(M511) The priest proper, _šangû_, was a person of the highest rank. He appears very little on the whole. His chief function was to act as mediator between god and man, as over the sacrifice offered. (M512) He had public duties outside his priestly office. He inspected canals.(544) He often acted as a judge. (M513) There was a college of priests attached to some temples, over which was a _šangû maḫḫu_ or “high-priest.” (M514) The general idea that _mašmašu_, “charmer”; _kalû_, “restrainer”; (?) _maḫḫû_, “soothsayer”; _surru_; _lagaru_; _šâ’ilu_, “inquirer”; _mušêlu_, “necromancer”; _âšipu_, “sorcerer”; all properly “magicians,” are subdivisions of the general term _šangû_, is yet to be proved. Except when, in rare cases, the same man was both, the scribes carefully distinguish them. The idea seems to arise from the same modern confusion of thought which starts by calling an unknown official first a eunuch, then a priest. We do not yet fully know the functions or methods of these officials. They remain to be studied.(545) (M515) The _ḳêpu_, or “warden,” was over the temple servants. He let the temple lands. He inspected the temple slaves and work-people.(546) (M516) The _šatammu_ was over the revenues. This name is clearly connected with the _šutummu_ or storehouse. Certain officials, as surveyors or measurers, scribes, _et cetera_, may have been of priestly rank and held these offices as well. But as a rule, a man appears with an official title, without our being able to see whether he was a priest or not. (M517) The temple kept its artificers, who had board and wages. It had its serfs, or land laborers, not actual slaves, but free except for their duty to the temple. They lived on the produce of their holdings, subject to a fixed, or produce-rent. There were temple slaves, who performed the menial offices without wages, but were clothed and fed. Within these classes doubtless came some of those who appear as slaughterers, water-carriers, doorkeepers, bakers, weavers, and the like. A temple also had its shepherds, cultivators, irrigators, gardeners, _et cetera_; but it is far from easy to determine the exact degree of dependence in each case. The temple even had its own doctor.(547) (M518) In all these cases we may compare the monastic institutions of the Middle Ages. We are not as a rule able to see whether they were “lay brothers,” or had become “clerics,” as well as “clerks.” But there is no sign of celibacy. Even the priests were married. Attached to the temple were votaries.(548) In not a few cases the above offices might also be held by women, even such an office as surveyor might be held by a woman. There were many female “clerks.” All the temple staff were maintained by the temple, boarded, fed, and clothed, at the temple expense. But private persons might undertake to keep a definite temple official, perhaps were bound to do so, by the terms of some endowment.(549)