Questions about history

The King of Babylon promulgated the code of hammurabi, which was carved on black basalt for more than 3,700 years ... "He slept soundly in the morning, and it was from the poor school stereo. Through the humid air in Chongqing, Jay Chou's inarticulate singing came. I thought many people liked Jay Chou. What's wrong with the world? At the same time, I thought of code of hammurabi.

So I searched online for pictures and found this stone, like a towering penis. At its best, it should enjoy loneliness in the long sandstorm in the two river basins, but now it is collected in the Louvre in Paris. The country to which it belongs has long been buried by yellow sand, together with its moderns. The shuttle has stepped out of the boundaries of time and space, and it belongs to all mankind. In fact, nothing belongs to all mankind. If you go to the Louvre to see it, you must first buy a ticket from the French.

If it's just a stone, although it looks like a penis, it's just a stone after all, but its weight is obviously heavier than all basalts combined, and its value lies in the cuneiform characters carved on it, even though the wind and rain of history have blurred it, just like Jay Chou's songs.

Cuneiform writing, 3500 lines, 282 articles, alone, can completely laugh at a kind of writing called Oracle Bone Inscriptions, which is engraved on the tortoise shell and used for divination and writing the imperial genealogy of the same ancient country. Words are accompanied by civilization. The combination of words expresses the thinking mode and mental state of the people who use words. Furthermore, the carrier of words also shows the individuality of different nationalities in a sense, which is more imaginative. Otherwise, why are some carriers as majestic as penises and unyielding stones, while others are tortoiseshell?

I looked for the full text of the code and found the English version, with a Chinese translation next to it. I can't find the cuneiform version, even if I find it, I don't know it. Apart from some translation mistakes, I don't think there will be much problem with the words I saw. After all, nearly 4000 years have passed, stakeholders have long since disappeared, and researchers are just studying. Therefore, if code of hammurabi were in China, there would be no Marxism in China. There will be fallacies, but there will be no distortions. History can cover up part of the truth, but at the same time it also restores part of the truth.

Now it seems that such a code is polite and simple, and frankly naive or even absurd. Applying the popular historical analysis method, this is the limitation of history. I can say that if I make a code, it will be at least better than this Hammurabi. Many people will not deny it, but it will not affect the status of code of hammurabi as code of hammurabi.

(A) the divine right of monarchy

As long as it is a monarchy, as long as there is a law, the idea that the law should first express is naturally "the divine right of the monarch." Babylon is a monarchy, and code of hammurabi is the law, so "divine right of monarchy" is inevitable. King Hammurabi boasted with all his boasting that he was wise and that he had the right to rule all mankind, except that he said "Long live Hammurabi", which involved an eternal question: Who gave you power? A slightly smarter ruler is not stupid enough to wait for someone to ask this sentence. He will give the answer first, and the answer is theocracy. What could be more sacred and convincing than God? Give the answer first, then all the questions are embarrassing, and all the questions become nonsense. Who is smarter than the ruler who thought of this step?

The word "divine right of monarchy" was criticized to pieces as early as our anti-feudalism. Now everyone knows that this is a deceptive trick. But in a country where rulers use propaganda machines to publicize the "divine right of monarchy" every day, I think few people don't believe it. If he doesn't believe in "divine right", then I don't believe he can live well. Regardless of whether the rulers can convince the people, at least on the surface, everyone is obedient, which is enough. People believe in "the divine right of monarchy". If the ruler doesn't believe it, the game won't go on. The emperor is a knife and the people are fish. Let's boldly imagine that if monarchs deceive themselves and believe in "the divine right of monarchy", they may not be responsible to the people, but they are responsible to God, which is more cruel than being responsible to the people. Isn't this a harmonious society? Unfortunately, this is impossible. It was a lie to lie to others, but I was the biggest victim and benefited others. There is no such person in the world, let alone such a king. A "divine right of monarchy" embodies the wisdom of King Hammurabi, and everything comes down to God without further explanation. Looking back at ourselves, we criticized the feudal dross of "divine right of monarchy" so vigorously that we left no room for others and there was no way out. You asked the ancient kings where their power came from, and they confidently replied, "The supreme power is given by God." You ask ordinary rulers where their power comes from, and you answer with trepidation: all power comes from the people. At this time, the people raised their innocent faces and looked puzzled. It's not that you can't lie. As a ruler, if you don't tell lies, he can't get along at all, but at least your lies are a little technical. Don't make it look like the emperor's new clothes. One word and the child will explode.

(2) An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Code of hammurabi:

Article 196, if a person gouges out another person's eyes, his eyes will be gouged out.

Article 197, if he breaks another person's bone, his bone will be broken.

Article 200, if a person knocks out his own kind of teeth, his teeth will also be knocked out.

It is hard to imagine that there is such a legal provision in the world, which makes us an eye-opener. If such a provision is an abstract expression of the meaning of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", then there is no need to list so many; If it is a specific description of what kind of punishment to do, then these lists are far too few. I feel very puzzled. What is Hammurabi's intention? But no matter what his original intention is, such a provision embodies equality, that is, equality between equal subjects. Why else would this happen?

Article 199, if he gouges out the eyes of a slave, or breaks the bones of a slave, he will pay half of its value.

First of all, we must admit that the world is unequal, and then stipulate that the subjects of equality should be equal, which is fair. Treating unequal things equally is actually an inequality. But who can guarantee that flexible handling will be equal when analyzing specific problems? It may aggravate inequality. This is probably the limitation of human beings.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth are similar to Confucius and Lu Xun, but they are hardly compatible with Christianity. Does the essence of culture vaguely reflect the vitality of civilization? Babylonian civilization has long been lost, and Chinese civilization is now half dead, but Christian culture seems to be more and more vigorous and enviable.

(3) Fine

At that time, as we all know, everything was equally barbaric. The so-called four ancient civilizations are only because barbarism lasted a little longer. As one of the four great civilizations in ancient Babylon, it is natural to escape its barbarism. At that time, it was troubled times, the primitive desires of human beings were ready to move, and there were shadows of incomplete evolution everywhere. In troubled times, heavy codes are used. Gouge out your eyes, chop off your hands, skin, cramp, cut your chest, castrate, burn to death and drown, and you can't help but admire the wisdom and imagination of human beings. I can't figure out how there can be such a law and such a punishment. Although our ancestors in China are also familiar with this set, even Hammurabi's set is just teaching others how to use an axe in front of our ancestors in China, but I still don't understand how Hammurabi stipulated such a punishment by law, and how the Babylonians agreed to such a punishment, just as I don't understand how brutal or even more brutal blood flowed in the bones of our ancestors. I stand today, wondering why history is so absurd and incredible. Will our descendants also think that we are ridiculous and incredible today?

Cycle after cycle, this is history; Absurdity returns to absurdity. This is the law.

Two rivers flow quietly, rocks reflect sunlight, and yellow sand buries everything. The wilderness echoed with the cries of the prisoners, and the bright faces of the people watching the execution disappeared and could not be traced. Punishment, in fact, there is no need to be so cruel, if it is not for aesthetics.

Marriage and ethics

A radish is a pit, but Hammurabi made very detailed regulations on these things. Although men are superior to women, while the code attaches great importance to women's chastity, it also gives men some restrictions, which is better than the "three obedience and four virtues" in ancient China, although not much better. Humans actually have a lot in common. Male chauvinism, ethics and chastity are the same everywhere. It's marriage, life and sex, and you're still so particular. I think this is mainly because human beings are born selfish and possessive. The code stipulates the punishment for incest and adultery, indicating that incest and adultery will exist, and if they do not exist, there is no need for legislation. The existence of this phenomenon shows that people themselves have this desire and impulse; But the code stipulates the punishment of incest and adultery, which shows that people don't want others to do this. It can be seen that people living in the shadow of code of hammurabi are so contradictory and tired. On the one hand, people want to rape other people's wives, on the other hand, they don't want their wives to be raped. People always tend to think of themselves first and protect their own priorities, so this kind of law came into being, but they still want to covet others. I'm sorry, then they have to take some risks. This risk is the law that people love and hate. People's mentality is introverted and gloomy. If everyone's mentality is open and healthy, then code of hammurabi doesn't matter, and all laws don't matter. Nearly four thousand years have passed, but something has not changed. For example, some laws have been inherited over time and are still in use, which means that these laws have not changed, and that our sins have not changed.

The excavation of code of hammurabi satisfies the voyeurism of the general public. So many people are particularly interested in this, not to make the past serve the present, nor to apply what they have learned, but to see what happened to the powerful kingdom of Babylon with the beautiful legend of hanging gardens, because it is gone now. The dreamlike kingdom disappeared like smoke before people realized its existence, and a civilization disappeared in the blink of an eye, but it did exist, as evidenced by code of hammurabi.

Looking at the black basalt and studying code of hammurabi, we can still console ourselves as proud and ignorant modern people. After all, our laws are much stronger now than then. Although it took nearly 4000 years to produce such an imperfect legal system, it is not shameful to say it, but it is a historical progress. The history of our human law is stumbling on a stone like code of hammurabi, and code of hammurabi is such a stone, but he was absent because he disappeared.