SQLite format 3@  ¯¯O{tableTopicsTopicsCREATE TABLE 'Topics' (Title NVARCHAR(100), Notes TEXT) z‚zƒè =‡ÏkCode of Hammurabi-Part-2{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 MS Sans Serif;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang10>ƒÛ =‡µgCode of Hammurabi-Part-1{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 MS Sans Serif;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs17 HammurabiBack to Ancient History Sourcebook | \par Ancient History Sourcebook: \par Code of Hammurabi, c. 1780 BCE\par \par \par \par Commentary by Charles F. Horne, (1915) \par Commentary by Claude Hermann Walter Johns, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th \par ed, 1910- \par Text, Translated by L. W. King\par \par Charles F. Horne: The Code of Hammurabi: Introduction \par [Hammurabi] was the ruler who chiefly established the greatness of Babylon, \par the world's first metropolis. Many relics of Hammurabi's reign ([1795-1750 \par BC]) have been preserved, and today we can study this remarkable King....as a \par wise law-giver in his celebrated code. . .\par \par [B]y far the most remarkable of the Hammurabi records is his code of laws, the \par earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire \par body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know \par what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, \par eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view. This noted \par stone was found in the year 1901, not in Babylon, but in a city of the Persian \par mountains, to which some later conqueror must have carried it in triumph. It \par begins and ends with addresses to the gods. Even a law code was in those days \par regarded as a subject for prayer, though the prayers here are chiefly cursings \par of whoever shall neglect or destroy the law. \par The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of \par society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his \par judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to \par be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even \par if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder \par is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is \par slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." \par These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, \par but only of the fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was \par allowed to cast himself into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of \par swimming was unknown; for if the current bore him to the shore alive he was \par declared innocent, if he drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the \par justice of the ruling gods was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, \par established in the minds of men. \par Yet even with this earliest set of laws, as with most things Babylonian, we \par find ourselves dealing with the end of things rather than the beginnings. \par Hammurabi's code was not really the earliest. The preceding sets of laws have \par disappeared, but we have found several traces of them, and Hammurabi's own \par code clearly implies their existence. He is but reorganizing a legal system \par long established. \par \par \par Claude Hermann Walter Johns: \par BABYLONIAN LAW--The Code of Hammurabi.\par from the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910-1911 \par \par The material for the study of Babylonian law is singularly extensive without \par being exhaustive. The so-called "contracts," including a great variety of \par deeds, conveyances, bonds, receipts, accounts and, most important of all, the \par actual legal decisions given by the judges in the law courts, exist in \par thousands. Historical inscriptions, royal charters and rescripts, despatches, \par private letters and the general literature afford welcome supplementary \par information. Even grammatical and lexicographical works, intended solely to \par facilitate the study of ancient literature, contain many extracts or short \par sentences bearing on law and custom. The so-called "Sumerian Family Laws" are \par thus preserved. The discovery of the now celebrated Code of Hammurabi \par (hereinafter simply termed the Code) has, however, made a more systematic \par study possible than could have resulted from the classification and \par interpretation of the other material. Some fragments of a later code exist and \par have been published; but there still remain many points upon which we have no \par evidence. \par This material dates from the earliest times down to the commencement of our \par era. The evidence upon a particular point may be very full at one period and \par almost entirely lacking at another. The Code forms the backbone of the \par skeleton sketch which is here reconstructed. The fragments of it which have \par been recovered from Assur-bani-pal's library at Nineveh and later Babylonian \par copies show that it was studied, divided into chapters entitled Ninu ilu sirum \par from its opening words, and recopied for fifteen hundred years or more. The \par greater part of It remained in force, even through the Persian, Greek and \par Parthian conquests, which affected private life in Babylonia very little, and \par it survived to influence Syro-Roman and later Mahommedan law in Mesopotamia. \par The law and custom which preceded the Code we shall call "early," that of the \par New Babylonian empire (as well as the Persian, Greek, &c.) "late." The law in \par Assyria was derived from Babylonia but conserved early features long after \par they had disappeared elsewhere. \par When the Semitic tribes settled in the cities of Babylonia, their tribal \par custom passed over into city law. The early history of the country is the \par story of a struggle for supremacy between the cities. A metropolis demanded \par tribute and military support from its subject cities but left their local \par cults and customs unaffected. The city rights and usages were respected by \par kings and conquerors alike. \par As late as the accession of Assur-bani-pal and Samas-sum-yukin we find the \par Babylonians appealing to their city laws that groups of aliens to the number \par of twenty at a time were free to enter the city, that foreign women once \par married to Babylonian husbands could not be enslaved and that not even a dog \par that entered the city could be put to death untried. \par The population of Babylonia was of many races from early times and \par intercommunication between the cities was incessant. Every city had a large \par number of resident aliens. This freedom of intercourse must have tended to \par assimilate custom. It was, however, reserved for the genius of Hammurabi to \par make Babylon his metropolis and weld together his vast empire by a uniform \par system of law. \par Almost all trace of tribal custom has already disappeared from the law of the \par Code. It is state-law; - alike self-help, blood-feud, marriage by capture, are \par absent; though family solidarity, district responsibility, ordeal, the lex \par talionis, are primitive features that remain. The king is a benevolent \par autocrat, easily accessible to all his subjects, both able and willing to \par protect the weak against the highest-placed oppressor. The royal power, \par however, can only pardon when private resentment is appeased. The judges are \par strictly supervised and appeal is allowed. The whole land is covered with \par feudal holdings, masters of the levy, police, &c. There is a regular postal \par system. The pax Babylonica is so assured that private individuals do not \par hesitate to ride in their carriage from Babylon to the coast of the \par Mediterranean. The position of women is free and dignified. \par The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve ancient law. It \par is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had accumulated \par in the temple archives of each city vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds \par and the records of judicial decisions, and that intercourse had assimilated \par city custom. The universal habit of writing and perpetual recourse to written \par contract even more modified primitive custom and ancient precedent. Provided \par the parties could agree, the Code left them free to contract as a rule. Their \par deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and confirmed \par by an oath "by god and the king." It was p ublicly sealed and witnessed by \par professional witnesses, as well as by collaterally interested parties. The \par manner in which it was thus executed may have been sufficient security that \par its stipulations were not impious or illegal. Custom or public opinion \par doubtless secured that the parties would not agree to wrong. In case of \par dispute the judges dealt first with the contract. They might not sustain it, \par but if the parties did not dispute it, they were free to observe it. The \par judges' decision might, however, be appealed against. Many contracts contain \par the proviso that in case of future dispute the parties would abide by "the \par decision of the king." The Code made known, in a vast number of cases, what \par that decision would be, and many cases of appeal to the king were sent back to \par the judges with orders to decide in accordance with it. The Code itself was \par carefully and logically arranged and the order of its sections wa s conditioned \par by their subject-matter. Nevertheless the order is not that of modern \par scientific treatises, and a somewhat different order from both is most \par convenient for our purpose. \par The Code contemplates the whole population as falling into three classes, the \par amelu, the muskinu and the ardu. The amelu was a patrician, the man of family, \par whose birth, marriage and death were registered, of ancestral estates and full \par civil rights. He had aristocratic privileges and responsibilities, the right \par to exact retaliation for corporal injuries, and liability to heavier \par punishment for crimes and misdemeanours, higher fees and fines to pay. To this \par class belonged the king and court, the higher officials, the professions and \par craftsmen. The term became in time a mere courtesy title but originally \par carried with it standing. Already in the Code, when status is not concerned, \par it is used to denote "any one." There was no property qualification nor does \par the term appear to be racial. It is most difficult to characterize the muskinu \par exactly. The term came in time to mean "a beggar" and with that meaning has \par passed through Aramaic and Hebrew into many modern languages; but though the \par Code does not regard him as necessarily poor, he may have been landless. He \par was free, but had to accept monetary compensation for corporal injuries, paid \par smaller fees and fines, even paid less offerings to the gods. He inhabited a \par separate quarter of the city. There is no reason to regard him as specially \par connected with the court, as a royal pensioner, nor as forming the bulk of the \par population. The rarity of any reference to him in contemporary documents makes \par further specification conjectural. The ardu was a slave, his master's chattel, \par and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire property and even hold \par other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, paid his doctor's fees, but took \par all compensation paid for injury done to him. His master usually found him a \par slave-girl as wife (the children were then born slaves), often set him up in a \par house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual rent of him. Otherwise \par he might marry a freewoman (the children were then free), who might bring him \par a dower which his master could not touch, and at his death one-half of his \par property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his freedom by \par purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a temple, or even \par adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu. Slaves were recruited by \par purchase abroad, from captives taken in war and by freemen degraded for debt \par or crime. A slave often ran away; if caught, the captor was bound to restore \par him to his master, and the Code fixes a reward of two shekels which the owner \par must pay the captor. It was about one-tenth of the average value. To detain, \par harbour, &c., a slave was punished by death. So was an attempt to get him to \par leave the city. A slave bore an identification mark, which could only be \par removed by a surgical operation and which later consisted of his owner's name \par tattooed or branded on the arm. On the great estates in Assyria and its \par subject provinces were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, \par or quondam slaves, tied to the soil they cultivated and sold with the estate \par but capable of possessing land and property of their own. There is little \par trace of serfs in Babylonia, unless the muskinu be really a serf. \par The god of a city was originally owner of its land, which encircled it with an \par inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the \par citizens were his tenants. The god and his viceregent, the king, had long \par ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, \par stock, money or service. One of the earliest monuments records the purchase by \par a king of a large estate for his son, paying a fair market price and adding a \par handsome honorarium to the many owners in costly garments, plate, and precious \par articles of furniture. The Code recognizes complete private ownership in land, \par but apparently extends the right to hold land to votaries, merchants (and \par resident aliens?). But all land was sold subject to its fixed charges. The \par king, however, could free land from these charges by charter, which was a \par frequent way of rewarding those who deserved well of the state. It is from \par these charters that we learn nearly all we know of the obligations that lay \par upon land. The state demanded men for the army and the corvee as well as dues \par in kind. A definite area was bound to find a bowman together with his linked \par pikeman (who bore the shield for both) and to furnish them with supplies for \par the campaign. This area was termed "a bow" as early as the 8th century B.C., \par but the usage was much earlier. Later, a horseman was due from certain areas. \par A man was only bound to serve so many (six?) times, but the land had to find a \par man annually. The service was usually discharged by slaves and serfs, but the \par amelu (and perhaps the muskenu) went to war. The "bows" were grouped in tens \par and hundreds. The corvee was less regular. The letters of Hammurabi often deal \par with claims to exemption. Religious officials and shepherds in charge of \par flocks were exempt. Special liabilities lay upon riparian owners to repair \par canals, bridges, quays, &c. The state claimed certain proportions of all \par crops, stock, &c. The king's messengers could commandeer any subject's \par property, giving a receipt. Further, every city had its own octroi duties, \par customs, ferry dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to be, \par if he ever was, owner of the land. He had his own royal estates, his private \par property and dues from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments \par and official residences. The Code regulates the feudal position of certain \par classes. They held an estate from the king consisting of house, garden, field, \par stock and a salary, on condition of personal service on the king's errand. \par They could not delegate the service on pain of death. When ordered abroad they \par could nominate a son, if capable, to hold the benefice and carry on the duty. \par If there was no son capable, the state put in a locum tenens, but granted \par one-third to the wife to maintain herself and children. The benefice was \par inalienable, could not be sold, pledged, exchanged, sublet, devised or \par diminished. Other land was held of the state for rent. Ancestral estate was \par strictly tied to the family. If a holder would sell, the family had the right \par of redemption and there seems to have been no time-limit to its exercise. \par The temple occupied a most important position. It received from its estates, \par from tithes and other fixed dues, as well as from the sacrifices (a customary \par share) and other offerings of the faithful, vast amounts of all sorts of \par naturalia; besides money and permanent gifts. The larger temples had many \par officials and servants. Originally, perhaps, each town clustered round one \par temple, and each head of a family had a right to minister there and share its \par receipts. As the city grew, the right to so many days a year at one or other \par shrine (or its "gate") descended in certain families and became a species of \par property which could be pledged, rented or shared within the family, but not \par alienated. In spite of all these demands, however, the temples became great \par granaries and store-houses; as they also were the city archives. The temple \par held its responsibilities. If a citizen was captured by the enemy and could \par not ransom himself the temple of his city must do so. To the temple came the \par poor farmer to borrow seed corn or supplies for harvesters, &c.--advances \par which he repaid without interest. The king's power over the temple was not \par proprietary but administrative. He might borrow from it but repaid like other \par borrowers. The tithe seems to have been the composition for the rent due to \par the god for his land. It is not clear that all lands paid tithe, perhaps only \par such as once had a special connexion with the temple. \par The Code deals with a class of persons devoted to the service of a god, as \par vestals or hierodules. The vestals were vowed to chastity, lived together in a \par great nunnery, were forbidden to open or enter a tavern, and together with \par other votaries had many privileges. \par The Code recognizes many ways of disposing of property--sale, lease, barter, \par gift, dedication, deposit, loan, pledge, all of which were matters of \par contract. Sale was the delivery of the purchase (in the case of real estate \par symbolized by a staff, a key, or deed of conveyance) in return for the \par purchase money, receipts being given for both. Credit, if given, was treated \par as a debt, and secured as a loan by the seller to be repaid by the buyer, fr \par which he gave a bond. The Code admits no claim unsubstantiated by documents or \par the oath of witnesses. A buyer had to convince himself of the seller's title. \par If he bought (or received on deposit) from a minor or a slave without power of \par attorney, he would be executed as a thief. If the goods were stolen and the \par rightful owner reclaimed them, he had to prove his purchase by producing the \par seller and the deed of sale or witnesses to it. Otherwise he would be adjudged \par a thief and die. If he proved his purchase, he had to give up the property but \par had his remedy against the seller or, if he had died, could reclaim five-fold \par from his estate. A man who bought a slave abroad, might find that he had been \par stolen or captured from Babylonia, and he had to restore him to his former \par owner without profit. If he bought property belonging to a feudal holding, or \par to a ward in chancery, he had to return it and forfeit what he gave for it as \par well. He could repudiate the purchase of a slave attacked by the bennu \par sickness within the month (later, a hundred days), and had a female slave \par three days on approval. A defect of title or undisclosed liability would \par invalidate the sale at any time. \par Landowners frequently cultivated their land themselves but might employ a \par husbandman or let it. The husbandman was bound to carry out the proper \par cultivation, raise an average crop and leave the field in good tilth. In case \par the crop failed the Code fixed a statutory return. Land might be let at a \par fixed rent when the Code enacted that accidental loss fell on the tenant. If \par let on share-profit, the landlord and tenant shared the loss proportionately \par to their stipulated share of profit. If the tenant paid his rent and left the \par land in good tilth, the landlord could not interfere nor forbid subletting. \par Waste land was let to reclaim, the tenant being rent-free for three years and \par paying a stipulated rent in the fourth year. If the tenant neglected to \par reclaim the land the Code enacted that he must hand it over in good tilth and \par fixed a statutory rent. Gardens or plantations were let in the same ways and \par under the same conditions; but for date-groves four years' free tenure was \par allowed. The metayer system was in vogue, especially on temple lands. The \par landlord found land, labour, oxen for ploughing and working the \par watering-machines, carting, threshing or other implements, seed corn, rations \par for the workmen and fodder for the cattle. The tenant, or steward, usually had \par other land of his own. If he stole the seed, rations or fodder, the Code \par enacted that his fingers should be cut off. If he appropriated or sold the \par implements, impoverished or sublet the cattle, he was heavily fined and in \par default of payment might be condemned to be torn to pieces by the cattle on \par the field. Rent was as contracted. \par Irrigation was indispensable. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dyke, \par or left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage \par done to his neighbours' crops, or be sold with his family to pay the cost. The \par theft of a watering-machine, water-bucket or other agricultural implement was \par heavily fined. \par Houses were let usually for the year, but also for longer terms, rent being \par paid in advance, half-yearly. The contract generally specified that the house \par was in good repair, and the tenant was bound to keep it so. The woodwork, \par including doors and door frames, was removable, and the tenant might bring and \par take away his own. The Code enacted that if the landlord would re-enter before \par the term was up, he must remit a fair proportion of the rent. Land was leased \par for houses or other buildings to be built upon it, the tenant being rent-free \par for eight or ten years; after which the building came into the landlord's \par possession. \par Despite the multitude of slaves, hired labour was often needed, especially at \par harvest. This was matter of contract, and the hirer, who usually paid in \par advance, might demand a guarantee to fulfil the engagement. Cattle were hired \par for ploughing, working the watering-machines, carting, threshing, etc. The \par Code fixed a statutory wage for sowers, ox-drivers, field-labourers, and hire \par for oxen, asses, &c. \par There were many herds and flocks. The flocks were committed to a shepherd who \par gave receipt for them and took them out to pasture. The Code fixed him a wage. \par He was responsible for all care, must restore ox for ox, sheep for sheep, must \par breed them satisfactorily. Any dishonest use of the flock had to be repaid \par ten-fold, but loss by disease or wild beasts fell on the owner. The shepherd \par made good all loss due to his neglect. If he let the flock feed on a field of \par corn he had to pay damages four-fold; if he turned them into standing corn \par when they ought to have been folded he paid twelve-fold. \par In commercial matters, payment in kind was still common, though the contracts \par usually stipulate for cash, naming the standard expected, that of Babylon, \par Larsa, Assyria, Carchemish, &c. The Code enacted, however, that a debtor must \par be allowed to pay in produce according to statutory scale. If a debtor had \par neither money nor crop, the creditor-must not refuse goods. \par Debt was secured on the person of the debtor. Distraint on a debtor's corn was \par forbidden by the Code; not only must the creditor give it back, but his \par illegal action forfeited his claim altogether. An unwarranted seizure for debt \par was fined, as was the distraint of a working ox. The debtor being seized for \par debt could nominate as mancipium or hostage to work off the debt, his wife, a \par child, or slave. The creditor could only hold a wife or child three years as \par mancipium. If the mancipium died a natural death while in the creditor's \par possession no claim could lie against the latter; but if he was the cause of \par death by cruelty, he had to give son for son, or pay for a slave. He could \par sell a slave-hostage, unless she were a slave-girl who had borne her master \par children. She had to be redeemed by her owner. \par The debtor could also pledge his property, and in contracts often pledged a \par field house or crop. The Code enacted, however, that the debtor should always \par take the crop himself and pay the creditor from it. If the crop failed, \par payment was deferred and no interest could be charged for that year. If the \par debtor did not cultivate the field himself he had to pay for the cultivation, \par but if the cultivation was already finished he must harvest it himself and pay \par his debt from the crop. If the cultivator did not get a crop this would not \par cancel his contract. Pledges were often made where the intrinsic value of the \par article was equivalent to the amount of the debt; but antichretic pledge was \par more common, where the profit of the pledge was a set-off against the interest \par of the debt. The whole property of the debtor might be pledged as security for \par the payment of the debt, without any of it coming into the enjoyment of the \par creditor. Personal guarantees were often given that the debtor would repay or \par the guarantor become liable himself. \par Trade was very extensive. A common way of doing business was for a merchant to \par entrust goods or money to a travelling agent, who sought a market for his \par goods. The caravans travelled far beyond the limits of the empire. The Code \par insisted that the agent should inventory and give a receipt for all that he \par received. No claim could be made for anything not so entered. Even if the \par agent made no profit he was bound to return double what he had received, if he \par made poor profit he had to make up the deficiency; but he was not responsible \par for loss by robbery or extortion on his travels. On his return, the principal \par must give a receipt for what was handed over to him. Any false entry or claim \par on the agent's part was penalised three-fold, on the principal's part \par six-fold. In normal cases profits were divided according to contract, usually \par equally. \par A considerable amount of forwarding was done by the caravans. The carrier gave \par a receipt for the consignment, took all responsibility and exacted a receipt \par on delivery. If he defaulted he paid five-fold. He was usually paid in \par advance. Deposit, especially warehousing of grain, was charged for at \par one-sixtieth. The warehouseman took all risks, paid double for all shortage, \par but no claim could be made unless be had given a properly witnessed receipt. \par Water traffic on the Euphrates and canals was early very considerable. Ships, \par whose tonnage was estimated at the amount of grain they could carry, were \par continually hired for the a transport of all kinds of goods. The Code fixes \par the price for building and insists on the builder's giving a year's guarantee \par of seaworthiness. It fixes the hire of ship and of crew. The captain was \par responsible for the freight and the ship; he had to replace all loss. Even if \par he refloated the ship he had to pay a fine of half its value for sinking it. \par In the case of collisio n the boat under way was responsible for damages to the \par boat at anchor. The Code also regulated the liquor traffic, fixing a fair \par price for beer and forbidding the connivance of the tavern-keeper (a female!) \par at disorderly conduct or treasonable assembly, under pain of death. She was to \par hale the offenders to the palace, which implied an efficient and accessible \par police system. \par Payment through a banker or by written draft against deposit was frequent. \par Bonds to pay were treated as negotiable. Interest a was rarely charged on \par advances by the temple or wealthy land-owners for pressing needs, but this may \par have been part of the metayer system. The borrowers may have been tenants. \par Interest was charged at very high rates for overdue loans of this kind. \par Merchants (and even temples in some cases) made ordinary business loans, \par charging from 20 to 30%. \par Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a con!tract to be \par man and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged \par between the relatives, the bride- groom's father providing the bride-price, \par which with other presents the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's \par father. This bride-price was usually handed over by her father to the bride on \par her marriage, and so came back into the bridegroom's possession, along with \par her dowry, which was her portion as a daughter. The bride-price varied much, \par according to the position of the parties, but was in excess of that paid for a \par slave. The Code enacted that if the father does not, after accepting a man's \par presents, give him his daughter, he, must return the presents doubled. Even if \par his decision was brought about by libel on the part of the suitor's friend \par this was done, and the Code enacted that the faithless friend should not marry \par the girl. If a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents. "The dowry \par might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and \par household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her \par children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could \par deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it, if it \par had. The marriage ceremony included joining of hands and the utterance of some \par formula of acceptance on the part of the bridegroom, as "I am the son of \par nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be \par thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." It must \par be performed by a freeman. \par The marriage contract, without which the Code ruled that the woman was no \par wife, usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for \par repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many \par conditions might be inserted: as that the wife s#hould act as maidservant to \par her mother-in-law, or to a first wife. The married couple formed a unit as to \par external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for \par debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his \par own; but he could use her as a mancipium. Hence the Code allowed a proviso to \par be inserted in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for \par her husband's prenuptial debts; but enacted that then he was not responsible \par for her prenuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were \par responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife \par a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his \par property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favourite \par child, but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married she \par always remained a member of her father's house--she is rare$ly named wife of A, \par usually daughter of B, or mother of C. \par Divorce was optional with the man, but he had to restore the dowry and, if the \par wife had borne him children, she had the custody of them. He had then to \par assign her the income of field, or garden, as well as goods, to maintain \par herself and children until they grew up. She then shared equally with them in \par the allowance (and apparently in his estate at his death) and was free to \par marry again. If she had no children, he returned her the dowry and paid her a \par sum equivalent to the bride-price, or a mina of silver, if there had been \par none. The latter is the forfeit usually named in the contract for his \par repudiation of her. \par If she had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he \par kept the children and her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a \par slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. She might \par br%ing an action against him for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her \par case, obtain a judicial separation, taking with her her dowry. No other \par punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but proved to be a \par bad wife, she was drowned. If she were left without maintenance during her \par husband's involuntary absence, she could cohabit with another man, but must \par return to her husband if he came back, the children of the second union \par remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the \par marriage tie was adultery. Wilful desertion by, or exile of, the husband \par dissolved the marriage, and if he came back he had no claim on her property; \par possibly not on his own. \par As a widow, the wife took her husband's place in the family, living on in his \par house and bringing up the children. She could only remarry with judicial \par consent, when the judge was bound to inventory the deceased's estate and hand \&par it over to her and her new husband in trust for the children. They could not \par alienate a single utensil. If she did not remarry, she lived on in her \par husband's house and took a child's share on the division of his estate, when \par the children had grown up. She still retained her dowry and any settlement \par deeded to her by her husband. This property came to her children. If she had \par remarried, all her children shared equally in her dowry, but the first \par husband's gift fell to his children or to her selection among them, if so \par empowered. \par Monogamy was the rule, and a childless wife might give her husband a maid (who \par was no wife) to bear him children, who were reckoned hers. She remained \par mistress of her maid and might degrade her to slavery again for insolence, but \par could not sell her if she had borne her husband children. If the wife did \par this, the Code did not allow the husband to take a concubine. If she would \par ' not, he could do so. The concubine was a wife, though not of the same rank; \par the first wife had no power over her. A concubine was a free woman, was often \par dowered for marriage and her children were legitimate. She could only be \par divorced on the same conditions as a wife. If a wife became a chronic invalid, \par the husband was bound to maintain her in the home they bad made together, \par unless she preferred to take her dowry and go back to her father's house; but \par he was free to remarry. In all these cases the children were legitimate and \par legal heirs. \par There was, of course, no hindrance to a man having children by a slave girl. \par These children were free, in any case, and their mother could not be sold, \par though she might be pledged, and she was free on her master's death. These \par children could be legitimized by their father's acknowledgment before \par witnesses, and were often adopted. They then ranked equally in sharing their (\par father's estate, but if not adopted, the wife's children divided and took \par first choice. \par Vestal virgins were not supposed to have children, yet they could and often \par did marry. The Code contemplated that such a wife would give a husband a maid \par as above. Free women might marry slaves and be dowered for the marriage. The \par children were free, and at the slave's death the wife took her dowry and half \par what she and her husband had acquired in wedlock for self and children; the \par master taking the other half as his slave's heir. \par A father had control over his children till their marriage. He had a right to \par their labour in return for their keep. He might hire them out and receive \par their wages, pledge them for debt, even sell them outright. Mothers had the \par same rights in the absence of the father; even elder brothers when both \par parents were dead. A father had no claim on his married children for support, \par but the)y retained a right to inherit on his death. \par The daughter was not only in her father's power to be given in marriage, but \par he might dedicate her to the service of some god as a vestal or a hierodule; \par or give her as a concubine. She had no choice in these matters, which were \par often decided in her childhood. A grown-up daughter might wish to become a \par votary, perhaps in preference to an uncongenial marriage, and it seems that \par her father could not refuse her wish. In all these cases the father might \par dower her. If he did not, on his death the brothers were bound to do so, \par giving her a full child's share if a wife, a concubine or a vestal, but \par one-third of a child's share if she were a hierodule or a Marduk priestess. \par The latter had the privilege of exemption from state dues and absolute \par disposal of her property. All other daughters had only a life interest in \par their dowry, which reverted to their family, if childless, o*r went to their \par children if they had any. A father might, however, execute a deed granting a \par daughter power to leave her property to a favourite brother or sister. A \par daughter's estate was usually managed for her by her brothers, but if they did \par not satisfy her, she could appoint a steward. If she married, her husband \par managed it. \par The son also appears to have received his share on marriage, but did not \par always then leave his father's house; he might bring his wife there. This was \par usual in child marriages. \par Adoption was very common, especially where the father (or mother) was \par childless or had seen all his children grow up and marry away. The child was \par then adopted to care for the parents' old age. This was done by contract, \par which usually specified what the parent had to leave and what maintenance was \par expected. The real children, if any, were usually consenting parties to an \par arrangement which cut off +their expectations. They even, in some cases, found \par the estate for the adopted child who was to relieve them of a care. If the \par adopted child failed to carry out the filial duty the contract was annulled in \par the law courts. Slaves were often adopted and if they proved unfilial were \par reduced to slavery again. \par A craftsman often adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited by the son's \par labour. If he failed to teach his son the craft, that son could prosecute him \par and get the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is \par not clear that the apprentice had any filial relation. \par A man who adopted a son, and afterwards married and had a family of his own, \par could dissolve the contract but must give the adopted child one-third of a \par child's share in goods, but no real estate. That could only descend in the \par family to which he had ceased to belong. Vestals frequently adopted daughters, \par usually other ves,tals, to care for their old age. \par Adoption had to be with consent of the real parents, who usually executed a \par deed making over the child, who thus ceased to have any claim upon them. But \par vestals, hierodules, certain palace officials and slaves had no rights over \par their children and could raise no obstacle. Foundlings and illegitimate \par children had no parents to object. If the adopted child discovered his true \par parents and wanted to return to them, his eye or tongue was torn out. An \par adopted child was a full heir, the contract might even assign him the position \par of eldest son. Usually he was residuary legatee. \par All legitimate children shared equally in the father's estate at his death, \par reservation being made of a bride-price for an unmarried son, dower for a \par daughter or property deeded to favourite children by the father. There was no \par birthright attaching to the position of eldest son, but he usually acted as \par e-xecutor and after considering what each had already received equalized the \par shares. He even made grants in excess to the others from his own share. When \par there were two mothers, the two families shared equally in the father's estate \par until later times when the first family took two-thirds. Daughters, in the \par absence of sons, had sons' rights. Children also shared their own mother's \par property, but had no share in that of a stepmother. \par A father could disinherit a son in early times without restriction, but the \par Code insisted upon judicial consent and that only for repeated unfilial \par conduct. In early times the son who denied his father had his front hair \par shorn, a slave-mark put on him, and could be sold as a slave; while if he \par denied his mother he had his front hair shorn, was driven round the city as an \par example and expelled his home, but not degraded to slavery. \par Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by d.rowning, but if the \par husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the \par paramour. For incest with his own mother, both were burned to death; with a \par stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; \par with a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son's betrothed, he was fined. \par A wife who for her lover's sake procured her husband's death was gibbeted. A \par betrothed girl, seduced by her prospective father-in-law, took her dowry and \par returned to her family, and was free to marry as she chose. \par In the criminal law the ruling principle was the lex talionis. Eye for eye, \par tooth for tooth, limb for limb was the penalty for assault upon an amelu. A \par sort of symbolic retaliation was the punishment of the offending member, seen \par in the cutting off the hand that struck a father or stole a trust; in cutting \par off the breast of a wet-nurse who substituted a changeling for the child \/par entrusted to her; in the loss of the tongue that denied father or mother (in \par the Elamite contracts the same penalty was inflicted for perjury); in the loss \par of the eye that pried into forbidden secrets. The loss of the surgeon's hand \par that caused loss of life or limb or the brander's hand that obliterated a \par slave's identification mark, are very similar. The slave, who struck a freeman \par or denied his master, lost an ear, the organ of hearing and symbol of \par obedience. To bring another into danger of death by false accusation was \par punished by death. To cause loss of liberty or property by false witness was \par punished by the penalty the perjurer sought to bring upon another. \par The death penalty was freely awarded for theft and other crimes regarded as \par coming under that head, for theft involving entrance of palace or temple \par treasury, for illegal purchase from minor or slave, for selling stolen goods \par or receiving the s0ame, for common theft in the open (in default of multiple \par restoration) or receiving the same, for false claim to goods, for kidnapping, \par for assisting or harbouring fugitive slaves, for detaining or appropriating \par same, for brigandage, for fraudulent sale of drink, for disorderly conduct of \par tavern, for delegation of personal service, for misappropriating the levy, for \par oppression of feudal holders, for causing death of a householder by bad \par building. The manner of death is not specified in these cases. This death \par penalty was also fixed for such conduct as placed another in danger of death. \par A specified form of death penalty occurs in the following cases:-gibbeting (on \par the spot where crime was committed) for burglary, later also for encroaching \par on the king's highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring \par husband's death; burning for incest with own mother, for vestal entering or \par opening tavern, for the1ft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape \par of betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as wife, seduction of \par daughter-in-law. \par A curious extension of the talio is the death of creditor's son for his \par father's having caused the death of debtor's son as mancipium; of builder's \par son for his father's causing the death of house-owner's son by building the \par house badly; the death of a man's daughter because her father caused the death \par of another man's daughter. \par The contracts naturally do not concern such criminal cases as the above, as a \par rule, but marriage contracts do specify death by strangling, drowning, \par precipitation from a tower or pinnacle of the temple or by the iron sword for \par a wife's repudiation of her husband. We are quite without evidence as to the \par executive in all these cases. \par Exile was inflicted for incest with a daughter; disinheritance for incest with \par a stepmother or for repeated un2filial conduct. Sixty strokes of an ox-hide \par scourge were awarded for a brutal assault on a superior, both being amelu. \par Branding (perhaps the equivalent of degradation to slavery) was the penalty \par for slander of a married woman or vestal. Deprivation of office in perpetuity \par fell upon the corrupt judge. Enslavement befell the extravagant wife and \par unfilial children. Imprisonment was common, but is not recognized by the Code. \par \par The commonest of all penalties was a fine. This is awarded by the Code for \par corporal injuries to a muskinu or slave (paid to his master); for damages done \par to property, for breach of contract. The restoration of goods appropriated, \par illegally bought or damaged by neglect, was usually accompanied by a fine, \par giving it the form of multiple restoration. This might be double, treble, \par fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, tenfold, twelvefold, even thirtyfold, according \par to the enormity of the offence. \par 3 The Code recognized the importance of intention. A man who killed another in a \par quarrel must swear he did not do so intentionally, and was then only fined \par according to the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the \par penalty of murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused that we \par can hardly doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led \par to injury and was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the \par doctor's fees. A brander, induced to remove a slave's identification mark, \par could swear to his ignorance and was free. The owner of an ox which gored a \par man on the street was only responsible for damages if, the ox was known by him \par to be vicious, even if it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural death \par under the creditor's hand, the creditor was scot free. In ordinary cases \par responsibility was not demanded for accident or for more than proper care. \par P4overty excused bigamy on the part of a deserted wife. \par On the other hand carelessness and neglect were severely punished, as in the \par case of the unskilful physician, if it led to loss of life or limb his hands \par were cut off, a slave had to be replaced, the loss of his eye paid for to half \par his value; a veterinary surgeon who caused the death of an ox or ass paid \par quarter value; a builder, whose careless workmanship caused death, lost his \par life or paid for it by the death of his child, replaced slave or goods, and in \par any case had to rebuild the house or make good any damages due to defective \par building and repair the defect as well. The boat-builder had to make good any \par defect of construction or damage due to it for a year's warranty. \par Throughout the Code respect is paid to status. \par Suspicion was not enough. The criminal must be taken in the act, e.g. the \par adulterer, ravisher, &c. A man could not be convicted of theft unle5ss the \par goods were found in his possession. \par In the case of a lawsuit the plaintiff preferred his own plea. There is no \par trace of professional advocates, but the plea had to be in writing and the \par notary doubtless assisted in the drafting of it. The judge saw the plea, \par called the other parties before him and sent for the witnesses. If these were \par not at hand he might adjourn the case for their production, specifying a time \par up to six months. Guarantees might be entered into to produce the witnesses on \par a fixed day. The more important cases, especially those involving life and \par death, were tried by a bench of judges. With the judges were associated a body \par of elders, who shared in the decision, but whose exact function is not yet \par clear. Agreements, declarations and non-contentious cases are usually \par witnessed by one judge and twelve elders. \par Parties and witnesses were put on oath. The penalty for the false witness 6was \par usually that which would have been awarded the convicted criminal. In matters \par beyond the knowledge of men, as the guilt or innocence of an alleged wizard or \par a suspected wife, the ordeal by water was used. The accused jumped into the \par sacred river, and the innocent swam while the guilty drowned. The accused \par could clear himself by oath where his own knowledge was alone available. The \par plaintiff could swear to his loss by brigands, as to goods claimed, the price \par paid for a slave purchased abroad or the sum due to him. But great stress was \par laid on the production of written evidence. It was a serious thing to lose a \par document. The judges might be satisfied of its existence and terms by the \par evidence of the witnesses to it, and then issue an order that whenever found \par it should be given up. Contracts annulled were ordered to be broken. The court \par might go a journey to view the property and even take with them the sacre7d \par symbols on which oath was made. \par The decision given was embodied in writing, sealed and witnessed by the \par judges, the elders, witnesses and a scribe. Women might act in all these \par capacities. The parties swore an oath, embodied in the document, to observe \par its stipulations. Each took a copy and one was held by the scribe to be stored \par in the archives. \par Appeal to the king was allowed and is well attested. The judges at Babylon \par seem to have formed a superior court to those of provincial towns, but a \par defendant might elect to answer the charge before the local court and refuse \par to plead at Babylon. \par Finally, it may be noted that many immoral acts, such as the use of false \par weights, lying, &c., which could not be brought into court, are severely \par denounced in the Omen Tablets as likely to bring the offender into "the hand \par of God" as opposed to "the hand of the king."\par \par Bibliography. \par Contra8cts in general: Oppert and Menant, Documents juridiques de l'Assyrie et \par de la Chaldee (Paris, 1877); J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Aus dem Babylonischen \par Rechtsleben (Leipzig, 1890 ff.); F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Vertrage (Berlin, \par 1890), Keilinschrifiliche Actenstucke (Berlin, 1889); Br. Meissner, Beitrage \par zur altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893); F. E. Peiser, "Texte \par juristischen und geschaftlichen Inhalts," vol. iv. of Schrader's \par Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Berlin, 1896); C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds \par and Documents relating to the Transfer of Property (3 vols., Cambridge, 1898); \par H. Radau, Early Babylonian History (New York, 1900); C. H. W. Johns, \par Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (Edinburgh, 1904).\par \par For editions of texts and the innumerable articles in scientific journals see \par the bibliographies and references in the above works. "The Code of Hammurabi," \par Editio princeps, by V. S9cheil in tome iv. of the Textes Elamites-Semitiques of \par the Memoires de la delegation en Perse (Paris, 1902); H. Winckler, "Die \par Gesetze Hammurabis Konigs von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr." Der alte Orient, iv. \par Jahrgang, Heft 4; D. H. Muller, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (Vienna, 1903); J. \par Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Hammurabis Gesetz (Leipzig, 1904); R. F. Harper, The \par Code of Hammurabi, King, of Babylon about 2250 B.C. (Chicago, 1904); S. A. \par Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903).\par \par Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, M.A. Litt.D. \par Master of St. Catharine's College, Cambridge. Lecturer in Assyriology, Queens' \par College, Cambridge, and King's College, London. Author of Assyrian Deeds and \par Documents of the 7th Century B.C.; The Oldest Code of Laws; Babylonian and \par Assyrian Laws; Contracts and Letters; \par etc.\par \par \par \par \par HAMMURABI'S CODE OF LAWS\par (circa 1780 B.C.)\par Translated by L. W. :King\par \par When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and \par earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son \par of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among \par the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, \par and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly \par as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the \par exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the \par land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not \par harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, \par and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. \par Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching \par Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished \;par Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the \par world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord \par who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who \par enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the \par white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of \par Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar \par great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed \par E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who \par brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and \par perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the \par scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting \par king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of \par Kish, crowned E-