KING HAMMURABI'S CODE.*

IN January, 1902, M. J. de Morgan, the superintendent of the exploration works that have been for years carried on at Susa,

the old-time Persepolis, by the French Government, unearthed a broken, but complete, monument nearly eight feet high fashioned out of black diorite, on which was inscribed what appears to be a Babylonian Code of Laws. By October of last

year, we are told, this Code had been " copied, transcribed,

translated, and published, in a superb quarto volume The ancient text is reproduced by photogravure in a way that enables a student to verify word by word what the able editor, Father V. Scheil, Professeur a l'Ecole des Hautes-Etudes, has given as his reading of the archaic signs." This work is

expensive, and Mr. Johns has, therefore, been moved to give the English reader his own version of the Code in an

inexpensive form. His translation is an independent one, though be is under some obligations to the valuable renderings of Dr. H. Winckler and Professor Scheil. The monument is described as containing on the obverse a representation of

King Hammurabi receiving his laws from the seated sun-god Samas. Then follow sixteen columns of writing with eleven hundred and fourteen lines. Five more columns on the same side have apparently been erased, and the stone repolished. On the reverse side we find twenty-eight columns with above

two thousand five hundred lines of inscriptions. No leas than seven hundred lines are given to the titles, duties, and characteristics of the King, and we here find much informa- tion about the cities, districts, and religions under the rule of Hammurabi.

It appears that the discovery has been expected for some time past. Mr. Johns tells us th at— "For many years fragments have been known, have been studied, and from internal evidence ascribed to the period of the first dynasty of Babylon, even called by the name Code Hammurabi. It is just cause for pride that Assyriology, so young a science as only this year to have celebrated the centenary of its birth, is able to emulate astronomy and predict the discovery of such bright stars as this. But while we certainly should have directed our telescopes to Babylonia for the rising of this light from the East, it was really in Elam, at Susa, the old Persepolis, that the find was made. The Elamites were the great rivals of Babylonia for centuries, and it seems likely that some Elamite conqueror carried off the stone from a temple at Sippara, in

Babylonia but there is now no trace of any hint as to who carried off the stone."

Mr. Johns thinks that five columns were erased and the surface repolished in order that the Elamite conqueror should inscribe his name and titles. If this is so, it is surprising that this slight work was not carried out. We must confess that the surmise seems to us somewhat unconvincing. We have not seen any criticism casting doubts upon the authenticity of this Susa monument, and therefore we are compelled to assume that it is what it purports to be beyond all cavil or doubt. Had there been any doubt, it would have been raised, we presume, ere this by some expert Assyriologist. Were this not so, the finding of this long-expected " document" in so unsuspected a place, coupled with the extraordinary character of the law set forth, might well have raised suspicion.

This so-called Code consists in reality of a somewhat dis- orderly collection of responsa prudentium which had received the sanction of legal authority : "the judgments of righteous- ness which Hammurabi the mighty King confirmed." These opinions cover a large area, and if genuine, as we must believe they are, much light is thrown by them upon the history of legal institutions, and many accepted opinions will be found • The Oldest Code of Law in the World : the Code of Laws Promulgated by Ilam• nturabi, King of Babylon, B.C. 2235-2242. Translated by C. H. W. Johns, M.A.. Lecturer in Assyriology, Queens' College, Cambridge. London : T. ant T. Clark. [is. &t. net.]

to require wide modification. It is perhaps sufficiently re- markable that the ordeal by water for testing witchcraft should have been the regular practice four thousand years ago ; that purgation by oath should have existed in the Saxon form ; that the system of blood-fines and the Lex Tolionis for crimes and injuries should have existed side by side ; that the wife and children of a. man should be his property, seizable for his debts, and yet that the property rights of both wife and children should 13e of the most elaborate character; that in addition to a marriage settlement system quite comparable in complexity to our modern system, there should be also something closely analogous to dower in land. Thus section 29 provides that "if his son is young and is not able to carry on his father's 'business [in his father's absence, probably permanent], one- third of the field and garden shall be given to his mother, and his mother shall rear him." The idea of dowry as a provision - on marriage is, of course, old enough and universal enough. We find it fully developed in this Code. The Mahom- medan law—which, though it only dates from the seventh century A.D.. yet certainly incorporated very early customs— defines dower as a gift from husband to wife on marriage, and it is a form of property for which the wife can sue. So likewise it was an early Teutonic custom for the husband to make gifts of land or chattels to the bride ; but, as Sir Henry Maine has pointed out, dower in its modern form was imposed by the Christian Church on the customary law of all Western Europe. Common-law dower is a right in the widow of a tenant in fee-simple or entail to the enjoyment for -her life of a third of the undevised lands of her husband which he had held in possession. That something of this kind should exist in addition to the almost universal dowry syst em is a peculiar fact.

Another matter to which attention must be particularly drawn is that of testamentary provision. Sir Henry Maine has ,pointed out that though in the local customs of Bengal some faint traces of testamentary powers are found, yet " to the Romans belongs pre-eminently the credit of inventing the will, the institution of which, next to the contract, has 'exercised the greatest influence in transforming human society." Before the introduction of wills the transmission -of property to strange blood was accomplished through the system of adoption. Yet we find in this ancient document, made . two thousand years before the foundation of Rome, considerable familiarity with will-making. In most cases the will can only operate within the family ; but the father can leave land to a favourite son, and it is specially provided that this son need not bring his additional share into botch-pot (section 165). It will be instructive to quote this section verbatim : "If a man has apportioned to his son, the first in his eyes, field, garden, and house, has written him a sealed deed, after the father has gone to his fate, when the brothers divide, the present his lather gave him he shall take, and over and above he shall share equally in the goods of the father's house." The husband, again, could leave his property to his wife, and she could leave it to such of her children as she chose, but not to her brothers (section 150). Moreover, a father could leave a marriage portion to a daughter vowed to religion, giving her at the same time specific freedom of testa- mentary disposition, and her brothers in such a case had no claim on the property; "after her wherever is good to her she shall give, her brothers have no claim - on her" (section 179). The numerous provisions on this subject and on the subject of marriage port ions will repay special study. The extraordinary complexity of the -law of marriage settlements points to a state of civilisa- .tion only comparable to that of modern Europe. We -even find instances of life estates. The position of women was certainly high. Save in exceptional circum- stances, only one wife was legaL In order to secure issue a man was allowed one concubine, but she was not placed upon an equality with the wife. Slavery existed, but marriage between slaves and free women was fully recognised ; and if the slave's wife lived under the roof of his master, that master acquired no rights over her or her property, and only took -one-half of the property earned by the two. The issue of the marriage were apparently free. The system of adoption was fully recognised. The parents of the adopted child could, .however, reclaim him in certain circumstances. Adoption gave the child adoptefl definite property rights, and a enviously worded section (191) seems, in combination with other sec- tions, to suggest that the property to which adopted sons, in common with other sons, had rights was only personal property, and that land was the subject of disposition by will between the wife and children, male and female. The position of the votaries or vestal virgins was almost unique, for they were allowed to marry by deputy and had property rights as wives. The only analogous case we can recall is where in Roman Law a vestal virgin, in order to enable the temple to receive legacies, was assumed to have three children.

It is not possible in the course of a brief review to deal at length with the innumerable questions that arise in con- nection with this strange Code, which seems an extraordinary medley of every law that ever was. It is curious that while it includes many of the provisions of the Decalogue, yet we find the significant exception of murder. Death and injury as a matter of tort or civil wrongdoing are provided for, but death maliciously produced is not mentioned, save in one curious instance (sections 209-14). On the other hand, we find an elaborate law of agency, and, indeed, of trade gener- ally, a full law of evidence, and many provisions for the regu- lation of labour. It is, in short, the law of a highly organised society, and must have been evolved by centuries of legal administration by trained lawyers.

We have dealt here solely with the legal aspects of this most important discovery in Assyrian archaeology. We are fully aware, however, that its decipherment has been the cause of a most acute controversy in regard to the origins of the Mosaic system. We cannot, however, find space on the present occasion to treat this momentous side of the problem, but hope to avail ourselves of the opportunity of returning to it afforded by the publication of Dr. Delitzsch's lectures.