Chapter 21

(M617) The money lent is often said to belong to a god. Ashur, Ishtar of Arbela, or Ishtar of Nineveh, are the most common. Sometimes it is said to be in “Ishtar heads,” which has been taken to mean ingots stamped with a head of Ishtar. The frequent reference to the mina of Carchemish alongside the king’s mina is eloquent as to the commercial eminence of the old Hittite capital.

An example is the following:(664)

Sixteen shekels of silver, from A to B, _ana pûḫi_, he has taken. On the first day of Tammuz he shall pay the money. If not, it shall increase by a quarter. Dated the eleventh of Nisan, in the Eponymy of Bêl-ludâri. Three witnesses.

(M618) Loans or advances were also made of various kinds of property. Thus we have an advance of ten minas of silver, Carchemish standard, seventy-five sheep, one cow, made by Ashurbânipal’s chief steward to four men, _ana pûḫi_. The sheep and cow they are to return in Adar. If they do not return the sheep, they must breed them. The interest on the money is to be one-third. Dated the twenty-fifth of Tebet, B.C. 664. Thirteen witnesses. Such a loan seems to be on the metayer system.(665)

(M619) Here again we have an exceptional case:(666)

L lends two dromedaries, “which they called double-humped,” to three men, who shall return them on the first of the month, or pay six minas of silver. If they do not pay the money, interest shall accrue at the rate of five shekels per mina. Dated the fourteenth of Tishri, B.C. 674.

These animals were rare and evidently highly valued. What could the three borrowers want with a pair of such animals? Were they for exhibition in a menagerie? Perhaps they were for breeding. We may have here a case of goods taken on approval, for a fortnight or so, perhaps for sale to another party.

The same lender lent to the same three men, two hundred sheep, one hundred and fifty goats, two hundred and thirty yearling lambs, in all five hundred and eighty small cattle. They were to return the animals by a fixed date, or pay. Dated the seventh of Iyyar, B.C. 673. The same lender had lent seventy-two sheep to two other men, in Sivan, B.C. 680. They had to return the sheep in Ab, or pay for them at the market-rate in Nineveh. Bêl-êresh acted as agent for the borrowers.(667)

(M620) Other goods, such as wine, or oil, were advanced. Here we probably have to do with the transactions of the royal chief steward and the king’s agents. For example:(668)

L intrusts five homers of wine, according to the royal measure, to D. On the first of Nisan he shall return the wine, otherwise he shall pay for the wine according to the market-rate in Nineveh. Dated fifth of Adar, B.C. 674. Five witnesses.

Again:(669)

(M621)

L advances six homers of pure oil, price ten _ḲA_ of bronze per homer, to D, the major-domo at Carchemish. He shall repay the oil in Sebat; if not, it shall be doubled. Dated twenty-first of Ab, B.C. 681. Six witnesses.

We may deduce the interesting fact that Esarhaddon was at Carchemish in Ab, B.C. 681. The advance was made for the use of the royal household there.

(M622) Advances of corn were made exactly as in the earlier times. Thus:(670)

L advances thirty homers of corn to D, the messenger from the city of Maganiṣi, by the hands of E, a colonel in the army. He shall pay the corn in Marchesvan, in the city of Maganiṣi, or pay the full value of it in Nineveh. Dated the seventeenth of Sebat, B.C. 665. Eight witnesses.

(M623) One peculiarity of the corn loans is that they are chiefly recorded upon what have been called heart-shaped tablets. These were lumps of clay through which a string passed and came out at the upper shoulders. The string was probably tied around the neck of a sack containing the corn. They thus served both as labels, seals, and as bonds. Many of them have Aramaic dockets, which have been collected and edited by Dr. J. H. Stevenson, in his _Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts, with Aramaic reference-notes_.

(M624) Thus the above example bears the words in Aramaic, “_barley, assignment, which is from Nabû-dûri._” These Aramaic legends, in the case of such labels, may have served as addresses. But the general purpose is obscure. All the corn advances seem to have been made by officials of the royal household to inferior officers, in charge of farms or otherwise dependent for supplies.

(M625) (M626) They show by their dates that the corn was usually advanced just before harvest, when corn was dearest. Some of them name the reapers; others give the number of them. We conclude that these advances were made as food for the harvesters, or as wages for their labor. Occasionally, however, the loan was made at seed-time. Most of the loans are _ana pûḫi_,(671) which supports the view that the meaning of this phrase is really “for management expenses” and presupposes the metayer system.

(M627) Closely connected with money or other loans are receipts for payment. These are somewhat rare. The more usual practice was to break the tablet, or promise to pay, which was returned to the debtor. But we have two good examples, thus:(672)

The four minas of silver, interest, belonging to C, which were due from D, D has paid and given to C. One with the other, neither shall litigate. Dated seventh of Sivan, B.C. 683. Three witnesses.

Here we are not aware of the circumstances which lead to the loan. But, in one case, we have records both of the loan and its repayment, thus:(673)

(M628)

Baḫiânu advanced two homers of corn, for food, to Nabû-nûr-nammir; and one homer each to Latubashâni-ilu and Ṣabutânu, _ana pûḫi_. Dated the twenty-ninth of Elul, B.C. 686.

And we find also:(674)

Ṣabutânu and Latubashâni-ilu repay each one homer. Nabû-nûr-nammir does not repay. Dated Iyyar, B.C. 685.

Whether or not the defaulter paid later is not known; but we probably owe our knowledge of the repayment to the fact that all three did not pay together. We note that each paid exactly what he borrowed. No interest was charged.

(M629) In one case we have a receipt for a fine, or damages, imposed by a law-court. Thus:(675)

Forty minas of bronze, without rebate, which the _sukallu_ imposed as a fine. Paid to the _šakintu_. Dated the tenth of Adar, B.C. 693. Four witnesses.

There is no statement who owed, or paid, the fine. But the lady governor who received the money gave this receipt for it.

(M630) The Code makes very clear the legal aspect of this transaction. A minor or a slave could only deposit under power of attorney.(676) A deposit was not recoverable unless made by a deed, or delivered in presence of witnesses and duly acknowledged by a receipt.(677) The receiver was liable for all loss occurring to the goods in his possession on deposit, even when the loss was such as involved the loss of his own goods as well.(678) For corn, the Code fixed a yearly fee for warehousing of one-sixtieth the amount deposited.(679)

(M631) As we learn from the few actual cases which occur, the receipt given for the goods was returned to the recipient on the return of the goods and the tablet broken as cancelling the responsibility. One form which it might take is illustrated by the following:(680)

Ten shekels of silver, which according to a sealed receipt was deposited for the share of Ṣili-Shamash, he has taken from Ṣili-Ishtar and Amêl-ili, his brothers. His heart is contented; he will not dispute. Oath by Ḥammurabi, the king. Seven witnesses. Fourth year of Ḥammurabi.

Here apparently three brothers share, but one being absent the two hold their brother’s share for him, giving a sealed receipt for it. This the judge delivered to him and he claimed and received his share.

(M632) Actual examples of deposit are rare; probably because our collections refer to temple transactions, rather than to private family deeds. We have a deposit of lead,(681) from which we learn that silver was worth twice as much as lead. It was to be sent from Ashnunna, on demand. Here is another:(682)

(M633)

“Concerning the silver which Zikrum and Ṣabitum gave to Ṣili-Ishtar on deposit. They have received it; their hearts are content. They gave up their bond and it was broken.”

Instead of a receipt by the recipient there is often found a list concluding with the word _apkida_, “I have intrusted.” Then comes the date and the names of witnesses. It is not clear, however, that these things were meant to be returned. They may only be memoranda of allowances given out. They chiefly occur in Scheil’s _Saison de fouilles à Sippar_.(683)

(M634) In Assyrian documents no examples of this kind of transaction are found. Nor are any very clear examples producible from later Babylonian times. But it must not be overlooked that some cases, where a receipt is given for a sum or quantity of goods, without mention of interest to be paid, may very well be acknowledgments of a deposit; they have usually been taken to be loans.

XXIV. Pledges And Guarantees

(M635) Very little is known about pledges in early times, though Meissner had argued for their existence from certain passages of the series _ana ittišu_, such as “on account of the interest of his money he shall cause house, field, garden, man-servant, or maid-servant, to stand on deposit”; followed later by, “if he bring back the money he can re-enter his house; if he bring back the money, he can plant his garden again; if he bring back the money, he can stand in his field; if he bring back the money, he can take away his maid; if he bring back the money, one shall return his slave.”(684) Consequently the creditor held the pledge in his possession until the loan was returned, when he had to give it back. The pledges here mentioned are antichretic, that is, such that they produce an income or return to the holder, which is a set-off against the interest of his money.

(M636) The Code recognizes the taking of property in satisfaction of a debt.(685) But this is rather a process of distraint upon the goods of the debtor, in case of non-payment, than a case of pledge. Since it was usually expected that the property so taken would be returned on payment of the debt, we can hardly distinguish it from pledge. Indeed, where a debtor gave up his wife, child, or slave to work off a debt, we have a case of antichretic pledge for the debt and interest.

(M637) In times subsequent to the First Babylonian Dynasty, the pledge is common. As a rule, it is antichretic, such that income or profit derived from the pledge is a fair equivalent for the interest of the loan. The lender acquires the right of enjoying the pledge. As a rule this is assigned him absolutely, so that no account is needed to be kept of interest on one side and profit on the other. If the profit exceeds the interest due, the excess may be returned, or it may be credited towards the discharge of the debt. If the interest exceeds the profit on the pledge, then the amount by which the loan exceeds the capitalized profit must pay interest.

(M638) In Assyrian times loans on security are fairly common. Here also we have antichretic loans, where the profit on the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the money. The pledge is expressly stated to be “in lieu of interest.” But it seems that the property was often expected also to extinguish the debt. Or it was merely pledged, as a security, which the creditor would keep in case he could not get his money back. We may illustrate these by examples:(686)

(M639)

The lady Addati, the _šakintu_, lends two minas of silver, Carchemish standard, exact sum, to D, the deputy of the chief of the city. In lieu of the two minas of silver, a plot of twelve homers of land in the outskirts of Nineveh, Kurdi-Adadi, his wife and three sons, Kandilânu and his wife, in all seven people, and twelve homers of land, are pledged. On the day that one returns the money, the other shall release the land and people. Dated the first of Marchesvan, B.C. 694. Ten witnesses.

The point about the phrase, “exact sum,” seems to be that the advance was made without any rebate. Here the security is worth little more than the loan. Its profits would, however, be a good security for the interest of the loan. No time is given for repayment, but the creditor undertakes to accept repayment and release the pledge at any time.

Again:(687)

(M640)

The lady Indibî lends sixteen minas of silver, royal standard, to D. In the month of Tishri, he shall pay the money in full; if not, interest shall be two shekels per mina monthly. A vineyard in the village of Bêl-aḫê, next to that of Ḥabašu, next to that of Si’banik, next to that of the chief scribe; also these slaves, Dâri-Bêl, his wife, three sons, and two daughters, along with his household, four fat cows (?); Ḥudi-sharrûtu and his daughter; all are pledged as security. If they die or run away, the loss shall be D’s. The day that D shall refund the money, with the interest, his slaves and vineyard shall be released. Dated the ninth of Ab, B.C. 688. Six witnesses.

Or again:(688)

(M641)

Five homers of land belong to D, in the city Kâr-Au. The lender L gives D two-thirds of a mina of silver. This two-thirds of a mina of silver L shall acquire from the field and when D thus has given L his money back, he shall release the field. Dated the sixteenth of Iyyar, B.C. 680.

In the following case a maid is assigned outright for a loan. It is doubtful whether this is a sale, or a pledge:(689)

(M642)

In lieu of money, Bêlit-ittîa, the maid of the _šakintu_, is assigned to the lady Sinki-Ishtar. As long as she lives, she shall serve her. Dated the fourteenth of Iyyar, B.C. 652.

(M643) A very similar case occurs in the loan of corn and a cow by the _bêl paḫâti_ of the Crown Prince, to a certain Nargî of the city of Bamatu. Nargî was to serve the lender for the corn and cow. When his service had become equivalent to the value of the advance, he could go free.(690)

Antichretic pledge was very common in later Babylonian times. The most typical examples are houses. The lender (M644) has a house in pledge. To him it is rent-free until the loan is repaid. Hence the common phrase “rent is nought, interest is nought.” There was then no reckoning made one against the other.(691) The creditor might not, however, care to take the pledge in perpetuity against interest of a loan, never repaid. Usually a date was fixed for repayment, at which time the debtor was bound to take back his pledge. Thus a house might be pledged definitely for three years.(692)

(M645) A reckoning might also be made, to check off profit against interest. Thus D pledges a field to L, but on condition that, if in any year the crop is less than will meet the interest due, he shall pay the difference; but if, on the other hand, it be worth more, he shall take the balance.(693)

(M646) The value of the pledge might, however, be such that it would outweigh both loan and interest. At any rate, it should be as valuable as the loan. Hence it could not be used as a further pledge to another. There is often a guarantee that the pledge given has not been already pledged, that no other creditor has a lien upon it.

(M647) In these cases the creditor enters into possession of the pledge and enjoyment of it. He has some responsibilities towards it. He cannot destroy it, or waste it. As a rule, he assumed full liability for all cases for wear and tear. He also fed and clothed a slave pledged to him. Now and then we find the debtor responsible for clothing the slave pledged by him.(694) It is not essential, however, to the idea of pledge that it should come into the possession of the creditor, only it is hypothecated to him. This practice was very common in later Babylonian times.(695)

(M648) Such pledges give an eventual possession. Something like a reversion occurs in the pledge of a share not yet divided.(696) Thus a sum was borrowed on the understanding that if not returned by the proper time, a slave shall be handed over as an antichretic pledge.(697) The man who gives a pledge may not be in actual possession of it, but pledges it on the understanding that he will hand it over as soon as it becomes his. Thus B bought a slave and her two young children for sixty-five shekels, but before they were handed over, he pledged them for fifty-five shekels. Nine months later he sold them for sixty shekels.(698)

(M649) A common case is where the debtor pledges all he has to the creditor, a pledge usually greatly in excess of the value of the loan and its interest for a reasonable term, but remains in possession himself. Hence the creditor has only a right over the pledge, a lien upon it, but no usufruct. For this he had the bond. This also gives only an eventual possession.

(M650) We often meet with after-pledge. The creditor, being in possession of the pledge, might traffic in its profits. If he held a house as pledge, he was not bound to live in it, but could sublet it. Hence he might pledge the rent of it. Or he could repay himself his loan by repledging the house to another. He could also pledge the loan which was due to him. This makes a rather complicated case.

(M651) Thus L makes an advance _a_ to D and receives a pledge _p_. He may then pledge both _a_ and _p_. If these are given to two separate persons, _a_ to A and _p_ to P, then P has a cause for uneasiness. If D comes in and pays up _a_, he has a right to the pledge _p_ which is in P’s possession. But the money he advanced is not thereby paid to him. Further, A has a right to the money _a_ just paid in by D, which is all that is in evidence. Hence L will have succeeded in getting two sums, and unless he can succeed in realizing his investments of them, is called on to pay both A and P with one amount. Either A or P may suffer. But if L pledges both _a_ and _p_ to one man C, then C is quite independent of the relations of L to D. Now D simply has to pay C and gets his pledge back. C is sure of his money.

(M652) Such a transfer of the responsibility of D from L to C was effected by handing over to C, with the pledge, also D’s bond to L. C now holds this bond, which, with his pledge, D wishes to get back. The following is a complicated case illustrating these points:(699) D had a house and pledged it to L, who lived in it. Two others were guarantees that D would repay the loan. The pledge was antichretic, “rent nothing, interest nothing.” Now L wanted money; so he pledged the house to C. But he did not wish to vacate. So he hired it of C, at such a rate that he would repay C’s loan in about five years. It is clear that this house was not good security for C, since D might turn out L at any time by repaying him. L would then owe money to C for which C had no security at all. But L in addition pledged all his own property, his slave, and all his goods in town and country. Further, he not only pledged the house, but handed over D’s bond to him. C thus held the house in after-pledge, and the advance with its security in pledge. He was therefore amply secured, since D must pay him.

Now L died and was succeeded by his son M. L had already paid nearly a third of his debt. M thus owed less interest on the loan still due and was accepted by C as tenant at a lower rent. By this means M really made a small profit to himself. In three years M had paid off the whole sum borrowed by his father, and due from him as heir and executor, so he gave back his father’s bond to C, also D’s bond to L. Now D paid back his loan to M. His bond to L was destroyed. The claim of C on D was annulled, the guarantees of D were free. A final deed of settlement was drawn up, in which C acknowledged that he had no claims on D or M, nor on D’s sureties. He had to say this, because he was not only creditor to M, but as long as he held transferred to him the pledge of D, and the credit of L, he was a creditor with claims on D also. Further, M declares that he has no credit on D.(700)

(M653) A guarantee arises from certain persons undertaking to fulfil a responsibility which is legally incumbent on another, in case he fails to do so himself; or to secure that he shall fulfil it himself. Thus, guarantees are very frequent at all times, especially in the later Babylonian period, and are of many different kinds.

(M654) A guarantee for debt was an additional security to the creditor. Of course, the original debtor is the security that the guarantor shall not lose. A good example showing all sides is the following bond for three minas due from D to L. G and W come in and guarantee that D will pay; if not, they will. To protect themselves, they take as a pledge of D some of his people. But D paid and received back his people, so that the bond was returned to D.(701) Why D did not give his people as pledge to L direct is not clear. G and W were probably persons of greater credit and perhaps related to D. The guarantor was sometimes called on to pay. Thus G guarantees for D, is called on to pay and D repays him.(702) The guarantor was legally protected against the defaulting debtor.(703)

(M655) A guarantee for appearance may have been only to come and pay, as when G guarantees the creditor, a temple, that D will come on a fixed date, and pay his debt; or if not, G will himself pay.(704) It may be a guarantee that a man will not go away; by which may be meant escape payment, or fail to appear for judgment. This is called a guarantee “for the foot of” the person thus indorsed. The “foot” is said to be in the “hand” of him who demands the guarantee. It often refers to debt. G guarantees for the foot of D, out of the hand of L. If he goes away, G will pay thirty-five _GUR_ of dates. Here G is the mother of D.(705) So, probably on account of debt, G guarantees for the foot of D, his son-in-law, from the hand of L;(706) again, G guarantees for D to L that D will come on a certain day. G takes the responsibility for all D owes to L, and will pay if D does not come.(707) Or, G guarantees for D and E that they will not leave for another place. If they do, he will pay six minas.(708)

(M656) But the appearance may be needed for a different purpose. G guarantees to bring a witness to Opis, and give witness against L that one who was guarantee for the foot of someone to L shall return at the right time. If the guarantee shall prove that L was paid, he is free; if not, he is bound to pay.(709)

D owed L a debt. L ceded this debt to M, but had to guarantee that D will come and pay.(710)

(M657) Solidarity is in some cases a form of guarantee. Thus two men D and E owe a debt to L. Each is taken as guarantee for the other that they will pay.(711) This is one of the commonest forms of guarantee. The debt could then be recovered in its entirety from either.

(M658) An example of a guarantee against theft is also found.(712)

(M659) A warrant against defects in a slave is very common. The seller warrants that if the slave prove to have certain undisclosed defects, vices, or liabilities, which would detract from his value to the buyer, the seller will indemnify the buyer. This indemnification seems to be effected by a return of the purchase-money and accepting the slave back. But, in some cases, the seller returned part of the purchase-money according to a fixed scale of allowances. In the sale of an estate, the seller guarantees that he will indemnify the buyer in case of any defect of title to sell, or any lien upon the estate.

(M660) Very common at all times was a personal guarantee not to dispute the compact entered into. In fact, this may always be said to be assumed. The oaths by which parties swore to observe the terms of the compact are a form of this guarantee. The penalties, so prominent in Assyrian times, are voluntary undertakings to forfeit stated sums, if found attempting to go behind the contract.