Laws have existed since the beginning of civilization. The conduct of civil society is always guided by a set of rules that apply to every person. These rules mostly depend on the existing social structures, cultural significance, and religious practices. Therefore, rules of law are factored in to reflect the beliefs of the community. Some ancient rules of laws are the Twelve Tables of Roman law back in 449 BC, The T’ang Code of Ancient China (year 623) containing laws on criminal code inheritance property, etc., the Code of Hammurabi from ancient Babylon Mesopotamia (1754 BC) and Laws of Manu in ancient India in around 100 CC.E. Some laws however suppressed people and legalized ideas of slavery and patriarchy. In this essay, we shall delve into two such texts, first, the Laws of Manu and second, the Codes of Hammurabi, and discuss its views on gender and women’s equality.
The Laws of Manu are also known as Manava dharma Shastra or Manu smriti translating to reflections of Manu from Sanskrit. This piece of code consists of 12 chapters with a total of 2,694 stanzas. They include the 4 social classes called Varna, 4 stages of life known as ashramas, the study of Vedas, hospitality, dietary restrictions, juridical interest, etc. Manu smriti was composed roughly around 200 CE (Common Era). We know this because it refers to Saka (Northwest tribes) and Cheen (China) who established contact with India around this time. The text is attributed to a mythical figure named Manu, who is known to be the ancestor of the human race in Hinduism. There have been debates that the text was compiled over time with contributions of several Brahmins. However, Indologist Patrick Olivelle (Manus Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of The Mānava Dharmaśāstra, 2005) argues that Manu smriti’s “unique and symmetrical structure,” means that it was composed by a “single gifted individual,” or by a “strong chairman of a committee” with the aid of others.
Now, Hammurabi on the other hand was one of the most far-reaching kings of Mesopotamian civilisation, after conquering most of western and northern Mesopotamia. He was known to be very particular with all aspects of his rule as inferred from his Legal code also known as the code of Hammurabi. The Code of Hammurabi was the clearest and most inclusive compared to earlier codes in the Babylon region since Hammurabi himself was concerned with everyone under his rule. It came to serve as a model for other cultures, including the laws set down by Hebrew scribes in the Bible. While earlier laws imposed fines and penalties for land, the Code of Hammurabi sought retributive justice. One of the excerpts from the code is,
“If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he breaks another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken. If a man knocks out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. If a builder builds a house for someone and does not construct it properly, And the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner of the house, the son of that builder shall be put to death.”
Similarities
To begin, both laws dictate that these laws are divine i.e., been given by God. In the case of Manu smriti, Dharma- the duty of man or the moral command of God, is given by Brahma (“the creator” in Hinduism). A king who was created by God must uphold dharma and peace in society. Whereas in the codes of Hammurabi, Hammurabi is shown as a theocrat who implements and acts upon divine laws given to him by the God Shamash.
Both laws divided civilizations into social classes. In Manu Smriti, it was four class distinctions called the Varnas. They are namely Brahmins (the Priests and scholars), Kshatriyas (kings and warriors), Vaishyas (herders, farmers, landowners), and then Shudras (the slaves). According to the Code of Hammurabi, there were three social classes. The Amelu (The king and his court, high officials, professionals, and craftsmen) was originally an elite person with full civil rights, whose birth, marriage, and death were recorded. The mushkenu was a free man who may have been landless. He was required to accept monetary compensation, pay smaller fines, and live in a separate section of the city. The ardu was a slave whose master paid for his upkeep, but also took his compensation.
Both laws considered women as secondary citizens, not even that, it extended to women being treated as property of men. According to Manu Smriti, girls should be married before reaching puberty, for the father, a daughter is just a commodity, equal to livestock or land, and can be gifted (sampradana). In the codes of Hammurabi, women did not have the right to acquire or manage wealth or gain property.
Both laws have social class and gender interplayed to create a stratified social hierarchy. A line in manusmriti says, “A Sudra may take only a Sudra woman as wife; a Vaisya, the latter and a woman of his class; a Kshatriya, the latter two and a woman of his class; and a Brahmin, the latter three and a woman of his class.” Similarly in society under Hammurabi Ancient Near Eastern writings reveal a social hierarchy which, at its most basic, prioritized free-born men above women, women above slaves, and male slaves above female slaves.
Another similarity is that both texts always assume women to be prostitutes or involved in adultery. According to Manusmriti, “It is the nature of women to seduce men in this world; for that reason, the wise are never unguarded in the company of females.” In the Codes of Hammurabi, the divorce laws investigate women of adultery and not of men.
Both laws also humanize women in complicated situations under family law. Manusmriti says that the marriage cannot be dissolved later by a man or a woman. Still, it allows them to get out of an abusive or fraudulent marriage and allows them to remarry in cases where the husband has abandoned the wife or is missing. While in the Codes of Hammurabi, if a woman has hated her husband and has said, “You shall not possess me, her past shall be inquired into, as to what she lacks. If she has been discreet and has no vice, and her husband has gone out and has belittled her; that woman has not blame, she shall take her marriage portion and go off to her father’s house.”
Differences
In comparison, women had more legal rights in the Codes of Hammurabi than in Manusmriti. Women had the right to leave their husbands if they did not like them and Married women who had not borne children could divorce and go back to their father’s houses. There are many rights not specified for women in the Manusmriti but were given equal statuses in home politics. For example, manusmriti states that no decision within a family is to be taken without the permission of the wife.
On one hand, Manusmriti encouraged the people to honor women. It says that a house that does not respect women is bound to fail in the short term. It also equates women to goddesses like Laxmi, Parvati, Durga etc. Codes of Hammurabi though, do not talk about women in a high manner or even specify the kind of respect they have socially.
The Law Code of Manu had different punishments depending on the class or caste to which one belonged, the lower the caste, the harsher the punishment. the Shudras and women, except in the case of theft where brahmins were to be given harsher punishment. In the Code of Hammurabi, a different kind of thinking applied, for instance, the higher the societal status of the victim, the harsher the punishment:
“ If anyone steals cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat if it belongs to a god or the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.”
Not only this, but the Code of Hammurabi also focused on punishments regarding transgressions against a slave typically included reparations to the owner of the slave rather than the slave him/herself, which emphasizes the relative value of life associated with them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Laws of Manu and the Code of Hammurabi share commonalities in reinforcing social hierarchy and gender inequality. Both codes, rooted in divine authority, reflected patriarchal values and treated women as secondary citizens. Despite subtle differences, these ancient legal frameworks illuminate the enduring impact of cultural norms on shaping societal structures and gender roles in civilizations across time. These need to be highlighted for us to distinguish between harmful stereotypes and enchriching culture.
My article is also available on Medium. click here to read.