Part 21 (1/2)

(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 wors.h.i.+ps. 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.