Part 21 (2/2)

(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 surveyors.h.i.+p, 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 owners.h.i.+p. 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.

<script>