HAMMOND, HENRY: English Biblical critic; b. at Chertsey (19 m. w.s.w. of London), Surrey, Aug. 18, 1605 d. at Westwood (6 m. n. of Worcester), Worcestershire, Apr. 25, 1660. He was educated at Eton and at Magdalen College, Oxford (B.A., 1622; M.A., 1625; B.D., 1634; D.D., 1639), was elected a fellow of his college in 1625, and was presented with the living of Penshurst, Kent, in 1633. In 1640 he became a member of convocation, and in 1643 archdeacon of Chichester and a nominal member of the Westminster Assembly. The same year he helped to raise a troop of cavalry for the king's service, and when a reward of £100 was offered for his arrest, left Penshurst for Oxford, where he devoted himself to study. He was chaplain to the royal commissioners at the conference at Uxbridge (Jan. 30, 1645), at which he held a dispute with Richard Vives. A few months later he was made canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and chaplain to Charles I., and elected public orator of his university. He attended the king during his captivity until Christmas, 1647, when Charles was
135 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA IT‑iIton
Hamuaurabi and His Code
deprived of all his royal attendants. Returning to Oxford he was made subdean of Christ Church, but was quickly removed by the parliamentary visitors and thrown into prison for ten weeks. Afterward he resided in quasi‑confinement in the house of Sir Philip Warwick at Clapham, Bedfordshire, till early in 1650, when, having gained his liberty, he removed to Westwood, Worcestershire. He died just on the eve of his elevation to the see of Worcester. He was a man of great self‑denial, a tireless student, and an excellent preacher. Charles I. considered him the most natural orator he had ever heard. His most important works are: A Practical Catechism(Oxford, 1644; 15th ed., London, 1715); A Paraphrase and Annotations upon . . the New Testament (London, 1653; new ed., 4 vols., Oxford, 1845); and A Paraphrase and Annotations do the Book o f Psalms (London, 1659; new ed., 2 vols., Oxford, 1850). His Works were edited by W. Fulman (4 vols., London, 1674‑‑84), and his Miscellaneous Theological Workswere edited in the Library of Anglo‑Catholic Theology by N. Pocock (3 vols. Oxford, 1847‑50).
HAMMURABI AND HIS CODE.
The Name. Identification with Amraphel (§ 1).
His Date (§ 2).
His Reign (§ 3).
II. The Code.
Description of the Stele (§ 1).
Contents of the Inscription (§ 2).
Character of the Legislation and Penalties (§ 3).
Legal Status of Woman (§ 4).
The Laws not New (§ 5).
Relation to Pentateuchal Codes (§ 6).
I. Hammurabi was sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. The name is taken as a compound of
`Ammoand rabi, " (the god) Ammu is i. The flame. great." In the Assyrian period the
Identifica‑ name was not understood and was mistion with translated Kimta‑rapastum, " great of
Amraphel. family " or " the family is noble." This fact is a strong reenforeement of the argument for the foreign origin of the dynasty. By Assyriologists Hammurabi is quite generally identified with the Amraphel of Gen. xiv., though the final syllable of the latter word is hard to account for on philological grounds and some scholars dispute the identification. Apologetic ends, which have been a considerable element in the discussion, are not well served by the identification since the generally received date for this king (2250 B.C.) and the asserted contemporaneity with Abraham introduce serious difficulties into the Hebrew narrative. A millennium must on this basis have elapsed between Abraham and the Exodus, a gap impossible to fill with the Biblical material. As to the genealogy of the dynasty, it is noteworthy that neither Hammurabi, his son, nor his great‑grandson trace their descent from Sumu‑abi, the first king of the dynasty, but derive it from Sumula‑ilu, the second king. This fact is interpreted as suggesting that the second king was a usurper.
The date of the reign is disputed, being placed as early as 2340 B.C., and as late as c. 1900 B.C. For the date about 2250 B.C. the most direct testimony is derived from the statement of Aashurbanipal in
650‑649 B.C. that Kudur‑nahunti carried away to Elam an image of Nana 1,635 years earlier, i.e.,
2285‑84 B.C. This tallies well with the 2. His known fact that just before Hammu‑
Date. rabi's reign the Elamites had conquered
Eastern Babylonia under a KudurMabug, who probably belonged to that dynasty or at least to its time. Kudur‑Mabug's son was the Rim‑Sin or Eri‑Aku whom Hammurabi subdued in the thirtieth year of his reign. Less reliable but somewhat confirmatory is the fixing by Stephanos of Byzantium of the foundation of Babylon 1,002 years before the siege of Troy, the latter date being fixed by Hellanikos at 1229 B.C. The date given by Nabonidus, 700 years before Burnaburiash, is uncertain, both because it is a round number, and because there were several kings named Burnaburiash. Ifit were the correspondent of Amenophis III., it would place Hammurabi about 2150 B.C. (see AMARNATesnwrs). Later dates are obtained by attempted rectification of the Chronicle and the King‑list (see AssymA, VI., 1; BABYLoNxA, VI., 1, § 1‑2). As to the length of Hammurabi's reign the two sources just named do not agree, the former assigning him forty‑three years and the latter fifty‑five. The difference is perhaps to be explained by the fact that some of the years had two names .and were counted in the King‑list as separate years. The Chronicle gives an abstract of the events of thirty‑eight years of his reign, the other years being lost.
The sources of knowledge of this king and his reign, besides those mentioned above, are fifty‑five letters written to his vassal Sin‑iddinam of Larsa; directions to various officials; his great inscriptions, ten in number; the prologue and epilogue to his Code; and a long series of business documents of the period. As a result of this mass of material a much clearer view of his times is obtained than of those of any early Babylonian ruler after Naram‑Sin.
The tenor of the earlier documents of his reign and of the prologue and epilogue agree with the implications of the Chronicle that the first part of his reign was passed not in warlike operations but in works defensive, religious, and administrative. These consisted in the building of fortresses and city walls, in the erection and decoration of temples
and providing them with images and 3. His endowments, in building granaries and
Reign. digging canals (some of them of impor‑
tance, connecting the cities with the great streams), and in locating his people on lands thus reclaimed from the swamps. The change from this kind of activity to operations of war must have taken place about the thirtieth year of his reign, since the Elamite Rim‑Sin ruled in Larsa till that time. It is not likely that the latter was tributary during any part of his rule, for the conflict was sanguinary and apparently final which terminated the Elamitic rule, and Sin‑iddinam was Hammurabi's representative in Larsa thereafter. In succeeding years Hammurabi conducted further and successful operations against Elam, thus removed the great menace to the stability of his kingdom, and left a heritage of peace to his successors. The occupation by the Elamites had been disastrous, since Hammu‑
:. I ~.<,
nammurabi and His Code
THE NEW SCHAFT‑HERZOG
rabi was compelled as a result to collect the scattered folk and preserve them from famine and desolation. By the end of his reign he was king of all Babylonia, Assyria, Martu or Syria, and probably of the region between. The records of the times exhibit him as a wise administrator. The many notes for direction of affairs still extant reveal him discharging with effectiveness and decision the public business. His letters to Sin‑iddina, dealing, with,practical matters of administration, are clear, brief, and to the point. The hearing of causes by him is a fact referred to several times in extant documents. Several of the tablets make evident that the corv6e was in force and thoroughly systematized. The public works were at least in part carried on by forced labbr, and it is known that supplies for the support of the laborers might' be commandeered. That Hammurabi gave a great impulse to literature is much in evidence. It is most likely that the epics which have to do with Marduk were worked over at this time in the interest of the elevation of that god to the supreme place in the pantheon. The religious character of Hammurabi is beyond di:9pute; he was zealous in maintaining the religious institutions and in inculcating respect for the gods. In view of the times it is not surprising that he was deified and that ilu, °° the god," was often prefixed to his name; indeed he calls himself " the divine shelter " of his people. In this connection it is interesting that his name never appears in commercial transactions, purchases being made in his name by his atewardea marked departure from earlier practise. A sentence from one of his inscriptions is worth quoting:
=triumph on highland and lowland has accomplished; who made glad the heart of Marduk, and has bequeathed prosperity for his people for all time, and proclaimed .order to the land."
The note struck in the above is that which appears in most of his inscriptions, solicitude for the temporal and spiritual welfare of his people and the honor of the gods. But great as Hammurabi was as a creator of empire, as an administrator, as a builder of temples and a redeemer of his land, and as a patron of literature, it is likely that he will henceforth be more famous as the maker of the earliest great code of laws yet known.
1I. The Code * : This exists on a stele of black diorite discovered by Jaques Jean Marie de Morgan at Persepolis Dec.,,1901‑Jan.,1902. It was intended for the temple E‑barra of Shamash at Sippar, and must have been carried away by a later r. Descrip‑ Elamite conqueror of the land. The tion of the stele, when discovered, was in three
Stele. fragments which fit together and make
a tablet ‑with convex surfaces, seven
feet three inches in height, six feet two inches in
width at the bottom and five feet five inches at the
top. At the top of the obverse is a .bas‑relief repre
senting Hammurabi receiving the code from Sha
mash. Immediately underneath is the prologue to
the code, then the code itself, running partly on the
* in the following discussion M is used an the symbol for the Pentateuchal codes, H for the code of Hammurabi, and trite Arabic numerals reer to the sections in the latter.
obverse, partly on the reverse, . and finally an epi
logue, making altogether the longest Semitic cunei
form inscription yet known. The inscription was
originally in forty‑nine columns, of which five have
to ,create justice, to destroy the wicked, and to make
men,happy. Then follows.a statement of Hammu
rabi's achievements in which he refers
a. Contents three times to war, once to punishment
of the In‑ of thieves, over a dozen times to
scription. temples which he has built, restored,
adorned or endowed, several times
to the digging and clearing of canals, and frequently
to his kindly rule over his people for whom he, like
a shepherd, has carefully provided. Then follows
the code, dealing with witchcraft (1‑2), trials (3‑b),
stealing and retaining lost property (G‑13), kid
napping (14), fugitive slaves (15‑20), burglary
and robbery (21‑26), duties and privileges of a
class of royal officers (26‑41), agriculture, gardening,
and ahelpherding (42‑65). Next comes the erasure,
supposed to have eliminated thirty‑five sections.
The obverse takes up commercial matters, the rela
tions of merchant and agent (100‑107), liquor and
saloon regulations (108‑111), debt and deposit (112
12G). Then a large section (127‑193) deals with
the family as follows: slander, infidelity, violation,
and suspicion of adultery (127‑132), desertion, sep
aration and divorce, remarriage and aoncubinage
(133‑149), woman's property (150‑152), various
crimes of unfaithfulness or incest (153‑158), the
bride's price and dowry, and laws of inheritance
(159‑184), adoption of children (185‑193). Then
follow laws concerning assault (194‑214), physi
cians' fees and responsibilities (215‑227), building
(228‑233), shipping (234‑240), damage and rates of
wages for various kinds of service (241_27?), and
slaves (278‑282). The epilogue follows, in which
the king reasserts his faithfulness to the task en
trusted to hum by Bel and Marduk, that of guarding
the people (" On my heart I fold the people of
137 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Hammurabi and His Code
Sumer and Akkad, in my spirit let them in peace repose "). He has written the stele, he continues, to bestow protection upon the weak, the widow and the orphan, and to further the cause of justice. Future kings are to observe the laws without change and are to receive blessing. The inscription closes with a series of imprecations on the king who shall obliterate, change, or annul the laws: " each day, month by month, may the years of his reign be filled with sighing and tears; as a burden may his royalty be prolonged, a life that is joined to death may God award him as his fate."
H is criminal and civil, prohibitive and prescriptive; it deals with offenses against the State, the person, and property. Novel facts are (1) that it includes among its provisions regulation of rates to be paid for loans of money or material, and establishes prices to be paid for several kinds of merchandise, for labor of various sorts, and for
3. Charac‑ the hire of animals and implements and ter of the boats; (2) that there is no intrusion Legislation of the priestly element. Moreover, H and Pen‑ recognizes and legislates for three alties. grades of society: (1) the Amelu, a word fairly represented by the English word " gentry," who are held to a high responsibility, paying and receiving enhanced consideration in damage cases; (2) Muskenu, " commoners," freemen, yet subject to the corv6e; and (3) Ardu, slaves. Along with this goes the further fact that H legislates also for classes of society: (1) For those holding lands of the crown on a sort of feudal tenure and apparently liable to service, military and civil, probably as underofficers. (2) For votaries of certain deities (Shamash and Marduk are names in the code, but almost certainly the votaries of Sin and Anunit were included, as indicated by sources other than H). To these certain employments and places were interdicted, as the keeping and entering of a beer‑shop. On the other hand they were protected from slander, were evidently respected in the community, and were not prostitutes, as they are so often designated. (3) For keepers of beer‑shops, generally women, who were made responsible for order in their shops, were enjoined to report treasonous talk, and seem to have had the power of arrest. (4) For physicians, evidently not a highly respected class, whose fees are regulated by the patient's social status, while penalties were attached for malpractise or failure. (5) For ‑agriculturists, gardeners, and shepherds, and (6) for various kinds of artisans and laborers duties, fees, wages and penalties are prescribed. The place of justice was the temple or temple gate, and in the temple the records were filed. The order of procedure in cases was first the filing of the briefs, on perusal of which within six months the court heard the case and rendered the decision, which decision might not be reversed by the court hearing it, though the case might be appealed to a higher court or even to the king. The parties to the case plead their own cause, no professional attorneys being in evidence. Where, from the nature of the case, testimony was lacking, the final test was the oath before deity with the death penalty for proved perjury. Litigation was discouraged by penalizing the un‑
successful complainant as heavily as the establishing of his case would have penalized the defendant. Penalties range from fine through multiple payment, mutilation, reduction to slavery, expatriation, death, to death in especially dishonorable form. The cases of fine are of course numerous, as when personal or property damage has been done (106‑109). Multiple payment is prescribed in many cases of trade transaction or fraudulent claim, and the rate varies from double to thirtyfold, ;he last in case of a gentleman stealing from a temple‑if a commoner committed such a theft, the penalty was tenfold restitution or death. Reduction to slavery, equivalent to hard labor for life, followed slander of a votary or a married woman (127). Expatriation was the punishment for incest with a daughter (154). The punishment by mutilation, which often appears in H, was either a case of lex talionis or of punishment by excision of the offending member. In the former case it was eye for eye, etc. (196198). Instances of the latter were loss of hands by the thief (253), by an unskilful surgeon (218), or by a son who struck his father (195); a wet nurse who substituted a changeling lost her breasts (194), a slave who repudiated his master lost his ear (the organ of obedience, 205, 282). The death penalty followed witchcraft or false accusation of it (1, 2), perjury in a capital cause (3), violent entry or theft or receiving goods stolen from mansion or temple (6, 21 ), purchase from unauthorized agents (7), appropriation or selling of things found (9,10 ), making false claim to property (11), kidnapping a free‑born child (14), instigating the flight of a slave (15), harboring a fugitive slave (16) or holding one for personal gain (19), highway robbery (22), neglect of duty by subofiicers (26), permitting disorder in a beer‑shop (109), rape of a betrothed maiden (130), striking and killing a pregnant gentlewoman (209), erasing the brand of slavery (227), defective building, causing the death of the occupant (229), oppression, bribery, misappropriation of public property or persons by magistrates (33‑34). In some cases the death penalty was carried out in a special manner; burning was for looting at a fire (25), for a votary's entering a beer‑shop (110), for incest with a mother (157). Death by drowning was the penalty for cutting the price of beer (109), adultery (129), being a bad wife (143), incest with daughter‑in‑law (155), and deserting a husband's house in his absence (133). Impalement was the punishment for procuring a husband's death (153), dismemberment for failing to keep an agricultural agreement (256). The ordeal (2,132) probably implies death by drowning. Examples of prescriptive measures are those which enabled a man who had suffered from highway robbery or, in case of his death his family, to recover from the governor or the city if the thief were not captured. Thus the responsibility for order was placed on the authorities. Damages were assessed for neglect of various sorts, as, neglect to care for the portion of a canal adjacent to one's property, to herd flocks properly, or to till the whole of a field rented on shares or to till it all properly. Similar prescriptive regulations require that certain commercial operations be conducted in the presence of
HHamm~enbi and His Code THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 138
witnesses under penalty of forfeiture. Such operations as purchase from a minor and deposit of goods or money were illegal if without witnesses.
The position of woman under the law is interesting. Her oath cleared her of the charge of adul‑
tery (131), repudiation by her husband 4. Legal gave her the right to her dowry (137‑
Status of 139), for open contempt of her hus‑
Woman. band she might be reduced to bondage
in her hqsband's house, provided she had been a slack housewife (141); if she had been a good housewife, she might leave him and take her dowry (142), if she were slack and slandered her husband, she was drowned (143). Concubinage was allowed under certain conditions (145); a woman whose husband had under those conditions married again might elect to stay with the husband or to take her marriage portion and go home (148‑149). Property deeded to a wife was hers absolutely (150). By making the agreement at marriage, she could not be seized for a debt contracted before marriage, but she might be held with the husband for one contracted afterward (151‑152). The dowry of a mother went to her children at her death, not to her father (162), but the father of a barren wife received back her dowry less the price paid for her (163‑164). The widow who remained with the family of her husband shared in the property equally with the sons; if she left she took only her dowry (172). A man was bound to support his wife and she to be faithful to him. Hence if he were captured by an enemy and had left for her means of subsistence, she was bound to remain in the home. If he had not done so, she was blameless if she married during his absence. When he came back, she returned to him, and the children followed the father. So a man who expatriated himself from his city could not hold his wife to marital duty.
Study of the code reveals that it was not a thing entirely new. Its provisions are such as would
naturally suggest themselves in a g. The developing civilization; they are often