La ley babilónica es un subconjunto de la ley cuneiforme que ha recibido un estudio particular debido a la gran cantidad de material arqueológico que se ha encontrado para ella. Los llamados "contratos" existen por miles, incluyendo una gran variedad de escrituras , transmisiones , bonos, recibos, cuentas y, lo más importante de todo, decisiones legales reales dictadas por los jueces en los tribunales de justicia. Las inscripciones históricas, los estatutos y rescriptos reales , los despachos, las cartas privadas y la literatura general brindan información complementaria bienvenida. Incluso gramaticales y lexicográficoslos textos contienen muchos extractos u oraciones breves relacionadas con el derecho y la costumbre. De esta forma se conservan las llamadas "Leyes de la familia sumeria".
Otras culturas involucradas con la antigua Mesopotamia compartieron las mismas leyes y precedentes comunes que se extienden a la forma de contactos que Kenneth Kitchen ha estudiado y comparado con la forma de contratos en la Biblia con una nota particular a la secuencia de bendiciones y maldiciones que unen el trato. Las Máximas de Ptahhotep y la Ley Sharia , [1] también incluyen certificaciones para profesionales como médicos, abogados y artesanos calificados que prescriben sanciones por negligencia muy similares al código de Hammurabi.
El descubrimiento del ahora célebre Código de Hammurabi (en lo sucesivo denominado simplemente "el Código") ha hecho posible un estudio más sistemático que el que podría haber resultado de la mera clasificación e interpretación de otro material. Existen y se han publicado fragmentos de otros códigos antiguos, pero aún quedan muchos puntos de los que aún faltan pruebas. Sobreviven textos legales desde los primeros escritos hasta el período helenístico, pero la evidencia sobre un punto en particular puede estar muy completa para un período y faltar casi por completo en otro. El Código constituye la columna vertebral de la mayoría de las reconstrucciones. Fragmentos recuperados de la biblioteca de Assur-bani-pal en Nínive y copias babilónicas posteriores muestran que fue estudiado, dividido en capítulos, titulado Ninu ilu sirum de su incipit (palabras iniciales), y vuelto a copiar durante mil quinientos años o más.
Gran parte de los precedentes legales babilónicos permanecieron en vigor, incluso durante las conquistas persas , griegas y partas , que tuvieron poco efecto en la vida privada de Babilonia; y sobrevivió para influir en los romanos . Las leyes y costumbres que precedieron al Código pueden denominarse "tempranas"; el del imperio neobabilónico (así como el persa, griego, etc.), "tardío". La ley de Asiria se derivó de la babilónica, pero conservó características tempranas mucho después de que desaparecieron en otros lugares.
Historia
Influencia tribal
La historia temprana de Mesopotamia es la historia de una lucha por la supremacía entre las ciudades. Una metrópoli exigió tributo y apoyo militar de sus ciudades en cuestión, pero dejó intactos sus cultos y costumbres locales. Los derechos y usos de la ciudad fueron respetados tanto por reyes como por conquistadores. Cuando los antiguos pueblos de habla semítica se establecieron en las ciudades de Mesopotamia, sus costumbres tribales pasaron a la ley de la ciudad.
Tan tarde como la adhesión de Assur-bani-pal y Shamash-shum-ukin , encontramos a los babilonios añadiendo a las leyes de su ciudad que grupos de extranjeros en número de veinte a la vez eran libres de entrar en la ciudad; que las mujeres extranjeras, una vez casadas con maridos babilónicos, no podían ser esclavizadas; y que ni siquiera un perro que entrara en la ciudad podía ser ejecutado sin ser probado. [ cita requerida ]
La población de Babilonia era multiétnica desde los primeros tiempos y la intercomunicación entre las ciudades era incesante. Cada ciudad tenía una gran cantidad de extranjeros residentes. Esta libertad de relaciones debe haber tendido a asimilar la costumbre. Sin embargo, estaba reservado al genio de Hammurabi hacer de Babilonia su metrópoli y unir su vasto imperio mediante un sistema uniforme de leyes.
Código de Hammurabi
Para la época de Hammurabi, casi todo rastro de las costumbres tribales ya había desaparecido de la ley del Código. Es una ley estatal: la autoayuda, la enemistad de sangre y el matrimonio por captura están ausentes; aunque el código de solidaridad familiar, la responsabilidad del distrito, la ordalía y la lex talionis (ojo por ojo), son características primitivas que permanecen. El rey es un autócrata benévolo , de fácil acceso para todos sus súbditos, capaz y dispuesto a proteger a los débiles contra el opresor más alto. El poder real, sin embargo, sólo puede perdonar cuando se aplaca el resentimiento privado. Los jueces están estrictamente supervisados y se permite apelar. Todo el territorio está cubierto de posesiones feudales , amos de la recaudación , policía, etc. Existe un sistema postal regular. La pax Babylonica está tan segura que los particulares no dudan en viajar en su carruaje desde Babilonia hasta la costa del Mediterráneo . La posición de la mujer es libre y digna.
El Código no se limita a incorporar la costumbre contemporánea ni a conservar el derecho antiguo. Es cierto que siglos de conducta litigiosa y respetuosa de la ley habían acumulado, en los archivos del templo de cada ciudad, vastas reservas de precedentes en hechos antiguos y registros de decisiones judiciales y que las relaciones sexuales habían asimilado las costumbres de la ciudad. El hábito universal de escribir y el recurso perpetuo al contrato escrito modificaron aún más la costumbre primitiva y el precedente antiguo.
Si las propias partes pudieran estar de acuerdo con los términos, el Código, por regla general, las dejaba libres para celebrar contratos. Su acta de acuerdo fue redactada en el templo por un notario público y confirmada con un juramento "por dios y el rey". Fue sellado públicamente y presenciado por testigos profesionales, así como por partes interesadas colaterales. La forma en que fue ejecutado pudo haber sido garantía suficiente de que sus estipulaciones no eran impías o ilegales. Sin duda, la costumbre o la opinión pública aseguraron que las partes no estarían de acuerdo en "equivocarse". Si surgía una disputa, los jueces se ocupaban primero del contrato. Puede que no lo sostengan, pero si las partes no lo disputan, son libres de observarlo. Sin embargo, la decisión de los jueces podría ser apelada. Muchos contratos contienen la condición de que, en caso de una disputa futura, las partes acatarían "la decisión del rey". El Código dio a conocer, en un gran número de casos, cuál sería esa decisión, y muchos casos de apelación al rey fueron devueltos a los jueces con órdenes de decidir de acuerdo con él. El Código en sí fue organizado de manera cuidadosa y lógica, sus secciones ordenadas por temas. Sin embargo, el orden no es el de los tratados científicos modernos , por lo que un orden algo diferente al de cualquiera de los dos es el más conveniente para nuestro propósito.
Véase también: traducción al inglés del Código de Hammurabi
Tres clases
El Código contempla que toda la población se divide en tres clases: el avilum , el mushkenu y el ardu .
El avilum fue originalmente un patricio, un hombre de una familia de élite, poseedor de plenos derechos civiles , cuyo nacimiento, matrimonio y muerte fueron registrados. Tenía privilegios y responsabilidades aristocráticos , y el derecho a exigir represalias por lesiones corporales, pero estaba sujeto a un castigo más severo por delitos y faltas , tarifas y multas más altas. A esta clase pertenecían el rey y la corte, los altos funcionarios, las profesiones y los artesanos. Con el tiempo, el término se convirtió en un título de mera cortesía; ya en el Código, cuando no se trata de estatus, se usa para denotar a cualquier persona. No hubo calificación de propiedad, ni el término parece ser racial.
Es muy difícil caracterizar exactamente al mushkenu . Con el tiempo, el término llegó a significar "un mendigo", y ese significado ha pasado del arameo y el hebreo a muchos idiomas modernos; pero aunque el Código no lo considera necesariamente pobre, es posible que no haya tenido tierras. Estaba libre, pero tuvo que aceptar una compensación monetaria por las lesiones corporales, pagó honorarios y multas más pequeñas, e incluso pagó menos ofrendas a los dioses. Habitaba en un barrio separado de la ciudad. No hay razón para considerarlo especialmente relacionado con la corte, como un pensionista real, ni como parte del grueso de la población. La rareza de cualquier referencia a él en los documentos contemporáneos hace que las especificaciones adicionales sean conjeturas.
El ardu era un esclavo, de su maestro mueble , y formó una clase muy numerosa. Podía adquirir propiedades e incluso poseer otros esclavos. Su amo lo vistió, lo alimentó y pagó los honorarios de su médico, pero tomó toda la compensación pagada por el daño que le habían hecho. Su amo generalmente le encontraba una esclava por esposa (los niños nacían esclavos), a menudo lo instalaba en una casa (con una granja o negocio) y simplemente le cobraba un alquiler anual. De lo contrario, podría casarse con una mujer libre (los niños eran entonces libres), que podría traerle una dote que su amo no podría tocar, y a su muerte, la mitad de su propiedad pasaría a su amo como su heredero. Podía adquirir su libertad comprándole a su maestro, o podía ser liberado y dedicado a un templo, o incluso adoptado, cuando se convirtiera en amelu y no en mushkenu . Los esclavos eran reclutados comprándolos en el extranjero, de cautivos tomados en la guerra o por hombres libres degradados por deudas o delitos. Un esclavo a menudo se escapaba; si lo atrapaban, el captor estaba obligado a devolverlo a su amo, y el Código fija una recompensa de dos shekels que el propietario debe pagar al captor. Era aproximadamente una décima parte del valor medio de un esclavo. Detener o albergar a un esclavo se castigaba con la muerte. También lo ayudó a escapar de las puertas de la ciudad. Un esclavo llevaba una marca de identificación, que solo se podía quitar mediante una operación quirúrgica, que luego consistía en el nombre de su dueño tatuado o marcado en el brazo. Por otra parte, en las grandes propiedades de Asiria y sus provincias sometidas había muchos siervos , en su mayoría de raza sometida, cautivos establecidos o esclavos quondam ; atados a la tierra que cultivaban y vendían con la finca, pero capaces de poseer tierras y propiedades propias. Hay pocos rastros de siervos en Babilonia, a menos que el mushkenu sea realmente un siervo.
Ciudadanos inquilinos de los dioses
El dios de una ciudad fue originalmente considerado el dueño de su tierra, que la rodeaba con un anillo interior de tierra cultivable irrigable y una franja exterior de pastos; los ciudadanos eran sus inquilinos. El dios y su vice-regente, el rey, hacía mucho que habían dejado de perturbar la tenencia y estaban contentos con cuotas fijas en naturalia , acciones, dinero o servicio.
Uno de los primeros monumentos registra la compra por un rey de una gran propiedad para su hijo, pagando un precio justo de mercado y agregando un hermoso honorario a los muchos propietarios, en costosas prendas de vestir, platos y muebles preciosos. El Código reconoce la propiedad privada completa de la tierra, pero aparentemente extiende el derecho a poseer tierras a votantes y comerciantes; pero toda la tierra vendida estaba sujeta a sus cargas fijas. El rey, sin embargo, podía liberar a la tierra de estos cargos mediante un estatuto , que era una forma frecuente de recompensar a quienes merecían el bien del estado.
Es de estas cartas que aprendemos de las obligaciones que recaen sobre la tierra. El estado exigía hombres para el ejército y la corvée , así como cuotas en especie. Una determinada zona estaba destinada a proporcionar un arquero , junto con su piquero vinculado (que llevaba el escudo para ambos), y para proporcionarles suministros para la campaña. Esta área se denominó "arco" ya en el siglo VIII a. C., pero la práctica se remonta mucho antes. Más tarde, también llegó un jinete de ciertas áreas. Un hombre solo estaba obligado a servir un cierto número de veces, pero la tierra todavía tenía que encontrar un hombre anualmente. Este servicio solía ser realizado por esclavos y siervos, pero los amelu (y quizás los mushkenu ) también iban a la guerra. Los arcos se agruparon en decenas y cientos. La corvée fue menos regular. Los propietarios ribereños también tienen responsabilidades especiales para reparar canales, puentes, muelles, etc. Las cartas de Hammurabi se refieren a menudo a las solicitudes de exención. Los funcionarios religiosos y los pastores a cargo de los rebaños estaban exentos del servicio militar.
El estado reclamaba ciertas proporciones de todas las cosechas, ganado, etc. Los mensajeros del rey podían apoderarse de la propiedad de cualquier súbdito, dando un recibo. Además, cada ciudad tenía sus propios aranceles octroi , aduanas, tarifas de ferry, carreteras y tarifas de agua. El rey había dejado de ser dueño de la tierra hacía mucho tiempo, si es que alguna vez lo fue. Tenía sus propias propiedades reales, su propiedad privada y las cuotas de todos sus súbditos. Los altos funcionarios tenían dotaciones y residencias oficiales.
El Código regula la posición feudal de ciertas clases. Poseían una propiedad del rey, que consistía en una casa, un jardín, un campo, ganado y un salario, con la condición de servicio personal en la misión del rey. No pudieron delegar el servicio, bajo pena de muerte. Cuando se les ordenaba en el extranjero, podían nombrar a un hijo capaz para que se hiciera cargo del beneficio y cumpliera con el deber. Si no había un hijo capaz, el estado ponía un locum tenens pero concedía un tercio a la esposa para que se mantuviera a sí misma y a sus hijos. Por lo demás, el feudo era inalienable; no se podía vender, pignorar, canjear, subarrendar, idear o disminuir. Otras tierras fueron arrendadas al estado. La propiedad ancestral estaba estrictamente ligada a la familia. Si un tenedor vendería, la familia se quedó con el derecho de redención , y parece que no hubo límite de tiempo para su ejercicio.
templo
El templo ocupó una posición muy importante. Recibía ingresos de sus propiedades, de los diezmos y otras cuotas fijas, así como de los sacrificios (una parte acostumbrada) y otras ofrendas de los fieles, grandes cantidades de todo tipo de naturalia, además de dinero y obsequios permanentes. Los templos más grandes tenían muchos funcionarios y sirvientes.
Al principio, quizás, cada pueblo se agrupaba en torno a un templo, y cada cabeza de familia tenía derecho a ministrar allí y compartir sus recibos. A medida que la ciudad crecía, el derecho a tantos días al año en un santuario (o su puerta) descendió dentro de ciertas familias y se convirtió en una especie de propiedad que se podía pignorar, alquilar o compartir dentro de la familia, pero no enajenar. A pesar de todas estas demandas, los templos se convirtieron en grandes graneros y almacenes y también fueron los archivos de la ciudad . El templo tenía sus responsabilidades. Si un ciudadano fue capturado por el enemigo y no pudo rescatarse a sí mismo, el templo de su ciudad debe hacerlo. El pobre agricultor venía al templo a pedir prestada semilla, grano o provisiones para los segadores, etc. — anticipos que pagaba sin intereses.
El poder del rey sobre el templo no era propietario , sino administrativo. Podría pedir prestado, pero pagar como otros prestatarios. El diezmo parece haber sido considerado la renta debida al dios por su tierra. No está claro que todas las tierras paguen diezmos; tal vez solo aquellos que alguna vez tuvieron una conexión especial con el templo.
El Código trata de una clase de personas dedicadas al servicio de un dios, como vestales o hieródulas . Las vestales tenían voto de castidad , vivían juntas en un gran convento , tenían prohibido entrar en una taberna y, junto con otros devotos , tenían muchos privilegios.
Ley de Propiedad
The Code recognizes many ways of disposing of property: sale, lease, barter, gift, dedication, deposit, loan, or pledge, all of which were matters of contract. Sale was the delivery of a purchase (in the case of real estate, symbolized by a staff, a key, or deed of conveyance) in return for purchase money, receipts being given for both. Credit, if given, was treated as a debt, and secured as a loan by the seller to be repaid by the buyer, for which he gave a bond.
The Code only allows claims substantiated by documents, or in some cases the oath of witnesses. Saving contracts and receipts thus assumed a vital importance in Babylon - in fact it could literally be a matter of life or death. A buyer had to be sure of the seller's title. If he bought (or received on deposit) property from even a minor or a slave without witnessing contracts, he would be executed as a thief (§7). If purchased goods were stolen and the rightful owner reclaimed them, he had to prove his purchase by producing the seller and the deed of sale, or witnesses to it; otherwise, he would be adjudged a thief and die. If he proved his purchase, he had to give up the property but could pursue a remedy against the seller or, if the seller had died, could reclaim fivefold from his estate.
A man who bought a slave abroad might find that he had previously been stolen or captured from Babylonia; he would then have to restore him to his former owner without recompense. If he bought property belonging to a feudal holding, or to a ward in Chancery, he had to return it as well as forfeit what he paid for it. He could repudiate the purchase of a slave attacked by the bennu sickness within a month (later, a hundred days) and could hold a newly purchased female slave for three days "on approval". A defect of title, or an undisclosed liability, would invalidate a sale at any time.
Arrendamiento
Landowners frequently cultivated their land themselves, but could also employ a husbandman, or rent it. The husbandman was bound to carry out proper cultivation, raise an average crop, and leave the field in good tilth. In case the crop failed, the Code fixed a statutory return. Land might be leased at a fixed rent, where the Code stipulates that accidental loss fell on the tenant. If leased on profit-sharing terms, the landlord and tenant shared the loss proportionally to their stipulated share of profit. If the tenant paid his rent and kept the land in good tilth, the landlord could not interfere nor forbid subletting.
Wasteland could be leased for reclamation, the tenant being rent-free for three years and paying a stipulated rent in the fourth year. If the tenant neglected to reclaim the land, the Code stipulated that he must hand it over in good tilth and set a statutory rent. Gardens or plantations were leased in the same ways and under the same conditions; but for date groves, four years' free tenure was allowed.
The metayer system was common, especially on temple lands. The landlord found land, labour, oxen for ploughing and working the watering machines, carting, threshing or other implements, grain seed, rations for the workmen and fodder for the cattle. The tenant, or steward, usually had other land of his own. If he stole the seed, rations or fodder, the Code stipulated that his fingers be cut off. If he appropriated or sold the implements, or impoverished or sublet the cattle, he was heavily fined and in default of payment, might be condemned to be torn to pieces by the cattle on the field. Rent was determined by contract.
Irrigation was essential for farming in this region. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dike or left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage done to his neighbours' crops or be sold with his family to pay the cost. The theft of a watering machine, water-bucket or other agricultural implement was heavily fined.
Houses were usually leased for the year, but also for longer terms, rent being paid in advance, half-yearly. The contract generally specified that the house be in good repair, and the tenant was bound to keep it so. The woodwork, including doors and door frames, was removable, and the tenant might bring and take away his own. The Code stipulated that if the landlord re-entered before the term was up, he must remit a fair proportion of the rent. Land could be leased for the purpose of building houses or other buildings on it, the tenant being rent-free for eight or ten years; after which the building came into the landlord's possession.
Mano de obra contratada
Despite the multitude of slaves, hired labour was often needed, especially at harvest. This was a matter of contract, and the employer, who usually paid in advance, might demand a collateral against fulfillment of the work. Cattle were hired for ploughing, working the watering machines, carting, threshing, etc. The Code fixed a statutory wage for sowers, ox-drivers, field-labourers, and hire for oxen, asses, etc.
There were many herds and flocks. The flocks were committed to a shepherd, who gave receipt for them and took them out to pasture. The Code fixed his wage. He was responsible for all care, must restore ox for ox, sheep for sheep and must breed them satisfactorily. Any dishonest use of the flock had to be repaid tenfold, but loss due to disease or wild beasts fell upon the owner. The shepherd made good all loss due to his own neglect. If he let the flock feed on a field of crops, he had to pay damages fourfold; if he turned them into standing crops when they ought to have been folded, he paid twelvefold.
Deuda
In commerce, payment in kind was still common, though contracts usually stipulated cash, naming the currency expected—that of Babylon, Larsa, Assyria, Carchemish, etc. The Code stipulated, however, that a debtor must be allowed to pay in produce according to a statutory scale. If a debtor had neither money nor crops, the creditor must not refuse goods.
Debt was secured on the debtor's own person. Distraint on a debtor's grain was forbidden by the Code; not only must the creditor return it, but his illegal action forfeited his claim altogether. An unwarranted seizure for debt was fined, as was the distraint of a working ox.
If a debtor were seized for debt, he could nominate as mancipium, or hostage to work off the debt, his wife, child, or slave. The creditor could only hold a wife or child three years as mancipium. If the mancipium died a natural death while in the creditor's possession, no claim could lie against the latter; but if he was the cause of death by cruelty, he had to give son for son, or pay for a slave. He could sell a slave-hostage, but not a slave-girl who had borne her master children; she had to be redeemed by her owner.
The debtor could also pledge his property and in contracts, often pledged a field, house or crop. The Code stipulated, however, that the debtor must take the crop himself and pay the creditor from its yield. If the crop failed, payment was deferred, and no interest could be charged for that year. If the debtor did not cultivate the field himself, he had to pay for its cultivation, but if the field was already cultivated, he must harvest it himself and pay his debt from the crop. If the cultivator did not get a crop, this would not cancel his contract.
Pledges were often made where the intrinsic value of the article was equivalent to the amount of the debt; but antichretic pledge was more common, where the profit of the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the debt. The whole property of a debtor might be pledged as collateral for payment of a debt, without any of it passing through the hands of the creditor. Personal guarantees were often given in Babylon that the debtor would repay, or the guarantor become liable himself.
Comercio
Trade was very extensive. A common procedure was for a merchant to entrust his goods or money to a traveling agent, who sought a market for his goods. The caravans travelled far beyond the limits of the empire.
The Code insisted that the agent should inventory and give a receipt for all that he received. No claim could be made for anything not so entered. Even if the agent made no profit, he was bound to return double what he had received; if he made poor profit, he had to make up the deficiency; but he was not responsible for loss by robbery or extortion on his travels. On his return, the lending merchant must give him a receipt for what was handed over to him. Any false entry or claim on the agent's part was penalised threefold; on the lending merchant's part, sixfold. In normal cases, profits were divided according to contract, usually equally.
A considerable amount of forwarding (advancing wares to the agent up front) was done by the caravans. The carrier gave a receipt for the consignment, took all responsibility, and exacted a receipt upon delivery. If he defaulted, he paid fivefold. He was usually paid in advance. Deposit, especially warehousing of grain, was charged for at one-sixtieth. The warehouse man took all risks and paid double for all shortage, but no claim could be made unless he had given a properly witnessed receipt.
Water traffic on the Euphrates and canal system was early on, quite considerable. Ships, whose tonnage was estimated by the amount of grain they could carry, were continually hired for the transport of all kinds of goods. The Code fixes the price for shipbuilding and insists on the builder's giving a year's guarantee of seaworthiness. It also fixes the rate of hire for ship and crew. The captain was responsible for the freight and the ship; he had to replace all loss. Even if he refloated the ship, he had to pay a fine of half its value for sinking it. In the case of collision, the boat under way was responsible for damages to the boat at anchor.
The Code also regulated the liquor traffic—fixing a fair price for beer and forbidding the connivance of the tavern keeper (a female) at disorderly conduct or treasonable assembly, under pain of death. She was required to take the offenders to the palace—implying an efficient and accessible police system.
Payment through a banker or by written draft against deposit was frequent. Bonds to pay were treated as negotiable. Interest was rarely charged on advances by the temple or wealthy landowners for pressing needs, but this may have been part of the metayer system. The borrowers may have been tenants. Interest was charged at very high rates for overdue loans of this kind. Merchants (and even temples in some cases) made ordinary business loans, charging from 20% to 30%.
Ley familiar
Marriage
Marriage retained the form of purchase, but was essentially a contract to be husband and wife together. The marriage of young people was usually arranged between their relatives—the groom's father the bride-price, which, with other gifts, the suitor ceremonially presented to the bride's father. This bride-price was usually then handed over by her father to the bride upon her marriage, and so returned into the bridegroom's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion of the family's inheritance as a daughter.
The bride-price varied greatly, according to the status of the parties, but surpassed the price of a slave. The Code stipulated that if the father did not give the suitor his daughter after accepting the suitor's gifts, he must return the gifts. The bride-price had to be returned even if the father reneged on the marriage contract because of slander of the suitor on the part of the suitor's friend, and the Code stipulated that the slanderer should not marry the girl (and thus would not profit from his slander). Conversely, if a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents.
The dowry might include real estate, but generally consisted of personal effects and household furniture. It remained the wife's for life, descending to her children, if any; otherwise returning to her family, when the husband could deduct the bride-price if it had not been given to her, or return it if it had.
The marriage ceremony included joining hands and the bridegroom uttering a formula of acceptance, such as, "I am the son of nobles, silver and gold shall fill thy lap, thou shalt be my wife, I will be thy husband. Like the fruit of a garden I will give thee offspring." The ceremony must be performed by a freeman.
The marriage contract—without which, the Code ruled that the woman was no wife—usually stated the consequences to which each party was liable for repudiating the other. These by no means necessarily agree with the Code. Many other conditions might also be inserted: such as that the wife should act as maidservant to her mother-in-law or to a first wife.
The married couple formed a single unit in terms of external responsibility, especially for debt. The man was responsible for debts contracted by his wife, even before her marriage, as well as for his own; but he could use her as a mancipium (see above). Hence the Code allowed a proviso to be inserted in the marriage contract, that the wife should not be seized for her husband's pre-nuptial debts; but stipulated that then he was not responsible for her pre-nuptial debts, and, in any case, that both together were responsible for all debts contracted after marriage. A man might make his wife a settlement by deed of gift, which gave her a life interest in part of his property, and he might reserve to her the right to bequeath it to a favorite child; but she could in no case leave it to her family. Although married, she always remained a member of her father's house—she is rarely named wife of A, but usually daughter of B, or mother of C.
Divorce
Divorce was the husband's option, but he had to restore the dowry, and if the wife had borne him children, she had custody of them. He then had to assign her the income from property, as well as goods to maintain herself and their children until they grew up. She shared equally with their children in the allowance (and apparently in his estate at his death) and was free to marry again. If she had no children, he returned her dowry to her and paid her a sum equivalent to the bride-price, or a mina of silver if there had been none. The latter is the forfeit usually named in the contract for his repudiation of her.
If the husband could show that his wife had been a bad wife, the Code allowed him to send her away, while he kept the children as well as her dowry; or he could degrade her to the position of a slave in his own house, where she would have food and clothing. The wife might bring an action against her husband for cruelty and neglect and, if she proved her case, obtain a judicial separation, taking her dowry with her. No other punishment fell on the man. If she did not prove her case, but was proved to be a bad wife, she was drowned.
If the wife was left without maintenance during an involuntary absence of her husband (called to war, etc.), she could cohabit with another man, but must return to her husband when he came back, the children of the second union remaining with their own father. If she had maintenance, a breach of the marriage tie was adultery. Willful desertion by, or exile of, the husband dissolved the marriage without penalty to the wife. If he returned, she was not required or even permitted to return to him.
Widowhood
A widow took her husband's place in the family—living in his house and bringing up the children. She could only remarry with judicial consent, where the judge inventoried the deceased's estate and handed it over to her and her new husband in trust for the children. They could not alienate a single utensil.
If she did not remarry, she lived on in her husband's house and, when the children had grown up, took a child's share in the division of his estate. She retained her dowry and any settlement deeded to her by her husband. This property would come down to her children on her death. If she had remarried, all her children would share equally in her dowry, but the first husband's estate fell only to his children, or to her selection among them, if so empowered.
Childbearing
Monogamy was the rule, and a childless wife might give her husband a maid to bear him children, who were then reckoned hers. She remained mistress of her maid, and might degrade her to slavery again for insolence, but could not sell her if she had borne her husband children. If the wife did this, the Code did not allow the husband to take a concubine; but if she did not, he could do so. The concubine was a co-wife, though not of the same rank; the first wife had no power over her. A concubine was a free woman, often dowered for marriage, and her children were legitimate and lawful heirs. She could only be divorced on the same conditions as a wife.
If a wife became a chronic invalid, the husband was bound to maintain her in the home they had made together, unless she preferred to take her dowry and return to her father's house; but he was free to remarry. Again, the children of the new wife were legitimate and lawful heirs.
There was no hindrance to a man having children by a slave girl. These children were free, and their mother then could not be sold, though she might be pledged, and she became free upon her master's death. Her children could be legitimized by their father's acknowledgment before witnesses and were often adopted. They then ranked equally in sharing their father's estate; but if not adopted, the wife's children divided and took first choice.
Temple priests were not supposed to have children, yet they could marry and often did. The Code contemplated that such a wife would give a husband a maid, as above.
Free women might marry slaves and still be dowered for the marriage. The children were free, and at the slave's death, the wife took her dowry and half of what she and her husband had acquired in wedlock for self and children; the master taking the other half, as his slave's heir.
A father had control over his children until their marriage. He had a right to their labor in return for their keep. He might hire them out and receive their wages, pledge them for debt, or even sell them outright. Mothers had the same rights in the absence of the father; elder brothers, when both parents were dead. A father had no claim on his married children for support, but they retained the right to inherit on his death.
The daughter was not only in her father's power to be given in marriage, but he might dedicate her to the service of a god as a vestal or a hierodule or give her as a concubine. She had no choice in these matters, often decided in her childhood. An adult daughter might wish to become a votary, perhaps in preference to an uncongenial marriage, and it seems that her father could not refuse her wish.
In all these cases, the father might dower her. If he did not, on his death the brothers were obligated to do so, giving her a full child's share if a wife, a concubine or a vestal, but one-third of a child's share if she were a hierodule or a Marduk priestess. The latter had the privilege of exemption from state dues and absolute disposal of her property. All other daughters had only a life interest in their dowry, which reverted to their family if childless or went to their children if they had any. A father might, however, execute a deed granting a daughter power to leave her property to a favorite brother or sister.
A daughter's estate was usually managed for her by her brothers, but if they dissatisfied her, she could appoint a steward. If she married, her husband then managed it. Sons also appear to have received their share on marriage, but then did not always leave their father's house; they might bring their wives there. This was usual in child marriages.
Adoption
Adoption was very common, especially when the father (or mother) was childless or had seen all his children grow up and marry away. The child was then adopted to care for the parents' old age. This was done by contract, which usually specified what the parent had to leave and what maintenance was expected. The natural children, if any, were usually consenting parties to an arrangement that cut off their expectations. In some cases they even acquired the estate for the adopted child who was to relieve them of care. If the adopted child failed to carry out the filial duty, the contract was annulled in the law courts. Slaves were often adopted, and if they proved unfilial, were reduced to slavery again.
A craftsman often adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited by the son's labour. If he failed to teach his son the craft, that son could prosecute him and get the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is not clear whether the apprentice had any filial relation.
A man who had adopted a child, and afterwards married and had a family of his own, could dissolve the contract and must give the adopted child one-third of a child's share in goods, but no real estate. Property could only descend through his legitimate family. Vestals frequently adopted daughters, usually other vestals, to care for them in their old age.
Adoption had to be with consent of the natural parents, who usually executed a deed making over the child, who thus ceased to have any claim upon them. But vestals, hierodules, certain palace officials and slaves had no rights over their children and could raise no objection. Orphans and illegitimate children had no parents to object. Ingratitude by adopted children was severely frowned on by the law: if the adopted child of a prostitute abandoned his foster parents and returned to his biological father's house, his eye was torn out. If an adopted child rejected his foster parents, claiming they were not his mother and father, his tongue was torn out. An adopted child was a full heir; the contract might even assign him the position of eldest son. Usually, he was residuary legatee.
Inheritance
All legitimate children shared equally in the father's estate on his death, reservation being made of a bride-price for an unmarried son, dower for a daughter, or property deeded to favourite children by the father. There was no birthright attaching to the position of eldest son, but he usually acted as executor and, after considering what each had already received, equalized the shares. He even made grants in excess to the others from his own share.[clarification needed] If there were two widows with legitimate issue, both families shared equally in the father's estate, until later times, when the first family took two-thirds. Daughters, in the absence of sons, had sons' rights. Children also shared their own mother's property, but had no share in that of a stepmother.
A father could disinherit a son in early times without restriction, but the Code insisted upon judicial consent, and that only for repeated unfilial conduct. In early times, the son who denied his father had his front hair shorn and a slave-mark put on him and could be sold as a slave; while the son who denied his mother had his front hair shorn, was driven round the city as an example and expelled from his home, but not degraded to slavery.
Adultery
Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning; but if the husband was willing to pardon his wife, the king might intervene to pardon the paramour. For incest between mother and son, both were burned to death; with a stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with a daughter-in-law, he was drowned; with a son's fiancée, he was fined. A wife who for her lover's sake procured her husband's death was gibbeted. A betrothed girl seduced by her prospective father-in-law took her dowry and returned to her family and was free to marry as she chose.
Castigo
In the criminal code, the ruling vice-principle was the lex talionis. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb was the penalty for assault upon an amelu. A sort of symbolic retaliation was the punishment for the offender, seen in cutting off the hand that struck a father or stole a trust; in cutting off the breast of a wet nurse who switched the child entrusted to her for another; in the loss of the tongue that denied father or mother (in Elamite contracts, the same penalty was inflicted for perjury); in the loss of the eye that pried into forbidden secrets. The loss of the surgeon's hand that caused loss of life or limb, or the brander's hand that obliterated a slave's identification mark, are very similar. The slave who struck a freeman or denied his master lost an ear, the organ of hearing and symbol of obedience. A person who brought another into danger of death by false accusation was punished by death. A perjurer was punished by the same penalty the perjurer sought to bring upon another.
The death penalty was freely rendered for theft and other crimes in this section of the Code: for theft involving entering a palace or temple treasury, for illegal purchase from a minor or slave, for selling stolen goods or receiving the same, for common theft in the open (in lieu of multiple-fold restoration) or receiving the same, for false claim to goods, for kidnapping, for assisting or harbouring fugitive slaves, for detaining or appropriating the same, for brigandage, for fraudulent sale of drink, for not reporting criminal conspiracy in one's tavern, for delegation of personal service and refusing to pay the delegate or not sending the delegate, for misappropriating the levy, for harming or robbing one of the king's captains, for causing the death of a house owner through bad construction. The manner of death is not specified for these cases.
This death penalty was also set for conduct that placed another in danger of death. The form of death penalty was specified for the following cases: gibbeting: for burglary (on the spot where crime was committed), later also for encroaching on the king's highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring a husband's death; burning: for incest with own mother, for a vestal entering or opening a tavern, for looting a house on fire (thrown into the fire); drowning: for adultery, rape of a betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as a wife, seduction of a daughter-in-law.
A curious extension of the lex talionis is[citation needed] the death of a creditor's son for his father's having caused the death of a debtor's son as mancipium; of a builder's son for his father's causing the death of a house owner's son by bad construction; the death of a man's daughter because her father caused the death of another man's daughter.
Contracts naturally do not usually touch on criminal matters as the above, but marriage contracts do specify death by strangling, drowning, precipitation from a tower or pinnacle of the temple, or by the iron sword, for a wife's repudiation of her husband. We are quite without evidence as to the executioner in all these cases.
Exile was inflicted for incest with a daughter; disinheritance for incest with a stepmother, or for repeated unfilial conduct. Sixty strokes of an ox-hide scourge were awarded for a brutal assault on a superior, both being amelu. Branding (perhaps the equivalent of degradation to slavery) was the penalty for slander of a married woman or vestal. Permanent deprivation of office fell upon the corrupt judge. Enslavement befell the extravagant wife and unfilial children. Imprisonment was common, but is not mentioned in the Code.
The commonest of all penalties was a fine. This is awarded by the Code for corporal injuries to a mushkenu or to a slave (paid to his master), for damages done to property, or for breach of contract. The restoration of goods appropriated, illegally bought, or damaged by neglect, was usually accompanied by a fine, giving it the form of multiple restoration. This might be double, treble, fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, tenfold, twelvefold, or even thirtyfold, according to the enormity of the offence.
The Code recognized the importance of intent. A man who killed another in a quarrel must swear he did not do so intentionally and was then only fined according to the rank of the deceased. The Code does not say what would be the penalty of murder, but death is so often awarded where death is caused, that we can hardly doubt that the murderer was put to death. If the assault only led to injury and was unintentional, the assailant in a quarrel had to pay the doctor's fees. A brander, induced to remove a slave's identification mark, could swear to his ignorance and was free. The owner of an ox that gored a man on the street was only responsible for damages if the ox was known by him to be vicious—even if it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural death under the creditor's hand, the creditor was free. In ordinary cases, a person was not responsible for accident or if they exercised more than proper care. Poverty excused bigamy on the part of a deserted wife.
On the other hand, carelessness and neglect were severely punished, as in the case of the unskillful physician, if it led to loss of life or limb, his hands were cut off; a slave had to be replaced, the loss of his eye paid for by half his value; a veterinary surgeon who caused the death of an ox or donkey paid quarter value; a builder whose careless workmanship caused death lost his life or paid for it by the death of his child, replaced slave or goods and in any case, had to rebuild the house or make good any damages due to defective building and repair the defect as well. The boat builder had to make good any defect of construction or damage due to it for a year's warranty.
Throughout the Code, respect is paid to evidence. Suspicion was not enough. The criminal must be taken in the act, e.g. the adulterer, etc. A man could not be convicted of theft unless the goods were found in his possession.
In the case of a lawsuit, the plaintiff proferred his own plea. There is no trace of professional advocates, but the plea had to be in writing, and the notary doubtlessly assisted in the drafting of it. The judge saw the plea, called the other parties before him, and sent for the witnesses. If these were not at hand, he might adjourn the case for their subpoena, specifying a time for up to six months. Pledges might be made to produce the witnesses on a fixed day.
The more important cases, especially those involving life and death, were tried by a bench of judges. With the judges were associated a body of elders who shared in the decision, but whose exact function is not yet clear. Agreements, declarations and non-contentious cases were usually witnessed by one judge and twelve elders.
Parties and witnesses were put on oath. The penalty for false witness was usually the punishment that would have been awarded the victim if convicted. In matters beyond human knowledge, such as the guilt or innocence of an alleged practitioner of magic or a suspected wife, the ordeal by water was used. The accused jumped into the sacred river, and the innocent swam while the guilty drowned. The accused could clear himself by taking an oath if the only knowledge available was his own. The plaintiff could swear to his loss by brigands, the price paid for a slave purchased abroad, or the sum due to him; but great stress was laid on the production of written evidence. It was a serious thing to lose a document. The judges might be satisfied of its existence and terms by the affidavit of the witnesses to it and then issue an order that whenever found, it should be submitted. The clay tablets of contracts that were annulled were broken. The court might even travel to view the property and take with them the sacred symbols with which oaths were made.
Court decisions were set in writing, sealed and witnessed by the judges, the elders, witnesses, and a scribe. Women might act in all these capacities. The parties swore an oath, included in the document, to observe its stipulations. Each party received a copy, and one was kept by the scribe to be stored in the archives.
Appeal to the king was allowed and is well attested. The judges at Babylon seem to have formed a superior court to those of provincial towns, but a defendant might elect to answer the charge before the local court and refuse to plead at Babylon.
Finally, it may be noted that many immoral acts, such as the use of false weights, lying, etc., that could not be brought into court are severely denounced in the Omen Tablets as likely to bring the offender into "the hand of God" as opposed to "the hand of the king".
Ver también
- Assyrian law
- Hebraic law
- List of ancient legal codes
Referencias
- ^ Conduct of a Physician, Adabo alto-Tabibo, by Ishsāq ibmn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī
- This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Johns, Claude Hermann Walter (1911). "Babylonian Law". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 3 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 115–121. As of March 2017[update], this Wikipedia article is almost entirely a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica article; if additional text is added, the EB text should be specifically attributed. The Encyclopædia Britannica article cites the following bibliography:
- Contracts in general: Julius Oppert and Joachim Menant, Documents juridiques de l'Assyrie et de la Chaldée (Paris, 1877)
- J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Aus dem babylonischen Rechtsleben (Leipzig, 1890 if.)
- F. E. Peiser, Babylonische Verträge (Berlin, 1890), Keilinschriftliche Actenstücke (Berlin, 1889)
- Bruno Meissner, Beiträge zur altbabylonischen Privatrecht (Leipzig, 1893)
- F. E. Peiser, Texte juristischen und geschäftlichen Inhalts
- Vol. iv. of Schrader's Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Berlin, 1896)
- Claude Hermann Walter 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). For editions of texts and the innumerable articles in scientific journals, see the bibliographies and references in the above works.
- "The Code of Hammurabi", Editio princeps by Vincent Scheil in tome iv. of the Textes Elamites-Semitiques of the Mémoires de la délégation en Perse (Paris, 1902)
- H. Winckler, "Die Gesetze Hammurabis Konigs von Babylon um 2250v. Chr." Der alte Orient, iv. Jahrgang, Heft 4
- D. H. Müller, Die Gesetze Hammurabis (Vienna, 1903)
- J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser, Hammurabis Gesetz (Leipzig, 1904)
- R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon about 2250 BC (Chicago, 1904)
- S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903)
enlaces externos
- Avalon Project at Yale