I. Life
Babylon, under the First Dynasty of Amorrite origin, represented the vanguard of the Amorrite invasion that had come from the West and established a series of marches across all the lands along the Euphrates. Under H. it became the heir to the entire Sumerian-Akkadian civilization, which was over a thousand years old, itself heir to the great prehistoric civilizations (Gemdest Nasr, Uruk, Obed, and even earlier Halaf in the north and Eridu in the south). The Amorrites received this inheritance of the past, directly or indirectly, reshaped it, and left their mark upon it so powerfully and durably that Babylon became the great spiritual metropolis, whose influence imposed itself even upon its enemies and endured through the centuries.H.’s work in foreign policy was to establish Babylon’s power and make it the center of an empire.
Other attempts at hegemony had been made before him, with more or less brilliant and fleeting results. But at the beginning of the second millennium the time was ripe; centuries of common life had caused the populations to intermingle, harmonizing traditions, and the introduction of the new Amorrite element—already assimilated by the first kings of the dynasty without having lost its edge—allowed for renewal. What was now needed was the action of a skilled statesman to organize the conquest, a warrior to complete it, and a statesman and legislator to make it stable. H. was all of these. The correspondence of H. himself and that of the later kings of Mari and Assyria from this period reveal a game of competition, alliances, reticence, and daring played with supreme cunning; through it H. eliminated, one after another, his principal adversaries, some of whom, like Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, Zimrilim, king of Mari, and the sovereign of Eshnunna, were his equals. The dominion of Babylon thus extended over all the territory of Sumer and Akkad and the middle Euphrates (Mari and its dependencies); its influence spread even further to the north and west, and its cultural radiation surpassed the limits of its political influence.
The conqueror knew how to administer, reconcile, and establish justice. All his correspondence, especially that with the provincial governor Sin-idinnam, with Samaš-hasir, the estate manager, and with other officials such as Balmunamhe, is highly suggestive. Personally or through Lú (Awil)-Ninurta, who served as his prime minister, H. followed all the important affairs. This correspondence, now supplemented by those from the court of Mari (Assyrian period and national period) and from Assyria (Šamši-Adad and Isme-Dagan), allows us to understand the life of the Mesopotamian states in one of their most brilliant epochs. Numerous hypotheses have been made regarding the exact date of H., with the extreme conclusions ranging from the 22nd to the 18th century B.C. Recent discoveries at Mari have forced a revision of some synchronisms that had seemed established. New excavations and texts, along with advances in Oriental studies in recent years throughout the Middle East, compel a re-examination of the chronological problem as a whole, as well as of particular chronologies, both absolute and relative. Some scholars are inclined to place H. closer to the 18th or even the 17th century. This tendency is gaining increasing favor among experts. Taken as a whole, this opinion—which includes numerous variations—has a very high degree of probability; many consider it even proven. Nevertheless, some scholars still prefer to retain the traditional dates and place H. in the 20th or 19th century.
II. THE CODE OF H
The most important monument of H.’s legislative activity is his code. The principal exemplar is a stele 2.25 meters high, found shattered into three pieces at Susa by the French mission known as the Délégation en Perse, directed by M. de Morgan, in December 1901–January 1902. This exemplar seems to have been originally erected in the time of Šamaš at Sippar and placed before the same god, the lawgiver (in the opinion of V. MERSCH, EMILE), or else in the time of Marduk at Babylon (according to others). In any case, it was removed by the Elamite invaders and taken to Susa as war booty. Some paragraphs were even erased by the conquerors, perhaps to make room for an inscription. The text has been copied in different epochs and places; these copies have allowed the reconstruction of nearly all the damaged parts and provided some interesting variants for the preserved sections. The stele from Susa was transported to Paris, to the Louvre Museum. It was deciphered by V. MERSCH, EMILE (v.).It is not a code in the modern sense of a systematized body of laws, but rather a collection meant to be seen by all and to which all could refer; it stands in contrast to collections made primarily for specialists, such as the Assyrian laws.
The code has a prologue and an epilogue, written in poetic dialect and style, and a body of laws (divided by modern scholars into 282 paragraphs), written in the dialect and style of the royal chancellery, clear and precise without technicalities. The legislative section can be divided into three broad sections: property law, family law, and social law (criminal and civil). This division is not entirely adequate by modern standards, but it is convenient.
For a long time the code of H. was considered an almost unique document, and it was inclined to be seen as a kind of miracle, attributing to H. an originality he does not possess. Discoveries in recent years (1945–47) of the code of Eshnunna (or the code of Bilalama) and the code of Lipit-Ishtar—the former in Akkadian, the latter in Sumerian, both anterior to that of H. by about two centuries and a century and a half respectively, and originating one from the northeast and the other from the south of Babylon—compel a revision of this judgment. The code of H. belongs to the great Sumerian-Akkadian or Mesopotamian juridical tradition. All the great Sumerian or Akkadian sovereigns had declared themselves legislators, and their juridical activity is attested by legal acts and decrees, such as those of Urukagina (end of the dynasty of Lagash). H.’s originality lies in being an imperial legislator and in entering into the juridical tradition, completing it, harmonizing customs, and extending law and order to all the subjects of his vast empire. Naturally, there was also jurisprudence created by court judgments, administrative provisions, and decisions emanating from the sovereign power of the king.
It is impossible here even to sketch a comparison with other legislations: the Laws of Eshnunna, the Hittite code, the customs of Nuzi. These share in Mesopotamian law, though modified by the usages and particular rights of the civilizations that produced them.
Nor is it possible to institute a detailed comparison with Israelite law. It suffices to observe that Mesopotamian law is that of a commercial country, which lives by production, exchange, and transit in every sphere. Its concern is to guarantee justice and security within a civilization that is at once stable and “open.” Israelite law is certainly influenced by Mesopotamian law, but also by the customs of nomads and semi-nomads (in this respect it would approach the customary law of Nuzi); it is the law of a small people threatened by great empires, seeking to preserve its faith, its traditions, and its integrity, and for this reason it might be called almost a “protectionist” and “closed” law. Moreover, Israelite law has a characteristically unique theocratic monotheism. Setting aside what pertains to revelation and monotheism in Israel, it may be said that H. sought, while maintaining the religious spirit, to establish a distinction between all that belongs to priestly and clerical authority and what pertains to civil authority. The king, as religious head, is sovereign in both spheres, since religion is their foundation, but the functions must be distinct. There is likewise an abyss between Jewish monotheism and the religious unification attempted by H.
The age of H. is also that of Abraham (even if one does not admit the identification, extremely doubtful, of Amraphel [v.] with H.; and even if Abraham and H. are not exactly contemporary). This age was that of the first classical Babylonian civilization, in which Mesopotamian culture, rich with a very long past, attained one of its highest expressions: a classical age, not only for the ancient East, but for all humanity.
Other persons bearing the name of H. have been revealed by the letters of Mari.