Quizlet All of the Following Are Techniques Used in the Chinese Art of Feng Shui Except
Curated/Reviewed past Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1780 B.C.E., is one of the earliest sets of laws establish and ane of the best preserved examples of this blazon of document from ancient Mesopotamia. The code is a drove of the legal decisions made by Hammurabi during his reign as male monarch of Babylon, inscribed on a stele.
The text contains a list of crimes and their various punishments, every bit well every bit settlements for mutual disputes and guidelines for citizens' deport. It focuses on theft, property damage, women's rights, spousal relationship rights, children's rights, slave rights, murder, death, and injury. The Code does not specify a procedure for defense against charges, though information technology does imply i'southward correct to present evidence. The stele was openly displayed for all to meet; thus, no one could plead ignorance of the law as an excuse. Scholars presume that few people could read in that era and that much of the code was handed down through oral advice.
Although a social hierarchy placed some in privileged positions, the lawmaking proscribed punishments applicable to all classes, yet that punishments varied depending on the condition of offenders and victims.
Every bit the dominion of carry was binding on all members of the community, state, and nation, the code provided coherent boundaries for citizens in a complex guild. Citizens understood that abiding past these rules meant freedom to live and prosper. Although punishments for many minor infractions appear draconian by gimmicky standards, the lawmaking formalized the primal responsibleness of the individual to deed in the context of the public interest. The code was grounded in ordinarily accepted principles of morality and ideals and provided a articulate set of norms for all members of guild to alive together in peace.
Origin of the Code
The code of Hammurabi (1728 B.C.Eastward.-1686 B.C.E.) is a collection of the legal decisions fabricated by Hammurabi during his reign as king of Babylon, inscribed on a stele. At the top of this stele is an paradigm of a Babylonian god (thought to exist either Marduk, or Shamash), and Hammurabi, presenting himself to the god, with his right manus raised to his oral cavity as a marking of respect. Unlike many earlier and contemporary kings, he did not consider himself related to any god, although he did call himself "the favorite of the gods." The epitome on the stele is done in bas-relief on basalt, and the text completely covers the lesser portion with the laws written in cuneiform script.
The laws (numbered from 1 to 282, merely numbers xiii, and 66-99 are missing) are inscribed in Old Babylonian on an eight foot tall stela of black diorite. It was discovered in December 1901 in Susa, Elam, which is now Khuzestan, Iran, where it had been taken as plunder by the Elamites in the 12th century B.C.E. It is currently on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris, France.
The code is ofttimes pointed to as the start example of the legal concept that some laws are and then bones as to be beyond the ability of even a rex to alter. Past writing the laws on stone they were immutable. This concept lives on in most modern legal systems and has given ascension to the term written in stone.
Historical Background
The Code of Hammurabi was i of many sets of laws in the Ancient Near East. Most of these police codes, coming from like cultures and racial groups in a relatively small geographical area, necessarily have passages that resemble each other. For example, the laws establish in the after Hittite code of laws (ca. 1300 B.C.E.) have some individual laws that bear a passing resemblance to those in the Code of Hammurabi, likewise as other codices from the same geographic area. The earlier Ur-Nammu, of the written literature prolific Ur-III dynasty (twenty-showtime century B.C.E.), also produced a lawmaking of laws, some of which bear resemblance to certain specific laws in the Lawmaking of Hammurabi. The later Mosaic Police (according to the modern documentary hypothesis ca. 700-500 B.C.Due east. – under Hezekiah/Josiah; traditionally ca. 1200 B.C.E. – under Moses) also has some laws that resemble the Code of Hammurabi, as well as other law codes of the region.
When the Semitic tribes settled in the cities of Mesopotamia, their tribal customs passed over into urban center police. The early history of the country is the story of a struggle for supremacy between the cities. A metropolis demanded tribute and armed services support from its subject area cities, but left their local cults and customs unaffected. The urban center rights and usages were respected past kings and conquerors alike.
Equally belatedly every bit the accretion of Assur-bani-pal and Shamash-shum-ukin, we find the Babylonians appealing to their city laws that groups of aliens to the number of twenty at a time were free to enter the metropolis; that strange women, once married to Babylonian husbands, could non be enslaved; and that non even a dog that entered the city could be put to decease untried.
The population of Babylonia was of many races from early on times, and intercommunication betwixt the cities was incessant. Every city had a big number of resident aliens. This freedom of intercourse must have tended to assimilate custom. Information technology was, however, reserved for the genius of Hammurabi to make Babylon his metropolis and weld together his vast empire by a uniform organisation of law.
Virtually all trace of tribal custom had already disappeared from the law of the Lawmaking. It is state-law: self-aid, blood-feud, marriage by capture, are all absent; though the Code of family solidarity, district responsibleness, ordeal, the lex talionis, are archaic features that remain. The king is a benevolent autocrat, hands accessible to all his subjects, both able and willing to protect the weak against the highest-placed oppressor. The royal ability, however, can but pardon when private resentment is appeased. Judges are strictly supervised, and appeal is allowed. The whole state is covered with feudal holdings, masters of the levy, police force, and then forth. At that place is a regular postal system. The pax Babylonica is so bodacious that private individuals do not hesitate to ride in their carriage from Babylon to the coast of the Mediterranean. The position of women is free and dignified.
Arbitrament by the Code
Overview
Provided the parties could concur, the Code left them free to contract, equally a dominion. Their deed of understanding was drawn up in the temple by a notary public, and confirmed with an oath "past god and the rex." It was publicly sealed, and witnessed by professional witnesses, likewise equally by collaterally interested parties. The manner whereby information technology was thus executed may have been sufficient guarantee that its stipulations were not impious or illegal. Custom or public opinion doubtless secured that the parties would not agree to "incorrect." In instance of dispute, the judges dealt first with the contract. They might not sustain it, but if the parties did not dispute it, they were free to observe it.
The judges' decision might, however, exist appealed. Many contracts contain the proviso that in case of future dispute, the parties would abide by "the decision of the king." The Code fabricated known, in a vast number of cases, what that determination would be, and many cases of appeal to the king were returned to the judges with orders to decide in accordance with it. The Lawmaking itself was carefully and logically arranged, and the gild of its sections was conditioned by their subject area-matter.
The Code did not merely embody gimmicky custom or conserve ancient law. In the temple archives of each urban center, vast stores of precedent in ancient deeds and records of judicial decisions had accumulated, and that legal history had assimilated into city custom. The universal habit of writing, and perpetual recourse to written contract, even more modified primitive custom and aboriginal precedent.
Iii Classes
The Code defines the whole population equally falling into 3 classes: the amelu, the muskinu and the ardu. The amelu was a patrician, a man of family, whose birth, matrimony, and death were registered; of ancestral estates and total civil rights. He had aloof privileges and responsibilities, and the right to verbal retaliation for corporal injuries, only was liable to a heavier punishment for crimes and misdemeanors, including college fees and fines. To this class belonged the male monarch and court, the higher officials, the professions and craftsmen. The term became a mere courtesy title over time, but originally carried with it a certain status. Already in the Lawmaking, when condition is not concerned, it is used to denote "anyone." There was no belongings qualification, nor does the term announced to be racial.
It is most difficult to characterize the muskinu exactly. The term came in fourth dimension to mean "a beggar," and with that significant has passed through Aramaic and Hebrew into many modern languages; but though the Code does non regard him equally necessarily poor, he may have been landless. He was gratis, simply had to accept budgetary bounty for corporal injuries, paid smaller fees and fines, and even paid less offerings to the gods. He inhabited a separate quarter of the city. There is no reason to regard him as specially connected with the courtroom, equally a royal pensioner, nor as forming the bulk of the population. The rarity of any references to him in gimmicky documents makes further specification conjectural.
The ardu was a slave, his master'due south chattel, and formed a very numerous class. He could acquire holding and fifty-fifty hold other slaves. His master clothed and fed him, and paid his doctor'southward fees, but took all compensation paid for injury done to him. His chief normally found him a slave-girl as wife (the children were and so born slaves), often set him upward in a house (with farm or business) and simply took an annual rent of him. Otherwise, he might marry a costless woman (the children were and then gratuitous), who might bring him a dower that his master could not touch, and at his death, one-half of his property passed to his master as his heir. He could acquire his liberty past purchase from his master, or might be freed and dedicated to a temple, or even adopted, when he became an amelu and not a muskinu.
Slaves were acquired past purchase abroad, from captives taken in war, or equally freemen degraded for debt or law-breaking. A slave frequently ran abroad; if caught, the captor was bound to restore him to his primary, and the Code fixes a reward of 2 shekels—about one-tenth of the average value—that the owner must pay the captor. To detain, harbor or attempt to become a slave to leave the urban center was punishable past death. A slave bore an identification mark, over time consisting of his owner's name tattooed or branded on the arm, removable only by a surgical operation. On the great estates in Assyria and its subject field provinces, there were many serfs, mostly of subject race, settled captives, or sometime slaves; tied to the soil they cultivated, and sold with the estate, yet capable of possessing land and property of their ain. There is little trace of serfs in Babylonia, unless the muskinu are considered serfs.
Citizens Tenants of Gods
The god of a city was originally considered the possessor of its country and the citizens were his tenants. The metropolis was encircled with an inner band of irrigable arable state and an outer fringe of pasture. The god and his vice regent, the male monarch, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed ante in naturalia, livestock, money or service.
1 of the earliest monuments recorded the purchase past a king of a big estate for his son, paying a fair market place price and adding a handsome honorarium to the many owners, in plush garments, plate, and precious articles of furniture. The Code recognized consummate individual ownership of state, just evidently extended the right to hold land to votaries, merchants (and possibly resident aliens?). Just all country was sold discipline to its fixed charges. The rex, however, could costless land from these charges by charter, which was a frequent fashion of rewarding those who deserved well of the country.
It is from these charters that nosotros acquire virtually all nosotros know of the obligations lying upon land. The state demanded men for the ground forces and the corvée, equally well equally dues in kind. A defined area was spring to find a bowman, together with his linked pikeman (who diameter the shield for both), and to furnish them with supplies for the campaign. This area was termed a "bow" as early equally the eighth century B.C.E., but the practice was much earlier. Later, a horseman was also due from certain areas. A man was simply bound to serve and then many times, but the land still had to find a human annually. This service was usually discharged by slaves and serfs, only the amelu (and perhaps the muskinu) too went to war. The "bows" were grouped in tens and hundreds. The corvée was less regular. The messages of Hammurabi often dealt with claims to exemption. Religious officials and shepherds in charge of flocks were exempt.
Special liabilities lay upon riparian owners to repair canals, bridges, quays, and so on. The state claimed certain proportions of all crops, livestock, etc. The rex'south messengers could commandeer any subject's property, giving a receipt. Farther, every metropolis had its ain octroi duties, customs, ferry dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to exist owner of the land, if he ever was. He had his own imperial estates, his private property, and dues from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments and official residences.
The Lawmaking regulates the feudal position of certain classes. They held an estate from the rex, consisting of house, garden, field, stock, and a salary, on condition of personal service on the rex's errand. They could non consul the service, on penalty of death. When ordered abroad, they could nominate a capable son to hold the benefice and carry on the duty. If there were no capable son, the state put in a locum tenens, but granted one-third to the wife to maintain herself and children. The fief was otherwise inalienable; information technology could not be sold, pledged, exchanged, sublet, devised or diminished. Other land was leased from the land. Ancestral estate was strictly tied to the family unit. If a holder would sell, the family unit kept the right of redemption, and there seems to have been no time-limit to its practise.
Temple
The temple occupied a most important position. Information technology received vast back up of all sorts, including money and permanent gifts from its estates, tithes and other fixed ante, as well every bit the sacrifices (a customary share) and other offerings of the faithful. The larger temples had many officials and servants.
Originally, perhaps, each town amassed circular 1 temple, and each head of a family had a right to minister there and share its receipts. As the city grew, the right to so many days a yr at ane or other shrine (or its "gate") descended within certain families, and became a kind of property that could be pledged, rented or shared within the family, but not alienated. Despite all these demands, the temples became groovy granaries and store-houses, as they were as well the city archives. The temple had its responsibilities. If a citizen were captured by the enemy and could not ransom himself, the temple of his city must exercise so. To the temple came the poor farmer to borrow seed, grain, or supplies for harvesters — advances that he repaid without interest.
The king's power over the temple was not proprietary, but administrative. He might borrow from it, but repaid like other borrowers. The tithe seems to have been considered the rent due to the god for his land. Information technology is not clear that all lands paid tithe; perchance only such equally once had a special connection with the temple.
The Code deals with a class of persons devoted to the service of a god, equally vestals or hierodules. The vestals were vowed to chastity, lived together in a great nunnery, were forbidden to enter a tavern, and, together with other votaries, had many privileges.
Property Law and Commerce
Overview
The Lawmaking recognized many ways of disposing of belongings: sale, lease, barter, gift, dedication, deposit, loan, or pledge, all of which were matters of contract. "Sale" was the delivery of the purchase (in the case of real estate, symbolized by a staff, a key, or deed of conveyance) in return for the buy coin, receipts existence given. for both. Credit, if given, was treated as a debt, and secured as a loan past the seller to be repaid by the buyer, for which he gave a bond.
The Code admits no claim unsubstantiated by documents or the oath of witnesses. A buyer had to convince himself of the seller's championship. If he bought (or received on deposit) from a small or a slave without power-of-attorney, he would exist executed as a thief. If the goods were stolen and the rightful owner reclaimed them, he had to prove his purchase past producing the seller and the deed of sale, or witnesses to information technology; otherwise he would be adjudged a thief and die. If he proved his purchase, he had to give up the holding but had his remedy against the seller or, if he had died, could reclaim 5-fold from his estate.
A man who bought a slave abroad might find that he had previously been stolen or captured from Babylonia, and he then had to restore him to his sometime owner without recompense. If he bought property belonging to a feudal belongings, or to a ward in chancery, he had to return it and forfeit what he gave for it as well. He could repudiate the purchase of a slave attacked by the bennu sickness within the calendar month (later, a hundred days), and held a newly-purchased female person slave iii days "on approval." A defect of title, or an undisclosed liability, would invalidate a sale at whatsoever time.
Leasing
Landowners ofttimes cultivated their land themselves, but might employ a husbandman, or rent it. The husbandman was bound to carry out the proper tillage, raise an average crop, and leave the field in expert tilth. In case the crop failed, the Code fixed a statutory return. Land might be leased at a stock-still rent, when the Lawmaking enacted that accidental loss barbarous on the tenant. If allow on share-profit, the landlord and tenant shared the loss proportionately to their stipulated share of profit. If the tenant paid his hire and left the state in good tilth, the landlord could non interfere nor forbid subletting.
Waste land was let to reclaim, the tenant being rent-gratis for iii years and paying a stipulated rent in the 4th year. If the tenant neglected to reclaim the country, the Code enacted that he must hand it over in good tilth and fixed a statutory rent. Gardens or plantations were leased in the same ways and under the same atmospheric condition; but for date groves, four years' free tenure was allowed.
The metayer organisation was in vogue, especially on temple lands. The landlord found land, labor, oxen for plowing and working the watering machines, carting, threshing or other implements, grain seed, rations for the workmen and provender for the cattle. The tenant, or steward, commonly had other country of his own. If he stole the seed, rations or forage, the Code enacted that his fingers be cutting off. If he appropriated or sold the implements, 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. Hire was equally contracted.
Irrigation was indispensable. If the irrigator neglected to repair his dyke, or left his runnel open and caused a flood, he had to make good the damage washed to his neighbors' crops, or be sold with his family to pay the toll. The theft of a watering machine, h2o-bucket or other agricultural implement was heavily fined.
Houses were usually leased for the year, merely also for longer terms, rent beingness paid in advance, half-yearly. The contract generally specified that the house be in expert repair, and the tenant was leap to keep information technology so. The woodwork, including doors and door frames, was removable, and the tenant might bring and take abroad his own. The Lawmaking enacted that if the landlord would re-enter earlier the term was up, he must remit a fair proportion of the hire. Land was leased for houses or other buildings to be built upon it, the tenant being rent-costless for eight or ten years; after which the edifice came into the landlord's possession.
Hired Labor
Despite the multitude of slaves, hired labor 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 plowing, working the watering-machines, carting, threshing, etc. The Code fixed a statutory wage for sowers, ox-drivers, field-laborers, and hire for oxen, asses, and and then along
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, must breed them satisfactorily. Any dishonest use of the flock had to be repaid ten-fold, 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 four-fold; if he turned them into standing crops when they ought to have been folded, he paid twelve-fold.
Debt
In commercial matters, payment in kind was even so common, though the contracts normally stipulate for cash, naming the standard expected—that of Babylon, Larsa, Assyria, Carchemish, and so on. The Lawmaking enacted, however, that a debtor must be immune to pay in produce according to a statutory calibration. If a debtor had neither coin nor crops, the creditor must not refuse goods.
Debt was secured on the person of the debtor. Distraint on a debtor'south grain was forbidden by the Lawmaking; not merely must the creditor return it, but his illegal action forfeited his claim altogether. An unwarranted seizure for debt was fined, every bit was the distraint of a working ox.
The debtor being seized for debt could nominate every bit mancipium, or earnest to work off the debt, his wife, a kid, or slave. The creditor could only hold a wife or child iii years as mancipium. If the mancipium died a natural expiry while in the creditor's possession, no claim could lie against the latter; but if he was the cause of decease past cruelty, he had to requite son for son, or pay for a slave. He could sell a slave-hostage, apart from a slave-girl who had borne her main children; she had to be redeemed past her possessor.
The debtor could besides pledge his property, and in contracts often pledged a field, house or crop. The Code enacted, however, that the debtor should always take the crop himself and pay the creditor from information technology. If the crop failed, payment was deferred, and no interest could be charged for that year. If the debtor did non cultivate the field himself, he had to pay for the cultivation, merely if the cultivation was already finished, he must harvest it himself and pay his debt from the ingather. If the cultivator did not get a ingather, this would non cancel his contract.
Pledges were often fabricated where the intrinsic value of the article was equivalent to the amount of the debt; but antichretic pledge was more mutual, where the profit of the pledge was a set-off against the interest of the debt. The whole property of the debtor might exist pledged equally collateral for the payment of the debt, without whatever of information technology coming into the enjoyment of the creditor. Personal guarantees were ofttimes given in Babylon that the debtor would repay, or the guarantor become liable himself.
Trade
Merchandise was very extensive. A mutual process was for a merchant to entrust his goods or money to a traveling agent, who sought a marketplace for his appurtenances. The caravans traveled far beyond the limits of the empire.
The Lawmaking 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 turn a 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 non 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. Whatever false entry or claim on the agent'southward office was penalized 3-fold; on the lending merchant's role, six-fold. In normal cases, profits were divided according to contract, normally equally.
A considerable corporeality of forwarding (advancing wares to the agent up forepart) was done by the caravans. The carrier gave a receipt for the assignment, took all responsibility, and exacted a receipt upon delivery. If he defaulted, he paid five-fold. He was unremarkably paid in advance. Deposit, especially warehousing of grain, was charged for at i-sixtieth. The warehouse human being took all risks, paid double for all shortage, but no merits could exist fabricated unless he had given a properly witnessed receipt.
Water traffic on the Euphrates and canal organization was early on, quite considerable. Ships, whose tonnage was estimated by the amount of grain they could carry, were continually hired for the ship of all kinds of appurtenances. The Lawmaking fixes the price for shipbuilding, and insists on the builder's giving a year'southward guarantee of seaworthiness. It besides fixes the charge per unit of hire for ship and crew. The helm 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 gunkhole under way was responsible for damages to the boat at anchor.
Family unit Law
Union
Marriage retained the grade of buy, but was essentially a contract to be human being and wife together. The marriage of immature people was usually arranged between the relatives — the groom'due south father providing the helpmate-price, which with other presents, the suitor ceremonially presented to the helpmate's male parent. This helpmate-price was usually handed over by her father to the bride upon her matrimony, and and then returned into the benedict's possession, along with her dowry, which was her portion as a daughter.
The bride-price varied greatly, according to the condition of the parties, just surpassed the cost of a slave. The Code enacted that if the begetter does not, afterward accepting a human's presents, give him his daughter, he must return the presents doubled. This was done even if his decision was brought about by libel on the part of the suitor's friend, and the Code enacted that the faithless friend should not marry the girl. If a suitor changed his mind, he forfeited the presents.
The dowry might include real estate, merely generally consisted of personal furnishings and household furniture. It remained the married woman's for life, descending to her children, if whatsoever; otherwise returning to her family, when the married man could deduct the helpmate-price if it had non been given to her, or render it, if information technology had.
Divorce
Divorce was optional with the man, but he had to restore the dowry, and if the wife had borne him children, she had the custody of them. He had then to assign her the income of field, or garden, equally well as goods, to maintain herself and children until they grew up. She then shared equally with them in the allowance (and manifestly in his estate at his expiry) and was complimentary to marry once more. If she had no children, he returned her the dowry, 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 ordinarily named in the contract for his repudiation of her.
Widowhood
A widow took her husband's place in the family unit — living on in his firm and bringing upward the children. She could only remarry with judicial consent, when the judge was spring to inventory the deceased'south estate and hand it over to her and her new hubby in trust for the children. They could not amerce a single utensil.
If she did not remarry, she lived on in her husband'south house and took a child's share on the division of his estate, when the children had grown up. She still retained her dowry and any settlement deeded to her by her husband. This property came to her children. If she had remarried, all her children shared equally in her dowry, but the beginning hubby'south gift roughshod to his children, or to her pick among them, if and then empowered.
Childbearing
Monogamy was the dominion, and a childless wife might give her married man a maid (who was no married woman) to bear him children, who were then reckoned hers. She remained mistress of her maid, and might degrade her to slavery once again for insolence, just could not sell her if she had borne her hubby children. If the wife did this, the Lawmaking did non allow the married man to take a concubine; but if she would not, he could do so. The concubine was a co-wife, though non of the aforementioned rank; the first wife had no power over her.
A concubine was a complimentary woman, was oft dowered for marriage, and her children were legitimate. She could only be divorced on the same conditions equally a wife. If a married woman became a chronic invalid, the hubby was bound to maintain her in the home they had made together, unless she preferred to take her dowry and render to her male parent's house; but he was complimentary to remarry. In all these cases, the children were legitimate and lawful heirs.
At that place was, of course, no hindrance to a human being having children by a slave girl. These children were costless in any case, and their mother and then could non be sold, though she might be pledged, and she became free upon her master's decease. Her children could be legitimized by their father'due south acknowledgment before witnesses, and were frequently adopted. They and then ranked equally in sharing their father's estate; but if not adopted, the wife'due south children divided and took first pick.
Adoption
Adoption was very mutual, peculiarly where the begetter (or female parent) was childless, or had seen all his children grow upwardly and marry away. The kid was and so adopted to intendance for the parents' old age. This was done by contract, that usually specified what the parent had to get out and what maintenance was expected. The real children, if whatsoever, were usually consenting parties to an arrangement that cut off their expectations. They even, in some cases, found the manor for the adopted child who was to save them of care. If the adopted kid failed to carry out the filial duty, the contract was annulled in the police force courts. Slaves were often adopted, and if they proved unfilial, were reduced to slavery again.
A craftsman oft adopted a son to learn the craft. He profited past the son's labor. If he failed to teach his son the arts and crafts, that son could prosecute him and go the contract annulled. This was a form of apprenticeship, and it is not clear that the apprentice had any filial relation.
A human who adopted a son, and afterwards married and had a family of his own, could dissolve the contract, and must give the adopted kid one-tertiary of a child's share in goods, only no existent estate. That could but descend in his former family. Vestals oft adopted daughters, unremarkably other vestals, to intendance for their quondam age.
Adoption had to be with consent of the real parents, who usually executed a deed making over the child, who thus ceased to have any merits upon them. But vestals, hierodules, certain palace officials, and slaves had no rights over their children and could raise no obstacle. Orphans and illegitimate children had no parents to object. If the adopted child discovered his truthful parents and wanted to return to them, his eye or tongue was torn out. An adopted child was a total heir; the contract might even assign him the position of eldest son. Unremarkably he was residuary legatee.
Heirs
All legitimate children shared equally in the begetter's estate at his decease, reservation being made of a bride-price for an unmarried son, dower for a daughter, or property deeded to favorite children past the father. In that location was no birthright attaching to the position of eldest son, only he ordinarily acted as executor, and later on because what each had already received, equalized the shares. He fifty-fifty made grants in excess to the others from his own share. When there were two widows with legitimate upshot, both families shared equally in the begetter'southward 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, merely had no share in that of a stepmother.
A male parent could disinherit a son in early times without restriction, just the Code insisted upon judicial consent, and that only for repeated unfilial conduct. In early times, the son who denied his male parent had his forepart pilus shorn, a slave-mark put on him, and could exist sold as a slave; while if he denied his female parent he had his forepart hair shorn, was driven circular the city equally an case and expelled from his home, but not degraded to slavery.
Infidelity
Adultery was punished with the death of both parties by drowning; but if the husband was willing to pardon his wife, the rex might arbitrate to pardon the paramour. For incest with his own female parent, both were burned to death; with a stepmother, the man was disinherited; with a daughter, the man was exiled; with a daughter-in-police, he was drowned; with a son's fiancee, he was fined. A wife who for her lover'due south 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 unit, and was free to marry as she chose.
Punishment
In the criminal code, the ruling principle was the lex talionis. Eye for middle, tooth for tooth, limb for limb was the penalty for assail upon an amelu. A sort of symbolic retaliation was the punishment of the offending member, seen in the cutting off the mitt that struck a father or stole a trust; in cut off the breast of a wet-nurse who substituted a changeling for the child entrusted to her; in the loss of the tongue that denied father or mother (in the Elamite contracts, the same penalization was inflicted for perjury); in the loss of the centre that pried into forbidden secrets. The loss of the surgeon'south manus that caused loss of life or limb; or the brander'south 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. To bring another into danger of decease by false accusation was punished by death. To cause loss of freedom or holding by false witness was punished past the same penalty the perjurer sought to bring upon another.
The capital punishment was freely awarded for theft, and other crimes regarded equally coming under that section: for theft involving entrance of palace or temple treasury, for illegal purchase from modest or slave, for selling stolen goods or receiving the same, for common theft in the open (in default of multiple restoration) or receiving the aforementioned, for false claim to appurtenances, for kidnapping, for profitable or harboring fugitive slaves, for detaining or appropriating same, for brigandage, for fraudulent auction of drink, for disorderly conduct of tavern, for delegation of personal service, for misappropriating the levy, for oppression of feudal holders, for causing decease of a householder by bad building. The manner of death is not specified in these cases.
This death sentence was also fixed for such bear equally placed another in danger of decease. A specified grade of death penalty occurs in the following cases: gibbeting (on the spot where crime was committed) for burglary, subsequently likewise for encroaching on the king's highway, for getting a slave-make obliterated, for procuring a husband'southward death; burning for incest with own mother, for a vestal entering or opening a tavern, for theft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape of a betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct every bit wife, seduction of a daughter-in-law.
Exile was inflicted for incest with a daughter; disinheritance for incest with a stepmother, or for repeated unfilial behave. Sixty strokes of an ox-hide scourge were awarded for a vicious 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 brutal upon the corrupt judge. Enslavement befell the extravagant married woman and unfilial children. Imprisonment was common, just is not recognized by the Code.
The commonest of all penalties was a fine. This is awarded by the Code for corporal injuries to a muskinu or to a slave (paid to his principal); for damages done to property, or for breach of contract. The restoration of goods appropriated, illegally bought, or damaged by neglect, was usually accompanied past a fine, giving it the class of multiple restoration. This might be double, treble, fourfold, fivefold, sixfold, tenfold, twelvefold, even thirtyfold, according to the enormity of the offence.
The Code recognized the importance of intent. A human who killed some other in a quarrel must swear he did not practise and then intentionally, and was then only fined according to the rank of the deceased. The Lawmaking does not say what would be the penalty of murder, merely expiry is so often awarded where death is caused, that we tin hardly doubt that the murderer was put to decease. If the assault simply 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 complimentary. 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 exist vicious — fifty-fifty if it caused death. If the mancipium died a natural decease under the creditor's paw, the creditor was scot-free. In ordinary cases, responsibility was not demanded for accident or for more 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 easily were cut off; a slave had to be replaced, the loss of his middle paid for to half his value; a veterinary surgeon who caused the expiry of an ox or donkey paid quarter value; a builder, whose careless workmanship acquired death, lost his life or paid for information technology by the expiry of his kid, replaced slave or goods, and in any instance had to rebuild the business firm, or make expert whatsoever amercement due to defective building and repair the defect likewise. The boat-builder had to make good on whatsoever defect of construction or damage due to it for a year'southward warranty.
Throughout the Code, respect is paid to status. Suspicion was not enough. The criminal must exist taken in the act. A man could not exist convicted of theft unless the appurtenances were institute in his possession.
The more than of import 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, just whose exact part is not yet articulate. Agreements, declarations and non-contentious cases were usually witnessed past one judge and twelve elders.
The decision given was embodied in writing, sealed and witnessed by the judges, the elders, witnesses, and a scribe. Women might human activity in all these capacities. The parties swore an oath, embodied in the certificate, to find its stipulations. Each took a copy, and one was held 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 respond the charge before the local court, and refuse to plead at Babylon.
Finally, it may be noted that many immoral acts, such as the utilize of faux 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 paw of God" as opposed to "the hand of the male monarch."
References
- Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi. CreateSpace Contained Publishing Platform, 2008.
- Landau, Elaine. The Babylonians. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 1997.
- Mack, Rosamund Due east.; al-Ammah lil-Athar wa-al-Turah, Muassah. The Code of Hammurabi. Baghdad: Ministry building of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, 1979.
- Stewart, Zeph. The Ancient World: Justice, Heroism, and Responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
- Viel, H-Dieter. Lawmaking of Hammurabi. Lincom Studies in Asian Linguistics, 2003.
- This commodity incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication at present in the public domain.
Originally published by New World Encyclopedia, 12.29.2001, under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license.
Comments
Source: https://brewminate.com/the-code-of-hammurabi-crime-and-punishment-in-ancient-egypt/
0 Response to "Quizlet All of the Following Are Techniques Used in the Chinese Art of Feng Shui Except"
Post a Comment