Hammurabi’s Code: Did It Enforce Laws Against Women’s Rights and Independence?
Hammurabi (1728 – 1686 BCE), king of Babylon, felt he had to write down these laws to please his gods. The laws (numbered from 1 to 282, but numbers 13, 66-99, 110, and 111 are missing) are on an eight foot tall stela of black diorite. In the upper part of the stela Hammurabi is shown in front of the throne of the Sun God Shamash, for he claimed not to be related to the gods, but rather a chosen favorite (Johns 1). The code is often pointed to as the first example of the legal concept that some laws are so basic as to be beyond the ability of even a king to change. By writing the laws on stone, they were “untouchable.” This concept lives on in most modern legal systems and has given rise to the term “written in stone” (Kings 1).
The fact that they were written down brings about much controversy. At a time when few people were literate, in fact scribes and nobles being only the few who held the capacity to read, Hammurabi had the codes written in stone for all to see so no one could plead ignorance on behalf of not knowing the laws. Many were unable to read the codes and therefore forced to suffer the dire consequences for often petty offenses. The laws dealt with many societal issues such as theft, assault, rape, incest, destruction of property, morality, slavery, land ownership, marriage, and inheritance (Johns 2). Women played an integral part in Babylonian society; however, they were still at the hands of a male dominated society.
Some of the laws in the code gave women protection from patriarchal rule, such as laws placing restrictions on the use of women’s dowries, the bride prices paid for women, and the manner in which divorce can happen all point to the state’s recognition that women needed some legal protections from male authority. In many cases, women were treated as children and not given equal treatment under the law. Even in these laws of protection, women are referred to as lesser beings. For instance, often women are notes as chattels, which were little more than slaves (Johns 2). The code already had special treatment for people of different social classes, this further distinction of penalties and laws based on gender completed the hypocrisy behind the code.
The written Code of Hammurabi established new elements of restriction on women that hadn’t been in effect before. Hammurabi took it upon himself to establish these laws based on his own principles and values. The fact that these laws were enacted in the presence of writing would provide Schlain with a bounty of resources for his thesis. Prior to Hammurabi’s code, Babylon was a very different place. When the Semitic tribes settled in the cities of Babylonia, their tribal custom passed over into city law. The early history of the country is the story of a struggle for supremacy between cities (Johns 3). A metropolis demanded tribute and military support from its subject cities but left their local cults and customs unaffected. The city rights and usages were respected by kings and conquerors alike. The laws of these cities were quite enlightened, in the fact that they showed equal treatment to citizens of foreign descent (aliens), such as allowing groups of aliens (up to approximately twenty at a time) were allowed to enter the city at any time. Also, foreign women who were once married to Babylonian men could not be enslaved or sold to another individual (Johns 4). Every defendant was given a fair trial and it was said that, “even a dog couldn’t enter the city and be sentenced to death without a trial.”
Some peculiar laws that bring into question the fairness and intention of laws regarding women particularly deal with marriage. Marriage was still done through the purchase of a bride with a bride’s price and a dowry. This infers the notion that women are merchandise to be bought and sold from father to suitor. A woman was only a wife through a special marriage contract. According to Hammurabi’s code, special provisions and conditions could be put into the contract that held strict limitations on women. For instance, not only was the wife expected to be a maid-servant to her husband, but if her husband wishes he could force her to serve her mother-in-law, or even his first wife (Kings 3). This establishes the idea that a woman is subservient to her husband. Another way in which women are hindered is although when a man married a woman he inherited her debts and became responsible for them, if he so wishes, he can have it inserted into the contract that he may offer her as a maid-servant to those she is indebted, to pay back her debts.
There were laws that governed a wife’s behavior as well. Women deemed bad wives would suffer severe consequences. If a woman was a “bad wife,” her husband could have her sent away while keeping her children and her dowry (Kings 3). Another option for bad wives would be for their husbands to make them slaves in their own households. At this point, the man only needs to feed and clothe her. A woman was allowed to file suit if her husband treated her cruelly or neglected her; however, she could only get a judicial separation there was no punishment for his behavior towards her.
Other laws didn’t just punish women, but instead put them in inferior positions of obedience and second-class citizenship to men. For instance, if a woman could not bear her husband any children, she was expected to provide him with a maid who could provide the husband with children (Kings 4). The maid was in no way a wife, and any children she gave birth to were immediately turned over to the husband and his wife. This maid was then at the hands of the wife and could be degraded to slavery. Although monogamy was the constant rule, men often didn’t maintain their faithfulness to their wives. It was common for a free man to have sexual relations with his slaves with no punishment. As far as adultery was concerned (in which both parties were executed), it was only considered adultery when a man had sexual relations with a woman who didn’t belong to him or was not in contract with him. So basically, a man couldn’t sleep with others’ wives, slaves, or single women, but free to exploit any women under his service.
Not only did the written laws give power of husbands over their wives, but fathers as well. In fact, a woman never really left the control of her father. She was never known as, “husband of A,” but rather, “daughter of B.” So in effect, not only was a woman not given her own identity, her only claim to individualism was limited to that as the daughter of another man. A father had strict control over his daughters, and there were serious punishments for disobedient children left to the discretion of the patriarchs of the family. A father could choose his daughter’s future giving her little to no say whatsoever. Sometimes a father could choose for his daughter to live a life of celibacy as a Vestal Virgin. As a Vestal Virgin, she was free to marry but she could never bear children. Also, the power to sell his daughter off for marriage was delegated to the father as well. A father could also make other decisions for his daughter such as offer her services to particular gods, vestals, and others. As you can see, the Hammurabi law system left little room for women’s rights (Johns 5).
Hammurabi’s Code has stood as the symbol for written law for thousands of years. It appears obvious the true nature behind Hammurabi’s legal system wasn’t to promote family law; but rather institute a societal system that dictated the lives of its female citizens. Whether or not this is due to the spread of literacy and written laws is questionable; however, it raises certain questions when observing Babylon in a pre-literate era. One thing is for certain, much like today, the Babylonian patriarchal society used strict laws and legislation to control the lives of others (in this case women) much in the same way we see today, all in the name of “morality.”
Works Cited
Johns, Claude Hermann Walter, M.A. Litt.D. “Babylonian Law: The Code of Hammurabi.” (1997). The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved on Nov. 17, 2004. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammpre.htm.
King, L.W. “The Code of Hammurabi.” (1996). The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved on Nov. 17, 2004. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hamframe.htm.
