26 RENAISSANCES face to the Eckga, we find that the Old Testament is cited half OH many and the Prophet Amos seems to have been especially vetKTUHuI by 1 Syrus, to judge by the fact that this emperor not only cited one text from the Book of Amos in the preface to the Mcfafta but aiw) rrprmhtml another2 in mosaic over the chancel arch of the church of Saint Kir cm* at Constantinople when he rebuilt it after a fire,* V«t, in this Orthodox Christian evocation of the Old Testament in the IkUl of I *aw» it WIIH inevitable that, in the long run, 'the l*ivr\ and not 'the Prophets', ahwiUI prevail; and, sure enough, anEctogabfgis AMwiVw eventually ituulc it« appearance in the corpus of an, Echga ad JProchnrttm Mutala tlerived from an Ecloga Private which was itself an wrmmlion from the, original Ecloga promulgated by the Empcrora I'^co and Confttumine in A,J>. 740,* If there is truth in the proverb that * coming cvcfttH cunt their Hluulmva before them', we should not be surprised to itnd in the original Krfaga some unacknowledged influence of u Mosaic Lmv that, in the gradual development of East Roman legislation, was to tak« pt*rhurm im many u« four centuries to rise naked to the surface; arid* if we apply thi« due to our search for the original inspiration of the Kfltigtt'* revolutionary partiality for punishments in the form of mutiUtiorm, commended v» 'humanitarian' substitutes for the death penalty, wetmay c«mc to the conclusion that the eighth-century legislator is more likely to have Keen inspired by a correctly literal interpretation of the Lrx Ttilittm* m enunciated in 'the Covenant Code*** of the Corpus Mnsmt'um than by an * The passages cited from the New Testament »re x IVt. i, 17: t IVf, v, A; l,Mkr *vl. 17; John vii. »4. Those cited from the Old Teatftincnt «rp 1»», viii, ao: I'*, tv»it. t A {in th« Scptuagint s version; Pa, Ivii. 3™3Ji Keel, vii, 4«ml (f)j t Kittjj* »»• *^» -J^i N»» v. a3~»4; Amos ii, 6. * Amu* ix. ^», 3 See FreshMd, K, H.: Reman faw in the late KtwMH A'wi^t>«» (t*B«iltfitl«P i*j,n, Bowes & BQW*« ttuttirtiiinpum in the nmitrr of thrif respective philosophies of punishment had hern imtidfmtctl by » vrirreKimmiit»« i'**ntr«it between Israel's 'Covenant Cade' and the Hunwic Cottc «, 30, t{u««t9tl almtUv in VI, vii, »U3»«, »). iiiu»(ju J.yj*i wtuvtjajiy vi Vrfiu<^«n« *ivnuj) j7« so, i|v***iew HiTvBwy in vii viii *^it». _,»the other hand 'the rectification in the uirection «f «re»t#r numiinify1 which ' Covenant Code', like the JKclosti, introduced in itK tifpamtrcn frtttn th« ^r«ivi«»m»w «fth« latest code of an antecedent civilization largely cimnUtcU, In th«t p»rtif r c«*c^ «« w?U mi in the later, in the replacement of the death penalty by v»ri«*u* fortim »f mulil«U(Ui; *By» for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for font, bunting for hurninu, wound fur wound> stripe for stripe* (Exod, xxi, ai-ajs), We may also observe that the Code of 11mmmuraW «nd t he Curtwx fuilMnntmm «tf rred with one another on ft further point of cammon difference from ttui M««iaie J.«w »n«l th* Edoga alike, The second decabgue of "the Covenunt Codo" (Kxmt, xxt, 11^7) t|cnU with personal injuries, The Code of Hammurabi deal* with th« name cinai of ammrtfi "5 X95-ai4)» The greater number of the [mm in HftirtmumW'» C«»d« i* dutr in t*Nrt l» th« on the Justinianean code. The Ecloga mete* out tho itme p«nK!ti»i to notir inti rich, •whereas the older law had constantly ordained different BuniihRwnte far th* mm* offfn»e> according to the wak ar»dfort«n« of fb« cfT«nd*r' (Bury, Appendix, p. 530), ° j&xodt 3uci» ai-x.