It is said that the determination of guilt or innocence during ancient civilization was only as effective and horrible as the leader who formed and executed the laws. Several written essays that cover the topic of punishments in order to achieve a controlled society are the King of Justice, where the river god sees justice imposed for the crime of murder; the desecration against women for the actions of a jealous husband as seen in the Zadokite History, Instructions for Jealousies; the Athenian aristocrat, who enacted a series of constitutional reforms that eventually led to reckless behavior and the destruction of life as seen in the Poems of Solon; and the oldest surviving French manuscript that determined punishment based on administering the same aggrieving behavior back to the originator as portrayed by the king in the Song of Roland. Rituals and executions were common in ancient civilization and were specifically driven by higher powers who played a role in the resolve and restraint of society. To better understand how each leader controlled his society, a close look at the reasoning behind each of these four topics will show how guilt was determined and who would administer the punishment.
Imagine for a moment, a god who bestows his violent punishment for murder in a regio beneath the river or a priest who inflicts the drinking of bitter cursing water on a woman whose husband suffers from jealousy. Maybe it was an “eye for and eye” sentencing, where a king seeks his own form of justice equal to the crime, or the wrath of a god who hands down his punishment for an unforgivable sin by destroying the land. It was, before Christ, that the creation of a perfect civilization gave way to the gods, priests, Archon’s, and kings, whom devised their own laws and punishments for the determination of guilt.
One of the leaders who controlled the Babylonian’s in the early 6th Century (626-538 BCE), is described in the King of Justice. During the Neo-Babylonian period in Mesopotamian, history is portrayed by the values and deeds of one king who believed that truth and justice would never be ignored, for this king would impose newly improved laws that were certain to be pleasing to his god. Penalties for crimes were freely rendered if murder or false allegations took place in his city. When punishment did occur, especially by those who had caused the reopening of a case under false allegations, would have their head cut off and paraded through the streets (par. III-2). If a man accused another of murder, both parties would be taken to the river to face the king of the depths for trial, leaving only the guilty to sink in the river and be severely punished by the river god (par. III-21). With the severity of punishments for crimes in Mesopotamia, this king and his god, kept the city wary of lies and the prevention of anyone thinking of distorting the truth against another.
127 our experts are availableright now
Another enforcer of punishment were the priest in the Instructions of Jealousies, whom played a vital role in the discipline of women. Within the same early 6th century period, the Jewish punishment against women was vicious in its own right; whereby, a husband who was jealous of his wife, could bring about an adulterous claim against her, even if he had no proof. When the spirit of jealousies came over the husband, he could bring his wife before their god, Yahweh, where the priest would apply the Instructions for Jealousies (5:14). Holy water and some dirt from the floor of tabernacle would be placed in a clay vessel for the accused wife to drink. If she was guilty of being unfaithful, the cursing placed in a clay vessel for the accused wife to drink. If she was guilty of being unfaithful, the cursing water would cause her womb to swell and her thighs to fall (5:26). Regardless of her guilt or innocence, the husband would be cleared of any crime, while the wife would always bear the punishment, especially if the bitter water showed its proof (5:31). With the performance of rituals against women, it can be seen that priest had complete control over restoring trust, or not, between husband and wife.
Another strong leader who gave constitutional rights to wealthy, non-noble citizens, is portrayed in the Poems of Solon (638-558 BCE). In the early 6th century, when punishment for crimes appeared to be sadistic or ruthless in other cities, this Athenian aristocrat named Solon, appeared to be making some changes for the rights of people in Athens, Greece. Solon, the titular head of state, decides to enact a series of constitutional reforms, permitting upper-income class citizens, with no nobility, to run for office. It seemed to Solon that those who were newly chosen townsmen had failed at their job by letting their hunger for wealth destroy the city (frag.4, par.1). The reckless and thoughtlessness they had for the common people brought evil, hardship, and slavery. Zeus, the sky and thunder god, disgusted with what he saw, decided to punish the townsmen for their crime of greed by overseeing the destruction of all things. Zeus brought havoc to the sea, causing a flood to cover the land. All of man’s work was destroyed, leaving some to feel the punishment instantly, while others would feel it years to come (frag, 13.1-32, 65-76). There would be no law written, nor a king or priest, who could determine the punishment like that of a god. A new landscape for the future was created; however, Solon and the people of his city paid a huge price because of a few.
This powerful ruler, as seen in the Song of Roland, used his own personal feelings and revenge for determining one man’s punishment. As we look at this king, King Marsiliun, we start with a war that took place in 778 between Charlemagne’s forces and Basques at the Battle of Roncevaux Pass. It was by the actions of one knight, Guenelun, who, out of jealously and vengeance, betrays his close friend Roland, causing his death due to a surprise ambush on Charlemagne’s army (CCLXXIII). The king is so angry that he brings Guenelun up for trial for the actions of a traitor. Although some of the lords and barons believed that Guenelun’s life should be saved, this king felt differently. While not relying on god to pass the judgement or a standard law for a specified crime, this king, King Marsiliun, became the judge with a sentencing imposed by way of combat. Eye for an eye seemed appropriate and death imposed by combat was apparent; for, Guenelun would suffer the same fate that he imposed on Roland and Charlemagne’s greatest warriors (CCLXXXIV). Based on the way Guenelun was treated, this king was bitter and ruled by personal, yet, vengeful feelings, making those who were traitors change the way punishment was imposed.
It can be seen that the leadership in each of these ancient periods exhibited their own set of laws with each having their own way of controlling society. For those who imposed social conformity may have seemed barbaric in some sense, the advantages of cruel punishment did accomplish a controlled society where cooperative behavior existed. While taking a close look at the frame of minds behind laws and punishments in ancient society, it can be seen in the Instructions of Jealousies that women were the main focus. Punishment against women was sadistic, at best, and was based specifically on disgrace and humiliation. It is clear that cultural religious beliefs was the final determination of punishment, giving priests the hand in controlling women. It appeared that women lived in constant fear, for their unintentional actions towards another man could show her as being unfaithful to her husband. Barbaric rituals by priests in order to control the obedience of wives, speaks clearly that truth and justice was beneficial to the male population, especially for those who were jealous.
Looking at the approach by the king, in the King of Justice, it is evident that this king believed that truth and justice should not be neglected. He was a king who wanted to please his god, so he spent every waking moment improving the regulations for the city of Babylonia (sec. II, 22). He brought calmness to his city by building newly improved regulations. He stopped all gifts and bribes among the people, making honesty the expected manner in which to behave (sec. II, par.22). He was a king who wanted stability and tranquility for all the people, men and women alike; however, in order to bring peace and tranquility to his city, truth and justice would be his main focus (par. II-22). God was the driving force behind this king, and it was by his god that some punishments for crimes were achieved.
The mindset behind the leader in the Poems of Solon, revealed that Solon was making great stride for change. Solon seemed to want a more just society with a better democracy; however, greed from others destroyed his plan and the life of his city (frag. 4, par. 1). Solon was a religious man with integrity, who wrote poems about his political and moral views of government. He knew that ill-governance and crooked judgements would destroy the city. That educating the townsmen would be needed before his vision of a better society would take place (frag.4, par. 3). It was by the hand of his great-spirited god that time ran out and Solon’s vision was destroyed by a flood (frag. 4, par. 1).
The view of King Marsiliun, in The Song of Roland, made it clear that this king decided to rule by his own personal grievance. He was a strong leader who had great power; however, the Battle of Roncevaux Pass clearly turned him angry. Although it does not appear to be written as law, retaliatory measures, or what is better known as “eye for an eye” punishment, takes the mind of this king in a whole different direction. “To Guenelun, such justice shall be dealt, day shall not dawn, but men of it will tell” (CCLXXXIV). King Marsiliun let a personal vendetta take control, making him the judge, while Guenelun suffered the consequence during a battle.
The storyline of these four topics clearly showed that each of them had their own idea of how punishment for crimes would be imposed or what the leading factors would be on determining how much freedom or control the people had in their society. When comparing the similarities or differences between them, it can be seen that each of the gods, priests, Archons, or kings were somewhat similar in their beliefs of maintaining law, yet their principals and ideas for punishment were completely different. The punishments of decapitations, to the sadistic drinking of bitter cursing water, to the view of an “eye for an eye”, or the total destruction of the land, shows proof that ancient civilization had some horrendous methods of punishments and executions. Each leader exhibited a different style of leadership with each having their own unique way of maintaining control of their society.
