View Single Post
Old 03-11-2005, 12:43 PM   #2
iamthewalrus109
High Propagandist
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaguar
Fuck, you're in need of a while on the whetstone aren't you? The whole goddamn point of the code of Hammurabi was that is NOT from the fact he was king, until then that's what a law meant - a king's edict, he changed all that. Fundamental to the code was the idea that some laws were too fundamental for even the king to change! Learn how to spell Hammurabi before you mouth off too. Hammurabi didn't believe he was descended from the gods either. Divination is what you're doing when you look for water with a forked stick or spend too long looking into your green tea, pick up a dictionary while you're looking for the history book.

Beestie - I seem to remember there was evidence that Roman law was descended from the code of Hammurabi, can you confirm/deny?
Testy, testy. Must be on one of your cycles Jag or should I call you rag. If you noticed I spelt Hammurabi right the first time, I guess mispelling isn't part of your set of faults now is it, or wait your perfect, you've never hit a key one key stoke away in error. In any event, the term divination has more than that meaning associated with it than that, which includes: "uttered under divine inspiration" basically refering to the king's supernatural connection as a representative of a god here on earth. If I wanted to use the term divine right I would have used it. Furthermore, I would like to say one can pick apart any of your posts, but most of them are too short and emotional to take anything away and have a true discussion. Furthmore, there's no need for personal insults or profanity, let's look at the reality of the code.

Here's a good example taken from a Fordham paper on the subject:

'The Code did not merely embody contemporary custom or conserve ancient law. It is true that centuries of law-abiding and litigious habitude had accumulated in the temple archives of each city vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds and the records of judicial decisions, and that intercourse had assimilated city custom. The universal habit of writing and perpetual recourse to written contract even more modified primitive custom and ancient precedent. Provided the parties could agree, the Code left them free to contract as a rule. Their deed of agreement was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and confirmed by an oath "by god and the king." '

'The judges' decision might, however, be appealed against. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of future dispute the parties would abide by "the decision of the king."'

The god of a city was originally owner of its land, which encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the citizens were his tenants. The god and his viceregent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service.

Bibliography.
Contracts in general: Oppert and Menant, Documents juridiques de l'Assyrie et de la Chaldee (Paris, 1877); J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Aus dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben (Leipzig, 1890 ff.); F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Vertrage (Berlin, 1890), Keilinschrifiliche Actenstucke (Berlin, 1889); Br. Meissner, Beitrage zur altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893); F. E. Peiser, "Texte juristischen und geschaftlichen Inhalts," vol. iv. of Schrader's Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Berlin, 1896); C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents relating to the Transfer of Property (3 vols., Cambridge, 1898); H. Radau, Early Babylonian History (New York, 1900); C. H. W. Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (Edinburgh, 1904).

In reviewing the literature it is apparent that the code was a refinement of laws, deeds, and policy as put down and recorded by the temples and clerics. This was to consolidate cities, and remove many of the vestiges of nomadic life. In the end the king still held powers over the social strata that was also laid out in the code. This power was dervived not from popular will but by sucession and blood lines. Do you really think that individuals in 1780 BC would listen to any other authority?

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." - Hammurabi's code of laws (translated by L.W. King)

-Walrus
iamthewalrus109 is offline   Reply With Quote