_ Banishment from the city was the penalty of incest with a daughter (§ 154), Disinheritance was rather a family affair than a punishment, Confiscation does not occur. When a man takes the house of one who has bewitched him or falsely accuses him of witchcraft (§ 2), he is merely com- pensated for vexatious disturbance. Failure to attend to a holding, benefice of an office, led to forfeiture of office and the benefice (§ 30). Certain unrighteous actions led to forfeiture: thus, if a man bought part of a benefice from an official, he had to return his purchase and forfeit the price
CODE OF HAMMURABI
(§ 37). The same penalty fell upon one who bought the property of wards in chancery (§ 177). If a man exchanged with an official part of his benefice, he had to restore it and lose his ex- changed property (§ 41). If he lent corn and helped himself to his debtor’s crop without the debtor’s consent, he had to restore what he took, and lost all claim to repayment (§ 113).
Simple restitution occurs only when the holder came by the property innocently, as having bought property which the seller had no right to sell (§ 9). This is compensated for by the seller also returning the price.
Multiple restoration is very common. Fraudu- lent claim is punished by paying double. A ware- houseman who falsifies the amount entrusted to him (§ 120), a receiver of deposit who denies it (§ 124), a man who takes presents from a suitor for his daughter and does not allow him to marry her (§§ 160, 161), pays double. The agent who did not succeed in business repaid the capital double (§ 101). If he cheated his principal, he paid three- fold (§ 106) ; if the principal cheated his agent, he paid sixfold (§ 107). An innocent purchaser of goods illegally sold, having to give them up, could extract fivefold from the estate of the seller, if deceased (§ 12). A carrier who misappropriated goods entrusted to him to forward paid fivefold ($112). A judge who altered his judgment paid twelvefold what his sentence awarded (§5). A gentleman who stole from temple or mansion had to pay thirtyfold, a plebeian tenfold, or be put to death (§ 8). :
Some of the penalties for breach of contract in agricultural matters have been misunderstood. They depend upon an estimate of average yield. The errors are due to misunderstanding of the scale of measures of area. G. Reisner long ago showed (Sitzungsberichte der Berlin Akademie, 1896, p. 417f.) that the @AW contained 1800 SAR, the SAR had 60 GZ. Further, the S4R was equiva- lent in area to a square, each side being one GAR-(DU), while the GAR was 12 U long. Taking the U to be a cubit, this gives the S4R to be about 18 feet square. The area of a house was usually about 1 SAR (§ 228), and we find even as little as 3rd SAR in contemporary documents. Now, the average rent of corn land was 6 to 8 GUR per GAN; of freshly opened land about 18 @UR per GAN. The penalty in § 44 would be not heavy at 10 GuR per GAN. Kohler, Miller, Peiser, Winckler, Bos- cawen, and Pinches follow Scheil in making the penalty 10 GUR per 10 GAN, or 1 GUR per GAN—an absurdly smallamount. Besides, if that was meant, why did not the scribe write ‘1 GUR per GAN’? So (in §§ 56, 57, 58, 63) they all make the penalty roth of the right amount. Further, in estimating other fines or wages it is well to remember that the GUR contained 300 KA, the K4 had 60 Gz, and the @ZN 180 SZ. This SH must not be con- founded with the S# of silver, of which 180 also went to the GIN or shekel, and 60 shekels to the mina. The GUR of corn was, from the time of Manistusu down to the 5th cent. B.C., reckoned as worth 1 shekel of silver. Of course the price of corn varied in times of scarcity or plenty, and even during the year.
We are nowhere told how the sentence of the law was executed. Perhaps the judge and the elders carried it out; perhaps the whole adult population had a hand in it. At any rate, the deposition of a judge and the scourging of one who assaulted his superior in rank were carried out ‘in the assembly’ (ima puhri; §§ 5, 202). In contemporary documents the judges are said to ‘assemble’ the city (daiane alwm iphur; B 74). The beer-seller was supposed to be able to hale brawlers and seditious persons to the palace
CODE OF HAMMURABI
(§ 109). ‘The highway robber might be arrested (§ 22). These references suppose a sort of police, perhaps the b@irw above.
6. We may now turn to the crimes or misdemean- ours considered in the Code. Theft was held to be the unlawful possession of property. The worst kind was that which involved entry—it may be styled burglary. There is no need to suppose that sacrilege was involved, for it was hardly less sacri- legious to steal the property of a temple from the open field (§ 6). Receiving was as bad as stealing ($6). The ‘goods’ referred to are any portable furniture, and are not confined to ‘treasure.’ Theft in the open is less guilty as less deliberate (§ 8). A minor, or a slave, had of course great opportunity to steal. To assist by buying of such, or receiving from such, was very heinous (§ 7). But such were often empowered by deed to act for the householder; the Code insists on such power being duly witnessed. If aman found property anywhere, he took possession of it at great peril. If the loser recognized it in his possession, he might be condemned as a thief (§ 9). He could not sell it; if that were proved against him, he would have to restore the price and suffer as a thief. The only thing to do was to make known his discovery as widely as possible, and restore it to its owner. If he did this with a runaway slave whom he caught in the open field, he was entitled to a reward of about one-tenth of the restored property ($17). In this he would be guided by the slave’s brand, and the slave himself might name his master, take the slave to the palace, there to be examined, and so restored to his owner. To harbour a run- away or keep a recaptured fugitive for his own service, was treated as theft (§§ 16,19). Kidnap- ping, or inducing a slave to leave his master’s service, was theft (§§ 14, 15). Theft at a fire was peculiarly heinous as a breach of good faith (§ 25). Brigandage, or highway robbery, was a capital offence (§ 22).