(M500) The temple exerted an overwhelming financial influence in smaller towns. Only in certain large cities was it rivalled by a few great firms.

Its financial status was that of the chief, if not the only, great capitalist. Its political influence was also great. This was largely enlisted on the side of peace at home and stability in business.

(M501) The importance of the temple was partially the result of the large dues paid to it. These consisted primarily of a _ginu_, 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 a.s.syrian times the _ginu_ 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 G.o.ds named. We no longer have the temple accounts, but the private business transactions of the citizens, whose neighbors are often the G.o.ds themselves, as direct land-owners. In a.s.syrian 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 Vertrage_ 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 G.o.d, we may understand that he really rebuilt it, or erected a new temple on the site. Before kings, the _patesis_ did the same. But did a _patesi_ precede a temple or _vice versa_? 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 s.p.a.ces 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 Belit at Nineveh we have a different list.(541) For the parallels with Mosaic ritual, and the Ma.r.s.eilles sacrificial tablet, see Dr. J. Jeremias, _Die Cultus Tafel von Sippar_. The list was drawn up by Nabu-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 _ginu_ and _sattukku_ mentioned on page 208, which were constant and regular supplies.

(M506) The temple was also a commercial inst.i.tution of high efficiency.

Their acc.u.mulations 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 quant.i.ty was needed for garments and vestments for temple officials, some for the G.o.ds. 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.ds 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 Bel-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 Ashurbanipal is a great example of the magic-ridden kings.

?ammurabi 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, _angu_, was a person of the highest rank. He appears very little on the whole. His chief function was to act as mediator between G.o.d and man, as over the sacrifice offered.

(M512) He had public duties outside his priestly office. He inspected ca.n.a.ls.(544) He often acted as a judge.

(M513) There was a college of priests attached to some temples, over which was a _angu ma??u_ or "high-priest."

(M514) The general idea that _mamau_, "charmer"; _kalu_, "restrainer"; (?) _ma??u_, "soothsayer"; _surru_; _lagaru_; _a'ilu_, "inquirer"; _muelu_, "necromancer"; _aipu_, "sorcerer"; all properly "magicians,"

are subdivisions of the general term _angu_, 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 _?epu_, or "warden," was over the temple servants. He let the temple lands. He inspected the temple slaves and work-people.(546)

(M516) The _atammu_ was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected with the _utummu_ 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 t.i.tle, 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 cla.s.ses 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 inst.i.tutions 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 doc.u.ments. From them we learn that each day certain officials received certain allowances, mostly food and drink. From later doc.u.ments 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 a.s.set.

Thus we read of a right to five days per year in the temple of Nannar, sixteen days per year in the temple of Belit, and eight days in the shrine of Gula as being the _nam?ar_ of Sin-imgurani and Sin-uzili.(550) This was confirmed to them by a legal decision in the time of Rim-Sin. We read also of a right to act as _atammu_, for six days per month, in the temple of Shamash.(551) In later times the _mandidutu_, or surveyorship, to the temple of Anu, Ib, and Belit-ekalli, 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 pa.s.s to the possessor's daughter on his death.(553) The porter's post at Bab 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 _ridu ?abe_ and the _ba'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 subst.i.tute 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 a.s.syria had endowments which were not personal, but went with the office. Thus we learn from the ?arran 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 cla.s.s of doc.u.ments 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 _?A_ of wheat, six _?A_ of sesame, on every eighteen _?A_ of land. When the corn and dates were harvested, on one _GUR_, six _?A_ 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 ?ammurabi we see that a temple might be called upon to ransom a member of the town who had been taken captive.

(M527) In certain circ.u.mstances the king's officials might borrow of the temples.(554) Thus Nikkal-iddina borrowed of the temple of Belit 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-shum-ukin sent the bribes to the King of Elam, Ummanigash, he spoiled the treasuries of Merodach at Babylon, of Nabu at Borsippa, and of Nergal 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.syrian times to be the _belu_ 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 a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sing 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.