(M42) In connection with these Aramaic legends a number of the texts of a.s.syrian contracts were published in the _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, _Pars Secunda_, _Tomus I_. A number more were published in Vol. III. of the _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia_, by Sir H. C.

Rawlinson. A few others were published in various journals; and by Oppert in his epoch-making treatise on the juristic literature, _Doc.u.ments Juridiques_; by Peiser, in Vol. IV. of Schrader's _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_; and by Stra.s.smaier in his _Alphabetisches Verzeichnis_. The whole of the texts of the a.s.syrian contracts from the Kouyunjik Collections in the British Museum are now published in _a.s.syrian Deeds and Doc.u.ments recording the Transfer of Property, etc._ (three volumes published).(55) A bibliography will be found there, on page ix of the preface to Vol. I.

(M43) The very remarkable style which most of these tablets show is so unlike the contemporary doc.u.ments in Babylonia that we may expect that transactions between private citizens in a.s.syria at this time were quite different. A few such doc.u.ments exist. Professor V. Scheil, in the _Receuil de Travaux_,(56) published the text of four which are quite unlike any of the Kouyunjik examples.

(M44) In _a.s.syrian Deeds and Doc.u.ments_ the same plan of arrangement was followed, to some extent, as in this work. Being all of one epoch and showing no signs of any development the tablets were grouped, provisionally, according to subjects. The arrangement in each group was to place first the best specimens of the group and then the injured and fragmentary specimens, which thus received ill.u.s.tration, and in some cases, could be restored. It would, however, be an error to regard the a.s.syrian doc.u.ments as the intermediate link between the old and new Babylonian doc.u.ments, though they belong chronologically to an interval which precedes the latter immediately. The a.s.syrian scribe used a formula that was closer to the Old Babylonian than to the contemporary Babylonian.

It had an independent development, looking rather to the royal charters as models than to the private doc.u.ment. In fact, the closest parallels of all are to be found on the Babylonian boundary-stones and charters. When, therefore, in our chronologically arranged sketch of a given subject, reference is made to a.s.syrian usage, next to that of the First Dynasty of Babylon, it will be understood that only the nature of the transaction is akin; and that, as a rule, the verbal treatment of it is quite distinct.

(M45) A few contemporary doc.u.ments have reached us from the cities of Babylonia. They have little or no affinity with the immediately preceding groups, but carry on the local development from the second epoch. They come from many sites and are published in a variety of journals. A tentative list of them will be found in the Appendix. They refer to transactions in the reigns of Shalmaneser IV., Sargon II., Merodach-baladan II., Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Shamash-shum-ukin, Kandalanu, Ashur-etil-ilani, and Sin-shar-ishkun. In style they belong to the next epoch.

(M46) The second Babylonian empire, commencing with Nabopola.s.sar and extending to the end of the independent existence of a Babylonian empire, is represented by thousands of tablets in our museums. A small part of these has been published. Pater J. N. Stra.s.smaier has given some one thousand six hundred in his _Babylonische Texte_. Dr. Peiser published many more in his _Keilinschriftliche Acten-stucke and Babylonische Vertrage_. The Rev. B. T. A. Evetts, Dr. Moldenke, Dr. Pinches and others have published many more. A detailed list will be found in the Appendix.

(M47) In the times of the Persian kings very many doc.u.ments were drawn up very similar to these. The series is quite unbroken, down through Macedonian rule, the Arsacid period, to as late as B.C. 82. The list will be found in the Appendix.

Of the whole period we may say that the variety and quant.i.ty of written evidence are amazing. Every sort of transaction that could be made the subject of a deed or memorandum was written down. They come from most of the chief cities in Babylonia.

(M48) The cla.s.sification of this material is no easy task. As in the case of the Bibliography, so here, the first and apparently the only attempt has been made by Dr. C. Bezold in his invaluable _Kurzgefa.s.ster uberblick_.

The view taken there depended upon Professor Oppert's estimate of the nature of the doc.u.ments and that again was often founded on imperfect copies of the text. A great advance has since been made in understanding the contents of the texts then published, and the number published has enormously increased.

The publications, where accompanied by translations, have generally given some cla.s.sification. Dr. Peiser, in the fourth volume of Schrader's _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, gives most suggestive indexes.(57) Dr.

Tallqvist, in his _Sprache der Contrakte Nabuna'id's_ gives a very valuable cla.s.sification.(58) Dr. Meissner cla.s.sified his texts in _Altbabylonische Privatrecht_.

A number of monographs have been written collecting the different texts from many sources bearing on one subject, thus acting as a kind of cla.s.sification. A complete work on the subject is still needed.

(M49) Of great importance are Dr. F. E. Peiser's _Jurisprudentiae Babylonicae quae supersunt, Cothen_, 1890 (Inaug. Diss.); Dr. B. Meissner's _De Servitute babylonico-a.s.syriaca_, Leipzig, 1882 (Inaug. Diss.); and Dr.

V. Marx, _Die Stellung der Frauen in Babylonien (Nebuchadnezzar to Darius __B.C.__ 604-485)_ published in the _Beitrage zur a.s.syriologie_, Vol. IV., pp. 1-77. These should certainly be read by any serious student of the times. To reproduce their contents would occupy too much s.p.a.ce.

On the whole subject of social life, as ill.u.s.trated by these contracts, there is a valuable study by Dr. F. E. Peiser, called _Skizze der Babylonischen Gesellschaft_.(59) Professor Sayce's _Babylonians and a.s.syrians_ in the _Semitic Series_, 1900, is an excellent account, though in some respects not sufficiently critical. But in all such preliminary work it is easy to feel sure of conclusions which have to be revised with fuller knowledge. Time will doubtless show this to be true of what is said in the present work. But wherever doubt is felt by the writer, it will be indicated.

LAWS AND CONTRACTS

I. The Earliest Babylonian Laws

(M50) We are still completely in the dark as to the rise of law in Babylonia. As far back as we can trace the history or its written monuments, there is no time of which we can say, "As yet there was no law." Our chief object to-day is to discover what the law was. For the most part, and until lately, we were compelled almost entirely to infer this from such contracts as were drawn up between parties and sworn to, witnessed, and sealed. Among them were a large number of legal decisions which recorded the ruling of some judicial functionary on points of law submitted to him. These and the hints given by the legal phrase-books had allowed us to attain considerable knowledge of what was legal and right in ancient Babylonia or a.s.syria.

(M51) But the question remained, Was it "right" or "law"? Were there enactments by authority, making clear what was right, and in some cases creating right, where there was none before? There was much to suggest the existence of enacted law, even of a code of laws, and the word "law" had been freely applied. But there was no known ascription of any law to a definite legislator. There was no word for "law," only the terms "judgments," "right," and "wrong." It was significant that the parties to a suit always seemed to have agreed on what was right between man and man, and then to have sworn by their G.o.ds to observe the "right."

(M52) We definitely know of one great code of laws, that of ?ammurabi, and we are greatly strengthened in the view that there were laws, and even codes, centuries before him. The way in which contracts quote the phrases of his code is exactly parallel to the way in which far earlier contracts quote phrases which are evidently extracts, in the phrase-books, from some connected work. Hence we are warranted in thinking that these extracts come from a Sumerian code of laws. We do not yet know to whom we should ascribe its compilation.

(M53) For the Code of ?ammurabi is also a compilation. He did not invent his laws. Phrases found in them appear in contracts before his time.

Doubtless he did enact some fresh laws. But he built for the most part on other men's foundations. The decisions already pa.s.sed by the judges had made men ready to accept as "right" what was now made "law." But the question is only carried back a stage further. Did not those judges decide according to law? In some cases we know they did, for we have the law before them. When we try to penetrate further into the background of history we can only surmise. Doc.u.ments fail us to prove whether judges first made or administered the law. But we have now a very high antiquity for laws recognized and obeyed as right.

(M54) That laws were already enacted in the pre-Semitic or Sumerian days we may regard as certain. The legal phrase-books drawn up by later scribes, especially those known as forming the series called _ana ittiu_, give as specimens certain laws. These were evidently given by the scribes as examples of connected prose in Sumerian, accompanied by a rendering into Semitic. Their object was primarily grammatical, or at any rate educational; but they are most valuable because they contain specimens of the Sumerian legislation. Owing to their limited scope they were at first regarded as family laws. But there can be little doubt that they really are extracts from something like a code of laws. We are as yet quite ignorant of the date of their first promulgation, place of origin, and legislator. The seventh tablet of the series _ana ittiu_, Col. III. l. 22 to Col. IV. l. 22, gives the seven following laws:

(M55)

I. If a son has said to his father, "You are not my father," he may brand him, lay fetters upon him, and sell him.

It may be doubted whether this applies to any but adopted sons. "You shall not be my father" is a possible rendering. But the phrase may only refer to rebellious conduct. The word rendered "brand" has often been taken to mean "shave." The cutting short of the hair was a mark of degradation. The Semitic Babylonians wore their hair long, while slaves, and perhaps also Sumerians as a race, are represented as hairless. However that may be, the same word is used of "branding" cattle and it implies cutting or incision.

It may mean a tattooed mark. The word rendered "fetter" seems also to be used of a branded body-mark. The whole law means that the rebellious son is to be degraded to the status of a slave and treated as such.

(M56)

II. If a son has said to his mother, "You are not my mother," one shall brand his forehead, drive him out of the city, and make him go out of the house.

Here the same ambiguity about branding is found. Some take the word rendered "forehead" to mean the hair of the head. His head would then be shaved. "To go out from the house" means "to be cut off from kith and kin." But here the son retains his freedom, only he is an exile and homeless. In this case it is not the mother who exacts the penalty. The verb is plural and may be taken impersonally. The family or the city magistrates are probably the ones to execute the law.

(M57)

III. If a father has said to his son, "You are not my son," he shall leave house and yard.

Here the father has power to repudiate a son, who must go. The word for "leave" is literally "take himself up," "go up out of." The word "yard" is simply "inclosure" and may mean the city walls, as a symbol of shelter.

(M58)

IV. If a mother has said to her son, "You are not my son," he shall leave house and property.

Here we expect, by a.n.a.logy with Laws I. and II., that this penalty is rather less than that in III. The "property" means "house furniture." The son must leave home and can take no house furniture with him. He has no claim to inherit anything. But he need not leave the city. Hence it seems likely that III. denied him the right of city shelter.

(M59)

V. If a wife hates her husband and has said, "You are not my husband," one shall throw her into the river.

(M60)

VI. If a husband has said to his wife, "You are not my wife," he shall pay half a mina of silver.

The contrast in the penalties is startling. Note the impersonal form of V.

The executioners here are the family, or city, not the husband. Publicity is therefore implied. It is not a private quarrel, but a refusal of conjugal rights. In the second case the man divorces, or puts away, his wife, but pays a heavy fine.