THE LAWS OF THE BABYLONIANS. 



239 



and to understand them well, it would be necessary to have a 

 more precise definition of the technical terms used. Professor 

 Scheil states that they relate to witchcraft in the first and 

 the second degree, the hrst referring to an anathema, tlie second 

 to sorcery of the ordinary kind. This is probably correct, but 

 it is still needful to know under what circumstances such banns 

 or spells were cast, and what constituted justification. In all 

 probability such things were done with the hope of preventing 

 an opponent or rival from doing something to the disadvantage 

 of the person banning — perhaps, at least in the first instance, 

 to thwart tlie ends of justice. That this is probable, ma}" be 

 surmised from the two laws which immediately follow : — 



" If, in a judgment, a man seek to discredit the witnesses, 

 and has not justified the word he has spoken — if that judgment 

 be a judgment of life (and death), that man shall be killed." 



" If he has offered wlieat or silver {i.e., money) to the witnesses, 

 he shall bear the wrong of that judgment." 



" If a judge has given a judgment, has decided a decision, 

 (and) has delivered a sealed tablet (referring thereto), (and) 

 then afterwards has changed his judgment, that judge, for the 

 judgment he has judged and changed, they shall summon, and 

 the claim which was in that judgment he shall repay twelve- 

 fold. And they shall make him rise up in the assembly from 

 the seat of his judgeship, and he shall not return, and he shall 

 not sit with the judges in judgment." 



Tliough enacted with the best of intentions, there is but 

 little doubt that this was an unfortunate law, for in face of the 

 penalty and disgrace attending it, few judges would be found 

 who would reverse a decision once given. There is but little 

 doubt that it was intended to lessen continuous litigation, to 

 which the Babylonians seem to have been very inclined. 

 Perhaps it simply means, that an appeal could not be heard 

 before the judge who had given the decision, but had to be 

 taken to another, and perhaps higher, court. That these three 

 laws concerning the integrity of justice are among the first of 

 the code, shows in what estimation absolutely just decisions 

 were held, and suggest that the two preceding enactments, 

 which head the code, probably had something to do with 

 thwarting the ends of justice also, or with superseding it by the 

 -appeal to supernatural or demoniacal agencies. 



The laws which follow have to do with theft. Stealing or 

 receiving things stolen from a temple or a palace was punish- 

 able with death, and the same penalty attended the purchase or 

 receipt on deposit of things from another man's son or servant, 



