Social features of "The Code of Hammurabi"







Original cuneiform tablet of the Code

           “The Code of Hammurabi” is a set of laws put forth by the ancient Babylonian king, Hammurabi.  Covering everything from proper marriage behavior to property statutes, the Code was Hammurabi’s way of governing his people with fairness.  The main reasons behind the Code had to do chiefly with Hammurabi’s own desire to rule as a just and good king.  In his own words, Hammurabi wanted “to establish law and justice in the language of the land, thereby promoting the welfare of the people.”  He was not a ruler concerned with using fear and intimidation to keep his subjects in line.  Instead he wanted to see his people live together in a peaceful, functioning society .

          The two striking features of the Code were that the law differed according to the social status and gender of the offender, and that it demanded that the punishment fit the crime, (i.e. “an eye for an eye”).  To the modern reader living in a democratic society, there are obviously some social discrepancies in these.  First, the fact that the law subscribed different punishments when the offender was of a higher class than the victim shows how the upper castes of Babylonian society were considered superior to those below them.  Although the lower classes were afforded some recompense, they did not get that same “eye for an eye” justice unless the offender belonged to their same social category.  Also, while women were afforded rights under the law, there were many laws they were expected to follow that men were not.  

          An example of these two main features can be found in laws 125, 197, and 198.  First, in relation to the second feature, law 125 states: “If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge.  But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it away from the thief.”   This pertains to what can possibly be considered banking.  The depositor was afforded his rights under the law to receive exactly what he lost due to the negligence of the person he deposited his property with (whom he probably paid a fee to).  There were no excessive law suits, nor was there a federal insurance program.  If you lost somebody’s property, you paid it back to them.

Ancient bust of the King



          An example of the first feature can be found in the consecutive laws, 197, and 198.  Law 197 reads: “If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.”  Then the next law, 198, says: “If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.”  Taken together, we can see the discrepancy in the nouns that are used.  First, a ‘man’ committing a crime against another ‘man’ will receive the same consequence as punishment.  But when a ‘man’ commits the same crime against a ‘freed man’, who is of a lower class, then he walks away with bones intact, but his purse a little lighter.

          Are the laws in the “Code of Hammurabi” fair and just?  To modern civilized people probably not.  Based on our understanding of human rights today, most people would probably look at the Code and consider it unfair and biased, which it is.  But put into the context of Mesopotamian society, the laws seem uncannily fair and just.  Being that Babylon was a society organized heavily around a caste system, the fact that it even allots protections for the lower classes, including slaves, is quite intriguing.  What the Code tells us about Mesopotamian civilization is that it was so structurally divided.  It is a great example of how the power brokers in ancient times relied so heavily on the oppressed accepting their roles and duly performing their duties within the class they were born.  It also shows us how organized and advanced the economy was, with all its edicts and laws regulating trade and commerce.