First of all, there is a long fragment of laws relating to the family, written in Assyrian and Sumerian. They read as follows:
“It has thus been decided by the sentence of the judge: ‘If a son (is authorised) to say to his father: “Thou art not my father,” he (the son) can sell him, treat him as a forfeit, and give him in payment like money.
“‘If a son (is authorised) to say to his mother: “Thou art not my mother,” he will cut her hair off, assemble the people, and make her go out of his house.
“‘If a father (is authorised) to say to his son: “Thou art not my son,” he (the father) can shut him up in his dwelling and in the cellar.
“‘If a mother (is authorised) to say to her son: “Thou art not my son,” she can shut him up in her dwelling and in the upper chambers.
“‘If a wife (is authorised) to repudiate her husband, and to say to him: “Thou art not my husband,” she can have him thrown into the river.
“‘If a man (is authorised) to say to his wife: “Thou art not my wife,” he can have half a mina of silver paid to him.
“‘If the intendant lets a slave escape, if he dies (the slave), if he becomes infirm, if in consequence of bad treatment he becomes ill, he (the intendant) shall pay half a hin of corn a day (to the master of the slave).’”
In these ancient records we likewise find laws concerning property. One tablet seems to pertain to the observations made by a Sumerian agriculturist, which were proposed to the Assyrian agriculturists of the seventh century B.C. First of all are indicated the best conditions of crop-growing, the time for sowing, the calculating of the income, the tillage, irrigation, and the injurious animals which must be destroyed.
It is evident that, in spite of the difference in property or wealth, the interest is always the same, the calculation of interest on different sums in contracts showing that the figures bear a relation to one another.
Loans could be made with or without interest; they could be made with or without security, and these securities were of different natures:
“For the interest of one’s money.… He has given as security.… A house, a field, an orchard, a female slave, a male slave.”
Exchanges were frequent, and from the data on the tablets, the principal things exchanged are known:
“They exchanged a house for money. They exchanged a field for money. They exchanged an orchard for money. They exchanged a female slave for money. They exchanged a male slave for money.”
Trials are inherent to human nature and to all epochs. Pleading took place in Nineveh, Assyria, and Chaldea. On this subject the following axiom used by the judges and the pleaders, holds perfectly to-day:
“He who listeneth not to his conscience, the judge will not listen to his right.”
There must have been a fairly complicated code of procedure, for traces are found of an appellative jurisdiction in which the sovereign was the final judge.
The Sumerian laws likewise fixed the form of individual contracts. The signature, “qatatu,” was the essential feature of the contract.
Signature took place by affixing the seal. One fragment of these tablets bears witness to this custom so perpetuated in the East from remotest times to the present. Herodotus mentions the existence of seals as a peculiarity of the Babylonians.
“Every Babylonian,” said he, “had his seal for his personal use.” The Assyrian “kunuk” answers, like our word “seal,” both to the instrument and the mark it left on the plastic earth.
A large number of contracts of private business concerning all the ordinary transactions of life, between individuals, on which figures the mark of a seal, has been found: contracts of sale or exchange; contracts of loan or hire; acknowledgments of debts, carrying the guaranty of a mortgage or of chattels. They read like the records of a notary’s office. These contracts, like all the documents of the palace library, are written on the traditional bricks. These are easily distinguished from other documents by their outer appearance. After a few lines given up to the names of the contracting parties, we see the imprints of their seals, or sometimes the imprint of three finger nails.
The general drift of their contracts is easy to understand; the clauses are worded in formal language which proceeds from the nature of the relations of the two parties according to the object of their agreement. As a usual thing, these contracts are very simply drawn. They begin by stating the names and qualifications of the parties who are going to enter into agreement by the affixment of their seal or by the nail mark, its substitute.
All contracting parties are not called upon to fulfil this formality; it is only those who have the title of “dominus negotii” the vendor, the lessor, the lender, those who “hold the pen” as the modern expression is.
A place reserved in the text for the fixing of seal or imprint reveals to us that their seals had different shapes. As many of these jewels have descended to us, and as there are a great number in our public and private collections, it is not without interest to describe them in more detail.
Generally they are hard stones, cut and polished in different ways. Some are conical or like a truncated pyramid, on the base of which the design is sunk. Sometimes the seal is in the shape of a spheroid or an ellipsoid. Many are cylindrical, the design being engraved on the surface of the cylinder, and the imprint is obtained by rolling it on plastic earth. Every variety of precious stones has been cut for this purpose; the study of these jewels and their designs is of the greatest interest to the student of art.
After the imprint of the seals, the object of the contract is stated, then its nature and its amount, which is sometimes paid down, sometimes at quarter-day; in certain cases a security is stipulated.
As to money loans, the interest is generally fixed upon by the contracting parties. Where the contract is silent on this subject it seems as if a general law were referred to, probably that which is mentioned above.
Measurements, capacities, estimates, and prices are expressed with great precision, and thus one may determine the importance of the matter discussed in the contract. The form of drawing up, indicates that the agreement passed before a magistrate who gave, if I may thus express myself, authenticity to the stipulations agreed on between the parties, from which they could not release themselves without penalty of a fine or damages. Generally the fine was paid into the treasury of Ishtar either at Arbela or Nineveh; then the judge decreed the restitution of the sum paid over, with a certain sum for damages. The contract often contained a more or less extended prayer formula and thus placed the execution of the agreement under the protection of the gods. The contract ends with the names of witnesses and their status, and is dated on the day, month, and year of its drawing up.
The contract thus perfected was delivered to a special functionary, who registered it in the public depository, the superintendence of which was confided to him.
Here are some contracts which help us to understand the methods of drawing up, and inform us as to the nature of the most usual transactions of that epoch. We give first a contract relating to the sale of a slave; it is thus worded:
Sale of a Slave
Seal of Nabu-rikhtav-usur, son of Akhardisu, man of Hasaï, workman of Zikkar Ishtar, of the city of …
Seal of Tebetai, his son, seal of Silim Bin his son, owners of the slave sold.
The girl Tavat-khasina, slave of Nabu-rikhtav-usur.… And Nitocris obtained her for the price of sixteen drachmas of silver … for Takhu her son, on account of his marriage. She will be slave to Takhu. The price has been definitely fixed. Whoever in days to come and at no matter what epoch shall contest this before me, be it Nabu-rikhtav-usur, his sons, his sons’ sons, his brother, his brother’s sons, or any other, or his attorney, should wish to annul the bargain between Nitocris, her sons, or her sons’ sons, shall pay ten minas of silver for the revocation of this contract, it shall not be sold. Shapimayu, shepherd, Bel-shum-usur, son of Yudanani Rimbel, son of Atu, are the three men, heirs of the woman because of the binding of her hands (her first marriage) and of the interest on the wage of Karmeon who was to inherit (if he lived).