Best Answer:<span> </span><span>One key thing to know when considering Hammurabi's "Code" is that it is NOT the first "law code" in Mesopotamian history. Rather, it stands in a line with a number of earlier Sumerian codes (though, unfortunately, these are not as completely preserved).
Here are a handful of things this "Code" seem to reveal about Hammurabi and the society in which he lived:
1) The fact that Hammurabi was following the pattern of several earlier (Sumerian) rulers in issuing this "code" suggests he was NOT trying to establish something brand new (even though the prologue brags a bit about his surpassing his predecessors). He saw himself as much like these earlier rulers, and was declaring his legitimacy and suitedness to rule -- since he was a good "shepherd" looking after his people. (This image, emphasized in H's "prologue" to the code, was a common Mesopotamian image for good rulers.)
2) The fact that H. published it at the BEGINNING of his reign --those other rulers did so LATE in their rule-- suggests that the situation was very STABLE at the time. H did not have to spend a lot of time gaining control and fighting for reforms.
3) The same stability & conservatism is suggested by the great SIMILARITY in the sort of principles expressed in the law in comparison with what we have (though incomplete) from the earlier laws (esp of Lipit-Ishtar).
4) There WERE class distinctions that came into play. Thus, for instance, the penalty for injury to a slave would not be as severe as that to a social equal, let alone a superior. (The "eye for an eye" principle -- which is about making sure the punishment is suited to the crime [not excessive] NOT about "getting revenge" -- only actually applied if the parties were of equal social standing.)
5) The legal system was not only stable but rather complex. The laws (like Lipit-Ishtar's) even reflect the more advanced idea of "tort" (that is, damages for an injured party when there is no evidence of criminal intent). All of this indicates a complex society with experienced leading classes (offiicals, priests, etc).
6) The way the "code" is organized does not suggest an attempt at absolute, careful completeness -- it rather represents more a representative COLLECTION, perhaps of the way such cases had ALREADY been decided, in other words, more a "case law" approach, like the traditional British common law. This again points out the long, gradual and stable history of development... of Mesopotamian societies working out how to handle these matters.
7) This structure as a not quite systematic collection is one reason some hesitate to call it a "law code" at all (and why I use the quotation marks!) More important than that, it is not clear that what we have was USED quite that way. The inscription was posted on a public obelisk -- which itself appears to be a "votive" object, that is, something set up to express devotion to a god (or gods)</span>
Here are a handful of things this "Code" seem to reveal about Hammurabi and the society in which he lived:
1) The fact that Hammurabi was following the pattern of several earlier (Sumerian) rulers in issuing this "code" suggests he was NOT trying to establish something brand new (even though the prologue brags a bit about his surpassing his predecessors). He saw himself as much like these earlier rulers, and was declaring his legitimacy and suitedness to rule -- since he was a good "shepherd" looking after his people. (This image, emphasized in H's "prologue" to the code, was a common Mesopotamian image for good rulers.)
2) The fact that H. published it at the BEGINNING of his reign --those other rulers did so LATE in their rule-- suggests that the situation was very STABLE at the time. H did not have to spend a lot of time gaining control and fighting for reforms.
3) The same stability & conservatism is suggested by the great SIMILARITY in the sort of principles expressed in the law in comparison with what we have (though incomplete) from the earlier laws (esp of Lipit-Ishtar).
4) There WERE class distinctions that came into play. Thus, for instance, the penalty for injury to a slave would not be as severe as that to a social equal, let alone a superior. (The "eye for an eye" principle -- which is about making sure the punishment is suited to the crime [not excessive] NOT about "getting revenge" -- only actually applied if the parties were of equal social standing.)
5) The legal system was not only stable but rather complex. The laws (like Lipit-Ishtar's) even reflect the more advanced idea of "tort" (that is, damages for an injured party when there is no evidence of criminal intent). All of this indicates a complex society with experienced leading classes (offiicals, priests, etc).
6) The way the "code" is organized does not suggest an attempt at absolute, careful completeness -- it rather represents more a representative COLLECTION, perhaps of the way such cases had ALREADY been decided, in other words, more a "case law" approach, like the traditional British common law. This again points out the long, gradual and stable history of development... of Mesopotamian societies working out how to handle these matters.
7) This structure as a not quite systematic collection is one reason some hesitate to call it a "law code" at all (and why I use the quotation marks!) More important than that, it is not clear that what we have was USED quite that way. The inscription was posted on a public obelisk -- which itself appears to be a "votive" object, that is, something set up to express devotion to a god (or gods)</span>
6
0