nd these, as well as
the scribes who kept false accounts, were punished (as before stated)
with the loss of both their hands; on the principle, says Diodorus,
that the offending member should suffer; while the culprit was
severely punished, that others might be deterred from the commission
of a similar offence.

As in other countries, their laws respecting debt and usury underwent
some changes, according as society advanced, and as pecuniary
transactions became more complicated.

Bocchoris (who reigned in Egypt about the year 800 B.C., and who, from
his learning, obtained the surname of Wise), finding that in cases of
debt many causes of dispute had arisen, and instances of great
oppression were of frequent occurrence, enacted, that no agreement
should be binding unless it were acknowledged by a written contract;
and if any one took oath that the money had not been lent him, that no
debt should be recognized, and the claims of the suing party should
immediately cease. This was done, that great regard might always be
had for the name and nature of an oath, at the same time that, by
substituting the unquestionable proof of a written document, the
necessity of having frequent recourse to an oath was avoided, and its
sanctity was not diminished by constant repetition.

Usury was in all cases condemned by the Egyptian legislature; and when
money was borrowed, even with a written agreement, it was forbidden to
allow the interest to increase to more than double the original sum.
Nor could the creditors seize the debtor's person: their claims and
right were confined to the goods in his possession, and such as were
really his own; which were comprehended under the produce of his
labor, or what he had received from another individual to whom they
lawfully belonged. For the person of every citizen was looked upon as
the property of the state, and might be required for some public
service, connected either with war or peace; and, independent of the
injustice of subjecting any one to the momentary caprice of his
creditor, the safety of the country might be endangered through the
avarice of a few interested individuals.

This law, which was borrowed by Solon from the Egyptian code, existed
also at Athens; and was, as Diodorus observes, much more consistent
with justice and common sense than that which allowed the creditor to
seize the person, while it forbade him to take the plows and other
implements of industry. For if, contin