The Code is often cited as the first example of the legal concept that certain laws are so fundamental that they exceed even a king`s ability to change. In writing the laws on stone, they were immutable. This concept persists in most modern legal systems and has led to the term set in stone. Black codes were restrictive laws designed to restrict the freedom of African Americans and ensure their availability as cheap labor after slavery was abolished during the Civil War. Although the Union victory gave freedom to about 4 million slaves, the Union won the freedom of the Slave Victory in the Army. Unlike the Ur-Nammu Codex, the Lipit-Ishtar Code had to be more precise in order to meet the needs of a more complex society. Fines continue to act as a deterrent, but more detailed laws are needed for family law and commercial contracts. It could no longer be assumed that everyone under the law was acting with the same understanding of what was good behaviour. The Lipit-Ishtar code is also fragmentary, but among the laws were: Unlike the prologue, the 500-line epilogue explicitly refers to laws.
[63] The epilogue begins (3144`–3151`): “These are the right decisions that Hammurabi has. (Dīnāt mīšarim ša ḫammurabi. ukinnu-ma). He glorifies His laws and generosity (3152`–3239`). [65] He then expresses the hope that “every unjust man who has a complaint” (awīlum ḫablum ša awātam iraššû) can have the laws of the stele read to him and know his rights (3240`–3256`). [66] This would bring praise (3257`–3275`) and divine favor (3276`–3295`) to Hammurabi. [67] Hammurabi wished good luck to any leader who listened to his statements and respected his stele (3296`–3359`). [68] However, he invokes the wrath of the gods on anyone who disobeys his statements or erases them (3360`-3641`, the end of the text). [69] [Note 1] Laws do not accept excuses or explanations for errors or errors: the Code has been openly displayed in plain sight, so that no one can invoke ignorance of the law as an excuse. However, few people could read during this period (literacy was mainly the domain of scribes). The concept of law as an institution that protects the weak from the strong, as a force before which all peoples are equal, fosters respect and admiration not only for the laws but also for the legislator. Although Hammurabi conquered the cities by conquest, there is no sign of revolt or dissent during the last five years of his reign.
People realized that the laws of Hammurabi worked in their own interest and maintained them, promoting greater stability and allowing cultural progress. The prologue and the epilogue together constitute a fifth of the text. On about 4,130 lines, the prologue consists of 300 lines and the epilogue 500. [17] They are ring-shaped around laws, although there is no visual break that distinguishes them from laws. [56] Both are written in poetic style,[57] and, as William W. Davies wrote, “contain much. which looks a lot like Braggadocio”. Scheil speculated that the stele was brought to Susa by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhunte and that he ordered the removal of several columns of laws to write his legend.
[19] Roth suspects that the stele was taken as a plunder of Sippar,[21] where Hammurabi lived towards the end of his reign. [22] The first Mesopotamian law was the Urukagina Code of Law (c. 24th century BC), which exists today only in fragments. The Ur-Nammu Codex, although fragmentary in modern times, is still coherent enough to give a clear understanding of what the laws dealt with. The laws were written in cuneiform script on clay tablets and follow a pattern perhaps first introduced by the Urukagina codex, which would also influence the later laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC), the codex of King Lipit-Ishtar (r. c. 1870 – c. 1860 BC) and Hammurabis. However, the arguments against this view are strong. First, it would result in a very unusual code – Reuven Yaron called the term “code” a “persistent misnomer.” [95] Important sectors of society and commerce are left out.
[96] Marc Van De Mieroop, for example, notes that the Code “deals with livestock and agricultural fields, but almost completely ignores the work of herders, which is vital to the economy of Babylon.” [97] Second, contrary to legislative theory, highly implausible circumstances are generally recorded, such as threshing with goats, animals that are far too unruly for this task (Bill 270). [98] The laws are also strictly casuistic (“si. then”); Unlike the Mosaic law, there are no apodictic laws (general commandments). These would more clearly indicate a prescriptive law. The strongest argument against the legislative theory, however, is that most judges seem to have ignored the code. This criticism comes from Benno Landsberger in 1950. [87] No Mesopotamian legal document makes explicit reference to the Code or any other statute book,[92] despite the large size of the corpus. [99] Two references to recipes on “a stele” (narû)[100] come closest to each other. On the other hand, many judgments cite royal decrees of mīšarum. [92] Raymond Westbrook argued that this reinforced the silence argument that the ancient legal codes of the Middle East had legal significance. [101] Moreover, many ancient Babylonian judgments completely contradict the provisions of the Codex. [102] A second theory is that the Code is a kind of legal relationship and, as such, contains records of previous cases and judgments, albeit couched in abstract terms.
This would explain the casuistic format of “laws”; Jean Bottéro thought he had found a file of a case that inspired him. [103] However, despite the extent of the Mesopotamian body of law, such discoveries are inconclusive and very rare. [104] Moreover, in Mesopotamia, court decisions were frequently recorded that reproduced the facts of the case without generalizing them. [105] These judgments dealt almost exclusively with questions of fact, leading Martha Roth to remark, “I know of only one case out of a thousand, which could be said to revolve around a question of law.” [106] Although the Code of Hammurabi was the first Mesopotamian collection of laws to be discovered, it was not the first to be written; Several earlier collections have been preserved. These collections were written in Sumerian and Akkadian. They also claim to have been written by leaders. There were almost certainly more such collections, as statements by other rulers suggest that the custom was widespread. [8] The similarities between these statutes make it tempting to assume a coherent underlying legal system. [8] However, as with the Codex Hammurabi, it is difficult to interpret the purpose and underlying legal systems of these earlier collections, leading many scholars to question whether this should be attempted. [9] Surviving collections include: The stele was packed and shipped to the Louvre in Paris, and in less than a year it was translated and widely published as the first example of a written code of law – an older code but with striking parallels to the laws of the Hebrew Old Testament. The laws are expressed in the casuistic format: they are conditional judgments, with the case described in the protasis (“if” clause) and the remedy in the apodosis (“then” clause). Protasis begins šumma “if”,[138] unless it adds circumstances already provided for in a previous law (e.g.
Laws 36, 38 and 40). [139] The past tense is used for simple past verbs in protasis or possibly for a simple conditional. [138] The perfect often appears at the end of protasis after one or more times spent transmitting a sequence of actions or possibly a hypothetical condition. [138] The durative, in which Assyriology is sometimes called the “present,” can express intention in laws. [138] To facilitate reading in English, some translations give present meaning to past tense and perfect verbs in protasis. [140] In apodose, verbs are durative, although the meaning varies between permissive – “x is allowed to happen” – and instructive – “x must/will occur”. [141] In protasis and apodose, the sequence of actions is mediated by the suffix of verbs with -ma, “and”. [142] -ma can also have the meaning “but”. [143] The codex is relatively well understood, but some points in its vocabulary are controversial. As mentioned earlier, the terms awīlum and muškēnum have proven difficult to translate. They probably refer to a male member of a higher and lower social class. [144] Wolfram von Soden suggested in his Akkadian dictionary that muškēnum was derived from šukênum, “to bow/plead.” [145] As a word for a man of lower social status, it has survived, perhaps from a Sumerian root, in Arabic (miskīn), Italian (meschino), Spanish (mezquino), and French (petty).
[146] However, some earlier translators, who also tried to explain the special treatment of the muškēnum, translated it as “leper” and even “noble.” [147] Some translators have provided stilted readings for awīlum, such as “lord”,[148] “elite man,”[149] and “member of the aristocracy”; [150] Others left it untranslated. [151] Some legal concepts have also proved difficult to translate. For example, dīnum and dīttum can refer to the law in general, as well as individual laws, judgments, divine declarations, and other phenomena. [152] Mīšarum may also refer to the law in general as well as to a kind of royal decree. [153] The oldest surviving body of law from ancient Mesopotamia is the Ur-Nammu Codex of c.