
certain state officials. In the Code of Ḥammurabi we see that a temple
might be called upon to ransom a member of the town who had been taken
captive.
(M527) In certain circumstances the king’s officials might borrow of the
temples.(554) Thus Nikkal-iddina borrowed of the temple of Bêlit of Akkad
a vessel of silver, weight fifteen minas, when the Elamites invaded the
land.
(M528) Some kings laid hands on the treasures of the temple for their own
use. Doubtless this was done under bond to repay. The cases in which we
read of such practices are always represented as a wrong. When
Shamash-shûm-ukîn sent the bribes to the King of Elam, Ummanigash, he
spoiled the treasuries of Merodach at Babylon, of Nabû at Borsippa, and of
Nêrgal at Cutha, and this was reckoned one of his evil deeds, which led to
his downfall. But if he had been successful and had repaid his forced
loans, doubtless it would have been excused, and his memory would have
been blessed.
(M529) Much confusion is introduced by the fact that we do not know when a
temple official acts in his own private capacity and when on behalf of the
temple. The deeds, which do not expressly state that the money or property
belongs to the god, or the temple, may often be only concerned with
private transactions, but were preserved in the temple archives on account
of the official position of the parties. But there are plenty of cases,
where no doubt exists, to justify us in regarding the temple as acting in
all the capacities of a private individual, or a firm of traders.
XXI. Donations And Bequests
(M530) Alienation of property might be complete or partial. Of complete
alienation we may instance donation, sale, exchange, dedication,
testament. The latter was rarely complete in Babylonia. Examples of
partial alienation are loan, lease, pledge, deposit.
(M531) We may note as a common mark of all these transactions the care
taken to fix and define ownership. The transfer is “from” A to B. In early
times the property is usually first stated to belong to A. Then he is
often said in Assyrian times to be the _bêlu_ of it, its full and
legitimate owner. The new owner had to be satisfied that A was competent
to part with it. This is often made clearer by saying, in later times,
that no one else has any claim upon it. Hence arise guarantees against
defeasor, redemptor, _et cetera_. This subject of guarantees is most
interesting, though often obscure. The investigation of the varied rights
which were likely to interfere with freedom of transfer is most important.
(M532) In certain cases we shall find a sort of hypothecation of property,
as when it is assigned as security, but not given up. The possession is
not free, but it is not alienated. We have also a _donatio retento
usufructu_, which only gives a reversion of the property. Here also
certain rights may be reserved against the ultimate possessor.
Another interesting point is that property may be credited to a man, and
set off against other liabilities, so that he may never actually be in
possession, but only nominally passing it on to others, and even,
eventually, it may come back to the first owner, who may never part with
it at all.
(M533) Undoubtedly men were at liberty in daily life to make presents one
to another. But the rights of the family were so strong that for the most
part all the property of the parents was jealously regarded as tied to the
children, or other legal heirs. When a man died, his property was divided
according to a rigid law of inheritance. When a woman left her father’s
house to be married, the father gave her the share of his goods which fell
to her, without waiting until his death to divide his substance. In this
case she had nothing further at his death. But the property was not her
husband’s, though he and she shared its use; it was entailed to her
children. If she had none, it went back to her father’s house: to her
brothers, if she had any, or to her father’s other heirs. Unless a man
legally adopted his natural sons, they did not inherit. Hence neither man
nor woman was wholly free to give. But, hedged about with consents and
reservations, donations took place.
(M534) We have a great variety of types of donation, not always easy to
classify, and often obscure, in some details. The common characteristics
are that deeds of gift were duly executed, sealed, and witnessed; and that
the consents of the parties, whose expectations were thus diminished, or
restricted, had to be obtained.
(M535) A daughter might be portioned off for marriage and this involved a
gift, which might be treated as a donation, but rather comes under the
head of marriage-portion, in the chapter on marriage. Precisely the same
portioning took place when the daughter either became a votary or was
dedicated to the service of a god. Such gifts may be included here. They
usually contain a list of property: sharing houses, land, slaves, jewels,
money, clothes, household furniture, even pots of honey or jars of wine.
As a rule, in our present state of knowledge, nothing that could pretend
to be an accurate translation can be given of the items of such a gift,
only a general idea of the nature of the whole. Such a gift, however,
evidently set the lady up in an establishment of her own, with all she
could require for maintenance and comfort for the rest of her life.
(M536) Here these donations split up into separate classes. The recipient
might have only a life interest in her gift, or it might be hers outright.
The latter case could not be presumed. The heirs of her parents, “her
father’s house,” would maintain their claim at her death, unless they had
specially contracted to waive it. Then the clause was inserted that she
might “give her sonship to whomever she pleased,” _ašar eliša tâbum
aplûtsa inadin_.(555) By “sonship” is meant “heirship.” Such cases do not
seem common and are probably to be explained as due to the fact that as a
votary she had no legitimate heir. It is important to note that there is
no hint that, if she died without heirs, the temple would inherit.
(M537) A modified freedom is allowed by a father who gives his daughter
house, land, sheep, slaves, and the like, but limits her power of gift to
her brothers. But among them she may “give it to him who loves and serves
her.”(556) It is assumed that one of her brothers will care for her and
manage her estate and be rewarded by the reversion of it. As a rule, it is
only a life interest which the recipient has.
A different sort of gift is where the donor reserves to himself a use of
the property as long as he lives, or stipulates for a life allowance from
it. These are usually accompanied by formal adoption. The recipient is one
who has not already a claim to inherit, but undertakes the care or
maintenance of the donor. Such gifts are best classed under adoption, even
where the fact of adoption is not stated. When a parent makes an
arrangement of this kind with a son or daughter, these were possibly
adopted by a previous act. At any rate, it seems likely that such a child
was either unmarried or again free to wait upon the donor. But whatever
the actual state of relationships, we find a mother giving property to a
daughter, reserving the use of it as long as she lives.(557) Similarly a
brother undertakes to give one shekel _per annum_ to his brother. Here the
grounds of the undertaking are not stated, but a contract to do this is
duly sealed and witnessed.(558) Further, maintenance is stipulated for,
though the relationship is not stated, nor grounds given. This may not be
based upon a gift, but follow the order of some judge, for other
reasons.(559)
(M538) The husband might settle upon his wife a fixed amount of property.
This was frequently done and was called the _nudunnu_. It might include a
house, two maids, clothes, jewelry, and household furniture.(560) Here the
sons are expressly said to have no claim, she may give it to whoever
serves her and “as her heart desires.” Probably she was a second wife
without children, and is thus secured a life of comfort and the faithful
service of her step-sons. As a rule these gifts are best considered under
the head of marriage, but they were also free gifts on the donor’s part.
The wife in any case had her right to inherit with her step-sons, if her
husband made no such settlement.
(M539) The consent of the legal heirs of the donor to such alienation of
their reversionary rights was needed. Thus in one case, when a man gives
his daughter a house, his son appears as the first witness.(561) A father
and his son give their daughter and sister a house, which she is free to
give to her son, “whom she loves.”(562) Had the house merely come to her
as her share in the usual way, it must have been shared by her sons. If
she had none, then her brother would be the next heir. That she can leave
it as she will must be a matter of legal instrument. The brother must
consent to the exception to the rule.
(M540) In Assyrian times, donation is rarely represented within the group
of documents which have reached us. Here is one case:(563)
The household which Bêl-nâ’id gave to his daughter, Baltêa-abate.
A house in Nineveh, before the great gate of the temple of
Shamash. (Then come the servants, a _šaḳu_ or head man, a
washerman, a _šaknu_, and others, male and female, in all eleven
souls.) Dated the fourteenth of Adar, in the Eponymy of
Marduk-shar-uṣur. Nine witnesses.
This may be donation, or adoption, or even a marriage-portion.