160 HAEOLD M. WIENER, M.A.., LL.B., ON TEE 



departments of law that shows the greatest similarity all the 

 world over and calls for little comment. Tlie real interest 

 lies elsewhere — in the land laws, the slave laws, the tribal 

 theory and so on. These subjects we must now consider. 



The land laws are the product of many independent ideas 

 and circumstances. Their consideration is in place here 

 because the conditions of the problem and the opportunity for 

 grappling with it show the inliuence of history with such 

 singular clearness. First such a system as that expounded in 

 the 25th chapter of Leviticus could only be put forward by one 

 who had to work on what is so very rare in history — a clean 

 slate. In other words the system of land tenure here laid down 

 could only be introduced in this way by men who had no pre- 

 existing system to reckon with. Secondly, there is {mvtatis 

 mutandis) a marked resemblance between the provisions of 

 Leviticus and the system introduced in Egypt by Joseph 

 (Gen. xlvii). The land is the Lord's as it is Pharaoh's ; but 

 the towns which are built on that land are not subject to the 

 same theory or the same rules. Perhaps the explanation is 

 that Joseph's measures had affected only those who gained 

 their living by agriculture, i.e., the dwellers in the country. 

 Thirdly, the system shows the enormous power that the 

 conception of family solidarity possessed in the Mosaic Age — 

 a conception to which we shall have to return directly. And 

 fourthly, the enactment is inspired and illuminated by the 

 humanitarian and religious convictions and ideals to which 

 reference has already been made. 



In the economic sphere the contrast between Moses and 

 Hammurabi is very marked. Taking human property first we 

 find that the Babylonian code is careful to guard the rights of 

 slave owners, inflicting the death penalty on those who effectively 

 aid runaway slaves (§§ 15-20). Contrast with this the 

 Hebrew provisions, "Thou shall not deliver unto his master 

 a servant which is escaped from his master unto thee : with 

 thee he shall dwell in the midst of thee, in the place which he 

 shall choose within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best : 

 thou shalt not oppress him " (Deut. xxiii, 15ff.). It has 

 been said with some truth that such provisions can more easily 

 be enacted for a primitive community than at a more developed 

 economic stage, but this is only a portion of the truth, and if 

 taken by itself a very misleading portion. Economic circum- 

 stances may have been one of the conditions of the enactment 

 of the rule (at any rate in its present form) : they could not 

 provide its Motive. The difference between the two legislations 



