Comparing The Code Of Hammurabi And The Twelve Tables

Throughout history, there has been several examples of shifts within the political and economic structures of early era societies. Such shifts are viewed in the Babylonian society under Hammurabi, the Athenian society under Solon as their lawgiver, and, lastly, in the Roman society with Plebeians. The Code of Hammurabi, the reforms of Solon, and the Twelve Tables shared several similarities as well as differences when addressing the issues of class divisions and social hierarchy. Each of them implemented a social stratification alongside several other distinctive standards on their individual societies in the hope to create a peaceful balance. In fact, the elements of socioeconomic status are the prime factors that created this social hierarchy.

The code of laws were referred to as the Twelve Tables in 450 B.C., however only the first ten were drawn up by 450 B.C. The Twelve Tables were pieces of stone with carvings of laws on them that everyone in the Roman society was responsible for knowing and obeying in order to hold the society together. Some historians believed that the tables “serv[ed] as a[n] articulation of the principles and rules by which disputes were to be settled” (Watsen 1076). The Twelve Tables and the Code of Hammurabi share similar perspectives on class division and gender roles. A prime example of this class division in the Twelve Tables would be in table 8, which describes the treatment of a freed man in contrast with a slave. If a person broke or bruised the bones of a freed man with his hands or a club the penalty is 300 assess. Yet, if the victim of the same injury was a slave the penalty is 150 assess. Table 8 is similar to codes 200 and 201, which brings into question the meaning of equality in the Roman and Babylonian societies as well as the values that are justified on an individual based on their social class. Furthermore, gender roles serve as an element socioeconomic status which factors into social hierarchy. In table 5, it reads that “females shall remain in guardianship (male figure) even when they have attained their majority…” Not only were women not considered Roman citizens, but they were unable to leave their husbands without their permission which brings the practice of male dominance to surface. Similarly in code 141, a wife may only leave her husband if he is willing to let her go, if not, he could willing marry another woman while she (former woman) must remain a servant in his household. Women were given biased societal roles with limited rights so that their statures,