LEGISLATIONS OF ISRAEL AND BABYLONFA. 



159 



Hammurabi's code. Again the principle of talion is here free 

 from all class differentiations, which are repugnant to the spirit 

 ■of the Mosaic law, wliose only favourites are the weak and 

 helpless. The principle of making manifold restitution for 

 theft, and in certain kindred offences, is found here as in so 

 many other ancient legislations : but the provisions are far 

 more e(piitable and humane than those of Hammurabi. 



On the other hand tlie laws relating to filial duty show how 

 much nearer the age of Moses was to the days of unrestricted 

 paternal power than the age of Hammurabi, death being the 

 penalty for striking a parent. It should, however, also be 

 pointed out that the religious element enters into the conception, 

 filial duty being regarded as a constituent in holiness. 



In dealing with the Hebrew system we have to assign far 

 more weight to history and far less to geography than in the 

 Babylonian. The Hebrew tribes and their customs had a more 

 varied past to look back upon than their Babylonian kinsmen. 

 They had been nomads who for some time had sojourned in 

 €anaan, and had even had some agricultural experience there. 

 Thence they had migrated to Egypt, where again they had tilled 

 the soil, and during the legislative period they were homeless 

 wanderers in a desert, making ready to fall upon the land they 

 yearned to possess. Without doubt the geographical influences 

 must have been effective as well as varied, but owing partly to 

 •the Iiistory and partly to the spiritual nature of the people 

 they do not exercise the predominating power that they are 

 seen to possess in Babylonia. It will be well to treat the 

 historical and geographical factors together. 



The land for which the legislation was intended was not a 

 land of great rivers and fertile plains irrigated by canals, 

 a land of sesame and dates, " but a land of hills and valleys that 

 drank water of the rain of heaven " (Deut. xi, 11) ; " a land of 

 brooks of water, of fountains and depths springing forth in 

 valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley and vines and fig 

 trees and pomegranates, a land of oil, olives and honey, a land 

 whose stones are iron and out of whose hills thou mayest dig 

 copper " (Deut. viii, 7-9). 



It is at once obvious that in view of these natural features 

 we cannot look for any provisions relating to navigation or 

 canals. It is equally obvious that the economic condition of 

 the people was necessarily far more primitive than that of 

 Babylonia. Hence we shall not find the well-developed system 

 of trades and industry. There are a few rules dealing with the 

 simplest cases of danger by or to cattle, but this is one of the 



