The Just Shepherd (Hammurabi 7-8)

The depiction of Hammurabi as a wise and just ruler is furthered by a description of his ruling of his new kingdom and his law codes. His specific yet expansive attention of his subjects reflected his role as a “good shepherd” of his people while also establishing his law code that imposed justice and created a reference for retribution of crimes.

As a result of his many conquests, Hammurabi ruled over a massive territorial expanse that encompassed numerous people of varying cultures and backgrounds. While these twenty-five cities were technically unified through Hammurabi’s state as well as through worshiping the same numerous gods, the people identified more strongly with their own specific city than with the state as a whole (Mieroop 79-80). Hammurabi, as the ruler of these people, made sure to provide for them as a shepherd, protecting his defenseless flock, providing food, and taking care of the gods to allow his people to thrive (Mieroop 82). His actions were directed towards both general issues and specific conflicts between people. He oversaw the construction of irrigation systems for agriculture and the fortification of city walls for defenses (Mieroop 82-83) but also personally dealt with issues that were reported to him, such as a land dispute between tenants (Mieroop 89). His depth of concern for his people and their problems and the extent to which he was personally involved with disputes exemplifies Hammurabi’s role as a just and fair ruler and a “people’s king”.

Hammurabi’s law codes further support his portrayal as a just king as they provide a rigorous account of the legal proceedings and consequences of the time, a physical guarantee of justice. While the law codes may not have been intended to be used as a legal reference (Mieroop 106), their existence still proves Hammurabi’s emphasis on fairness and righteousness. The stela upon which the codes were written contains two parts of text which focus on Hammurabi’s role as “a just king, one who protects his people, especially the weak among them, from injustice and abuse from the powerful” as well as a curse upon those who would fail to follow Hammurabi’s code (Mieroop 101). However, for all the justness that the law codes stand for, there is some inconsistency with what they represent and what they actually say. The most obvious example is in the code for physical retribution, in which the punishment is completely dependent on the social classes of the two parties involved (Meiroop 104-105). While the punishment is equal to the original damage inflicted if the two parties are of the same class, the punishment is much weaker or harsher if the perpetrator is of a higher or lower social class respectively. This suggests an inherent abuse and injustice of the weak by the powerful present in ancient Mesopotamian society that directly contradicts the holistic purpose of the law codes and Hammurabi’s emphasis on righteousness. Despite this, the law codes showed that “justice would prevail in the end” and that Hammurabi’s country was rightly and fairly ruled (Mieroop 110).