5

While doing some research I stumbled upon some old Mesopotamian laws. Reading through them I found a series of conflicting laws. They state

196: If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.

197: If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.

198: If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.

The first two laws do not conflict with each other. Yet the third one makes the whole thing a mess.

Did law 198 state that they also had to pay 1 mina if they break bones or eyes (and have theirs broken), or did it mean if they pay 1 mina they did not have their bones broken, or eyes taken out?

15

You are looking at a poor translation: There were three classes of individuals under the law. A mushkenu was a landless freed man who had to accept monetary compensation for corporal injuries done to him. He often owed a type of feudal duty to a landholder or patron.

-2

I look at it as 196~197 speak of as if a slave owner breaks the bone of another mans slave~ that slave would not be able to perform all his duties so you have the right to break the bone of one of his slaves. I look at 198 as a freed man meaning a free man working for some sort of pay, he was able to adjust his work with a broken bone ~ hence pay while he was learning to adjust until he was able to sustain himself again.

  • 3
    This answer would benefit from sources. Does it add anything not already documented in Mr. Geerkens' answer? – Mark C. Wallace Apr 10 '17 at 13:07
  • 1
    I just tried to put it in more of a laymans terms – Mitchell Apr 10 '17 at 13:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.