LEGISLATIONS OF ISRAEL AND BABYLONIA. 



149 



conliiigly he must always be liable for loss caused through his 

 own negligence or want of skill. On the other hand, in cases 

 where ]oss occurs througli some cause that is beyond his control 

 and tliat could not have been prevented through any exercise 

 of care or skill, e.g., vis major (Hammurabi's lion), act of God, 

 inevitable accident, the principle res domino peril necessarily 

 finds application in the absence of agreement to the contrary. 



The kindred question of the liability for damage done by 

 sheep is dealt with by Hammurabi in §§ 57 ff., making the 

 shepherd responsible for the depredations of his sheep on green 

 corn. An Indian parallel may be cited. 



" If damage is done by cattle, the responsibility falls on the 

 owner. But if (the cattle) were attended by a herdsman (it 

 falls) on the latter. (If the damage was done) in an unenclosed 

 field near tlie road (the responsibility falls) on the herdsman 

 and on the owner of the field. Five mashas (is the fine to be 

 paid) for (damage done by) a cow^, six for a camel or a donkey, 

 ten for a horse or a buffalo, tw^o for each goat or sheep. If all 

 is destroyed (the value of) the wdiole crop (must be paid and a 

 fine in addition)."* 



It will be seen that ^\\t\\ some differences of detail the 

 principle is substantially the same. 



Another department of the law may be traced to the 

 infiuence of the geographical situation of the people and its 

 consequent economic development acting on marriage customs 

 that in themselves are not exceptional. Gifts by bridegrooms 

 to the parents and relations of the bride, and dowries given by 

 the father on his daughter's marriage are common to many 

 races. In Babylonia, owing to the general wealth, these gifts 

 became of great importance and developed a number of rules 

 relating to their disposition in various events. For example, 

 the marriage portion being the wife's will generally follow her 

 in the event of a dissolution (§§ 138, 142, 176, etc.). It 

 descends to her children, not to the children of another wife 

 and so on (§§ 167, 173, 174, etc.).t These rules call for no 

 more than passing mention here. 



The geography of Babylonia was probably the chief influence 

 to which the formation of a strong centralised monarchy may 

 be attributed, and accordingly it will be in place at this stage 

 to notice the group of sections dealing with certain royal 



* Gautama, xii, 19-26 ; cf- also Manu, viii, 239-241. 

 + An excellent note on these by Professor E. Cuq will be found at the 

 end of Father V. Scheil's La Loi de Hammourahi. 



