“Year of Šamaš and Rimmon.”

Sometimes the even tenor of early Babylonian life was interrupted by a lawsuit on the part of a relative (often one who ought to have known better), and, though less of a family convulsion than a divorce, it must have been sufficiently annoying, especially when the plaintiff was one's own father. The following gives details of such a case—

“(Tablet concerning) one slave, her maid, whom Ayatia, her mother, left to Ḫulaltum, her daughter, and Ḫulaltum (on that account) supported Ayatia, her mother. And Sin-naṣir (was) husband of Ayatia. Ayatia left to her (Ḫulaltum), in the 20th year, that which was in the city Buzu, but there was no tablet (?) (documentary evidence) concerning Ayatia's property. After Ayatia died, Sin-naṣir brought an action against Ḫulaltum on account of the maidservant, and Išarlim, scribe of the city of Sippar and the court (?) of Sippar, caused them to receive judgment. He declared him (Sin-naṣir) to be in the wrong. He is not again to bring action in the matter. (They have invoked) the spirit of Šamaš, Merodach, and Ḫammurabi. Judgment of Išarlim; Awat-Šamaš, the merchant; Itti-Bêl-kinni; Bûr-Sin; Gimil-bani. Month Adar, year of the canal Tišida-Ellilla.”

Many documents of this kind exist, though people did not generally bring actions against their own (step-) daughters, as Sin-naṣir is recorded as having done. The ancient Babylonians were at all times, however, very keen in standing up for their own rights, and went to law on the slightest provocation. The following records a claim upon some property, and its issue, which was as unsuccessful as that translated above—

“Sin-êribam, son of Upê-rabi, laid claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ, which is beside the house of Nidnu-ša and beside the house (temple) of Allat; and they went before the judges, and the judges pronounced [pg 183] judgment. And as for Sin-êribam, they declared him to be in the wrong, and made him deliver a document which could not be proceeded against. He shall not bring action, and Sin-êribam shall not again lay claim to the house of Šumu-râḫ.

“They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Zabium (the king), and the city of Sippar.”

It is noteworthy that the name of the first of the twelve witnesses attached to the document is Ya'kub-ilu, or Jacob-el, which is supposed to be connected with the name of the patriarch Jacob.

As in these days, many a man in those ancient times, for the better conducting of his business, would enter into partnership. As usual, all would go well for a time, but at last, in consequence of disagreements or disputes or some unpleasantness, they would decide to part. Several texts of this class exist, of which the following is a typical example—

“Ṣili-Ištar and Iribam-Sin made partnership, and, to dissolve it, they had a judge, and they went down to the temple of Šamaš, and in the temple of Šamaš the judge caused them to receive judgment. They give back their capital, and receive back their shares, 1 male-slave Luštamar-Šamaš, with a chain (?), and 1 female-slave Lišlimam, the share of Iribam-Sin; 1 male-slave Ibšina-ilu, and 1 female-slave Am-anna-lamazi, the share of Ṣili-Ištar, they have received as their shares. In the temple of the Sun-god and the Moon-god they declared that they would treat each other well. One shall not bring action against the other, nor act hostilely towards him. There is no cause for action on the part of the one against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Nannara, Šamaš, Merodach, Lugal-ki-ušuna, and Ḫammurabi the king.

“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Ipuš-Êa, the du-gab; before Šamašmubaliṭ, [pg 184] the priest of Gula; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Sin-uzeli, son of Ṣili-Ištar; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi; before Sin-gimlanni, the attendant of the judges.

“He has impressed the seal of the contracting parties.

“Month Adar, year Ḫammurabi the king made (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”28

Iribam-Sin, however, seems not to have been satisfied that he had been fairly dealt with, for notwithstanding that they were not to act hostilely towards each other, he immediately brought an action to get possession of property belonging to Ṣili-Ištar and his brothers, the result of which was the following declaration on the part of the latter—

“Concerning 1 ŠAR, a dwelling-house, and 2 ŠAR, a large enclosure, which Ṣili-Išstar and Awel-ili, his brother, sons of Ili-sukkalu, bought from Sin-mubaliṭ and his brothers, sons of Pirḫum. In the temple of the Sun-god Ṣili-Ištar said thus: ‘I verily bought (it) with the money of my mother—it was not bought with the money that was ours in common. Iribam-Sin, son of Ubar-Sin, has no share in the house and large enclosure.’29 He has invoked the spirit of the king.

“Before Utuki-šemi, son of Awiatum; before Abil-Sin, son of Nannara-manšum; before Sin-êreš, the provost; before Sin-uzelli, son of Nûr-îli; before Ipuš-Êa, the du-gab; before Nabi-Sin, son of Idin-Sin; before Ubar-Sin, son of Sin-šemi, his father; before Šamaš-mubaliṭ, the priest of Gula; before Singimlanni, [pg 185] the attendant of the judges. They have impressed the seal of the parties.

“Month Adar, year of the (images of) Ištar and Nanaa.”

The day of the month is not given, so that we are in doubt as to whether the second tablet preceded the first or followed it. In all probability the latter was the case, or else the two actions were simultaneous, and the fact that the witnesses and officials of the court are the same in both documents speaks in favour of this.

In Babylonia, as in all the ancient East, there was the great blot upon their civilization which has not even at the present time, the dawn of the twentieth century, disappeared from the earth, namely, that of slavery. Throughout the long ages over which Babylonian domestic literature extends, the student finds this to be always present, and one of the most striking examples is contained in the following document, which exhibits the blot with all its possible horrors—

“(Tablet of) Šamaš-nûri, daughter of Ibi-Šân. Bunini-âbi and Bêlisunu have bought her from Ibi-Šân, her father—for Bunini-âbi a wife—for Bêlisunu a servant. The day Šamaš-nûri says to Bêlisunu, her mistress, ‘Thou art not my mistress,’ they shall shave off her hair, and sell her for silver. As the complete price he has paid five shekels of silver. He has taken the key.30 The affair is concluded. He is content. (At no future time) shall one bring a claim against the other. They have invoked the spirit of Šamaš, Aa, Marduk, and Ḫammurabi.”

(Here follow the names of seven witnesses.)

“Month Iyyar, day 3rd, year of the throne of Zērpanitum” (the 12th year of Ḫammurabi or Amraphel).

That a father should part with his daughter for [pg 186] money in order that that daughter should become the wife of a man already married, agreeing at the same time that the young woman should become the slave of the first wife, would seem to the ordinary Western mind at the present day most barbarous. That it was not the lowest depth, however, is implied by the condition attached to the contract, and containing a kind of penalty, namely, that if the new wife denied that the first wife was her mistress, she might be sold as a slave. In what her position differed from that of a thrall, however, does not appear.

Naturally the case of Hagar, the slave of Sarah, Abraham's wife, will at once occur to the reader, though the two differ somewhat. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that the well-known Bible-story explains that of the tablet, in giving a reason for the purchase of Šamaš-nûri—namely, in order to give the purchaser, Bunini-âbi, a chance of having offspring, which, in all probability, his first wife Bêlisunu had not brought him. It is difficult to imagine that she would consent to the introduction of a rival for any other reason. Of course, the new wife may have been well treated, but a transaction of the kind here recorded naturally gave an opening to all possible abuses. Another case of the taking of a second wife, with the proviso that she is to be the servant of the first, is that of Iltani (see pp. 174-175), who, however, was not a slave, and had a regular marriage-deed. Moreover, she is described as the sister (âḫat), not the slave (âmat) of the first wife.

On the same plate of the British Museum publication from which the foregoing is taken, there is a more ordinary document referring to slavery, and in this case it is to all appearance the sale of a real slave-woman and her child—

“1 slave-woman, Bêlti-magirat by name, and her child, handmaid of Šarrum-Addu and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, Nabium-malik, son of Addu-naṣir, has bought [pg 187] from Šarrum-Addu, son of Addu-naṣir, and Ḫammurabi-Šamši, his wife. As the complete price he has paid 18-½ shekels of silver. At no future time shall they make claim against each other. They have invoked the spirit of Marduk and Ḫammurabi.”

(Here follow the names of eight witnesses, including two brothers of the contracting parties.)

“Month Tebet, day 21st, year Ḫammurabi the king destroyed, by command of Anu and Bêl, the fortification of Mair, and Malgia.”

Tablets referring to the sale and purchase of slaves are numerous, and do not present much variety, being nearly all written in accordance with the usual legal forms. In the hiring of slaves, however, there is a little more dissimilarity—

“Awel-Addi, son of Sililum, has hired Arad-îli-remeanni from Erišti-Šamaš, sun-devotee, daughter of Sin-bêl-âbli, for a year. The hire for a year, 5 shekels of silver, he will pay. A first instalment of the sum, 2 shekels of silver, she has received. He will be clothed by his hirer.

“He entered (upon his duties) on the 16th of Elul.

“Before Šamaš, Aa; before Taribatum; before Nûr-Marduk; before Laḫutum.

“Year Samsu-iluna (made) a throne of gold (shining like the stars, for Nin-gala”).

The following is a similar text with additional clauses—

“Asir-Addu, son of Libit-Urra, has hired Šamaš-bêl-ili from Aḫatani, sun-devotee, daughter of Šamaš-ḫazir, for his first year. As hire for his first year, he shall pay 3-½ shekels of silver. He shall clothe himself. He entered (on his duties) on the 4th of the month Dûr-Addi, in the month Mamitu he will complete (his term), and may leave.

“Before Asirum, son of Ea-rabi; before Nin-gira-âbi, son of Eribam; before Arad-Sin, son of Sin-idinnam.

[pg 188]

“The year of Samsu-iluna, the king.”

(The accession-year of Amraphel's successor.)

In the following the slave is hired for produce—

“Riš-Šamaš, son of Marduk-naṣir, has hired Nawir-nûr-šu from Šubtum for a year. He will pay 20 qa of oil as his hire for the year. He will clothe him. He entered in the month Elul, in the month Tirinu he may go forth.

“Before Rišutum; before Êrišti-Aa.

“Year the great fortification....”

When a man had no master—was his own master, in fact—he was hired “from himself”—

“Idin-Ittum has hired for wages Naram-ili-šu from himself, for six months. He will receive 2 shekels of silver as wages for the six months.

“Before Êtel-pî-Uraš, before Sin-îlu, before Aḫum, the scribe.

“Month Nisan, day 20th, year the throne ... was....”

Servants were not only hired from their masters and themselves, but also from their fathers, mothers, brothers, and whoever else might have charge of them. There are also lists of workmen hired for various purposes in batches. Those who went about doing reaping seem to have been of various nationalities, and interesting names are on that account found in the lists from time to time.

In all probability the towns at that early period resembled closely those of the Semitic East at the present day, the streets being as a rule narrow (from the necessity of obtaining protection from the excessive heat of the sun during the hot season) and exceedingly dirty. This is shown by the excavations at Niffer, where, at the earliest period, when the street in question was constructed, the houses were entered by going up a few steps. Later on, in consequence of the accumulations, the footpath became level with the floor of the house, and, at a later period still, a [pg 189] little staircase had to be built leading down into the building. As may easily be imagined, the conditions in which the ancient Babylonians lived were in the highest degree insanitary, and such as would probably not be tolerated for a day in Europe at the present time.

Judging from the remains of private houses which have been found, these buildings were not by any means large. In fact, they must have contained only a few small rooms. Where, however, there was space—as, for example, when the house was built in the middle of a field—the rooms were probably moderately large, and more numerous. They were of either unburnt or burnt brick, and the roofs were supported by beams. The floors seem to have been generally the bare earth.

Many lists of the furniture of these dwelling-places are extant, and allow us to estimate to a certain extent the amount of comfort which their inhabitants enjoyed. They reclined upon couches, and sometimes—perhaps often—it happened that the owner of the house possessed several of these articles of furniture. Apparently, too, it was their custom to sit upon chairs, and not upon the ground, as they do in the East at the present day, and have done for many centuries. Various vessels, of wood, earthenware, and copper, were also to be found there, together with measures of different kinds,31 implements needed in the trade of the owner, and certain objects of stone. In some cases things of precious stone are referred to, a circumstance which points to a considerable amount of prosperity on the part of the owner of the house and its contents.

[pg 190]

As will be seen farther on, when Babylonian life of a later period comes to be treated of, the leasehold system, with all its disadvantages, was in full force, and there is just the possibility that it was already in use during the time of the dynasty of Babylon. Even at this early date the question of party walls was an important one, as the tablet of Šamaš-în-mâtim and Êrišti-Aa, daughter of Zililum, shows. They were to set up the dividing wall (gušuru, apparently palings) aḫum mala aḫim, lit. “brother as much as brother,” i.e. one as much as the other. They managed things differently in ancient Babylonia, and if this was the usual arrangement, it must have given rise to endless disputes.

It is probable that, before the time of Ḫammurabi, the ancient Babylonians had no code of laws in the true sense of the term. All the legal decisions known seem to have been decided on their merits by the judges who tried the cases, and in such actions in which the judges could not come to a decision, the matter seems to have been referred to the king, whose word was, to all appearance, final. Naturally an enormous responsibility rested on the judges on account of this, but they were not entirely without help in the matter of deciding difficult and unusual questions. Lists of precedents were kept, and to these, in all probability, they constantly referred—indeed, the tablets of legal precedents were held in such high esteem, that copies of them were kept in the libraries of Assyria, and in Babylonia also, in all probability, until long after the destruction of the Assyrian power, notwithstanding that legal use and wont had by that time somewhat changed. One or two examples of these legal precedents may here be quoted to show their nature:—

“If a son say to his father, ‘Thou art not my father,’ they may shave him, put him in fetters, and sell him for silver.

[pg 191]

“If a son say to his mother, ‘Thou art not my mother,’ they may shave off his hair, lead him round the city, and drive him forth from the house.

“If a wife hate her husband, and say to him, ‘Thou art not my husband,’ they may throw her into the river.

“If a husband say to his wife, ‘Thou art not my wife,’ he shall pay her half a mana of silver.

“If a man hire a slave, and he dies, is lost, runs away, gets locked up, or falls ill, he shall pay as his hire every day half a measure of grain.”

Thus did the ancient Babylonians punish those who offended against their laws, and protect property (for the slave-hirer was undoubtedly saddled with a heavy responsibility). Was it that the death of a hired slave was regarded as testifying to the severity of his temporary hirer? In all probability it was so, and in that case, one cannot help regarding the law as a wise one. To all appearance, also, illness was attributed to his employer's cruelty. As to his running away, or falling into the hands of the police, these things would prove that his employer was not watchful enough with regard to him. A modern European lawyer would most likely not regard this particular law as being very exactly worded (there is no limit of time during which the slave's wages were payable, and one can only guess that the term of his service with his hirer was understood), but there seems to be no doubt as to its intention—to safeguard the slave, and his owner at the same time, by making his hirer responsible for every mishap and accident which might happen to him whilst he was with his temporary master.

[pg 192]