How did the statuses of persons differ in ancient Rome? According to citizenship status, the free population of Rome was divided into citizens of Rome and foreigners (peregrines) Cultural and political significance of Ancient Babylon

Roman society has never been homogeneous. The status of the inhabitants of the empire varied depending on their place of birth and condition. The main division between freemen and slaves did not abolish the thousands of minor gradations within these two main groups. Free people could be called citizens, or they could bear the name of pilgrims - representatives of other cities in Italy, and later - other peoples that were part of the empire. Slaves could be public or private, prisoners of war, bought at the market or born in the house. The latter were especially valued, since, on the one hand, they knew no other life, and on the other, they were perceived by the owners as family members - surnames.

Roman slavery was noticeably different from Greek: it, like everything in the Latin world, bore the imprint of legal.

Slavery in Rome

Before the law, a slave had no rights. All slaves who lived under the master's roof were subject to death penalty, if the owner was killed in the house. However, during the imperial era, punishments were also introduced for owners for cruelty to their slaves. A slave could occupy a privileged position, such as a butler or a favorite concubine. The merits of a slave to his master were often grounds for emancipation. Emancipation by master's will for private slaves or by act of a magistrate for public slaves was widespread. In some cases, a slave who became rich acquired his own slaves. And freedmen, engaged in trade, sometimes acquired an exceptionally high position in Roman society. All this did not cancel the difficult situation of the masses of slaves who worked in the Roman household, but it showed the ways by which a clever, quick-witted or simply devoted slave could gain freedom.

Social life and citizenship in Rome

The social life of Rome was much more complex and intense compared to Greek. The Romans, even during the Republican period, gravitated towards inclusiveness state power. During the Republic, Rome was ruled by an army of elected officials officials: consuls, praetors, quaestors, censors, tribunes, aediles, prefects... Their functions were clearly defined and did not overlap. Unlike neighboring peoples, and primarily the Hellenes, they willingly shared their citizenship not only with pilgrims, but also with freedmen. At the same time, obtaining citizenship was tantamount to obtaining nationality. Blood didn't matter. The main thing was a common way of life for all citizens and obedience to common laws. Convinced of their own exclusivity, even messianism, the Romans were nevertheless not nationalists in the sense in which, for example, one can call the Athenians nationalists, who even looked at them as second-class citizens. For the Roman, the line between a civilized person and a barbarian lay in the way of life and was defined quite simply. A cultured person lives in a city, wears a toga, owns slaves, and obeys the laws. The barbarian lives in the forest, wears pants made of animal skins, he will be very lucky if he falls into slavery and can serve to strengthen Rome. if he works well and internalizes Roman ideals, the owner will set him free, and lo and behold, he will help him obtain citizenship. So, gaining civil rights - this is literally a remelting in the crucible of another culture.

However, it would be wrong to see in Roman citizenship some kind of analogue of modern citizenship. Citizenship - belonging to the city - for a long time could not become a national institution in Rome. The inhabitants of other Italian cities had their own citizenship, although they lived in the same country as the Romans. An intermediate stage on this path was the provision dual citizenship, for example Rome and Capua, Rome and Mediolanum, etc. But this did not solve all the problems. The Romans understood that the stability of their state was directly related to the expansion of the number of citizens. By the beginning of the new era, of the 50 million subjects of Rome, only about a million had the status of citizen. Emperor Caracalla in 212, in the so-called Antonine Constitution, gave Roman citizenship to all free people, regardless of nationality, living in the territory of the empire. Roman citizen usually had three names: personal (Gai), family (Julius) and family or nickname (Caesar). A freed slave received the personal and family name of his master. Thus, the slave and close friend of Cicero - Tyrone, freed in 53 BC. e., became known as his master, Marcus Tullius, and acquired Roman citizenship.

Roman society was characterized by high social mobility. Belonging to one or another class was determined depending on the property qualification. City authorities, in accordance with the assessment of their condition, assigned residents to classes that were not inherited. Thus, a rich artisan could slip into the equestrian class, don a gold ring and a white toga with a thin purple stripe.

Citizenship in Ancient Greece

Today we unconditionally recognize every person, regardless of origin, as having inalienable rights. The unfortunate thing is that a good concept of human rights must be universal, i.e. applicable to all areas of human life. Among these areas there are also (hands on heart) undesirable ones. One of them is the right of citizenship. It is inconvenient and politically incorrect to talk about the “exclusive” right of individuals to citizenship at a time when we live in a global and multi-ethnic world, and the words about the right to “a world without borders” are repeated like a daily mantra.

For the ancient Greeks and Romans, “rights” were determined by what “the law said,” and there was no complex about the “exclusivity of the right of citizenship.” Just by the fact that the state gave citizenship to some and denied it to others, it instilled in the people the idea of citizenship as a special and valuable privilege for the chosen few, which gave the ancient Greeks a feeling of being chosen. Certainly these people, in the conditions of modern globalism and multiculturalism, would not be eager to join the United Europe. I wonder if the term “British” now sounds “branded”?

In the classical ancient Greek era, after 451 BC, citizenship depended on whether the mother or father was Athenian. A child was declared a citizen upon his birth during a traditional ritual involving neighbors. The citizen did not pay taxes; men over 18 years of age could participate in public meetings, express their opinions and occupy leadership positions; every citizen could attend state and local religious ceremonies; he could own property and also go to court to resolve disputes. The Athenians repaid the state in the same coin. They even competed with each other in their zeal to serve the community. Demonstration of sincerity civic participation made it possible to gain respect in society. No wonder Aristotle said: “Everyone who does not have an active civic position- either a god or an animal."

None of these privileges (except for the right to maintain taverns) were granted to a stranger; they could work in Athens only if they had a trustee from among the citizens who acted as a guarantor. And yet, if one of the foreigners had special services to Athens or they were engaged in some special, irreplaceable type of activity, the People's Assembly could award such an applicant citizenship. However, such an honor was rarely bestowed.

Neither the ancient Greeks nor the Romans had such modern problems, like maintaining a huge army of bureaucrats in immigration services or, for example, producing identification cards. In ancient times there were no formal signs of citizenship.

Our current government plans to create single base data for all citizens, intending to enter official and unofficial information there, from passport, medical and criminal (if any) to private information: travel within the country and abroad, social benefits and even visiting pubs; Moreover, this information can be requested by anyone public service. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans would have put up with this.

From book The World History: In 6 volumes. Volume 1: The Ancient World author Team of authors

THE FLOWING OF THE CULTURE OF ANCIENT GREECE The classical era is the time of the highest flowering of ancient Greek culture. It was then that those potentialities that matured and emerged in the previous, archaic era were realized. There were several factors that ensured the takeoff

From the book History of the Ancient World [with illustrations] author Nefedov Sergey Alexandrovich

Chapter IV. History of Ancient Greece TRADES OF HELLAS From the shaft of the spear Zeus created people - terrible and powerful. The people of the Copper Age loved pride and war, abundant with groans... Hesiod. The Nile Valley and the Mesopotamia Valley were the first two centers of civilization, the place where

From the book History of Ancient Greece author Andreev Yuri Viktorovich

3. Foreign historiography of Ancient Greece in the 20th century. Since the beginning of the 20s of the XX century. a new period began in the development of foreign historiography. Her condition was strongly influenced General terms social life of Europe, which emerged after the destructive world war,

From the book Ancient Greece author Lyapustin Boris Sergeevich

PEOPLES AND LANGUAGES OF ANCIENT GREECE The Balkan Peninsula and the islands of the Aegean Sea were inhabited back in the Paleolithic era. Since then, more than one wave of settlers has swept through this territory. The final ethnic map of the Aegean region took shape after the settlement

From the book Ancient Greece author Mironov Vladimir Borisovich

Science and technology in Ancient Greece When the inhabitants fled Greece during the Dorian invasion, they settled along the western coast of Asia Minor. The places received the name Ionia. The story of Greek scientific thought can begin with the mention of the name of Prometheus. The legend says,

From the book History of World Culture in Artistic Monuments author Borzova Elena Petrovna

Culture of Ancient Greece Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis. Ancient Greece (437-432 BC) Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis, architect Mnesicles (437-432 BC), Ancient Greece. When unexpected wealth fell on the Athenians in 454, it was transported to Athens Delian treasury

From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir Petrovich

1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF ANCIENT GREECE historical development Ancient Greece, or Hellas, went through a series of successive social structures. In the Homeric period of Hellenic history (XII-VIII centuries BC), in the conditions of the emerging slaveholding

From the book World military history in instructive and entertaining examples author Kovalevsky Nikolai Fedorovich

WARS AND COMMANDERS OF ANCIENT GREECE The Greeks have long lived in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula. Then they also settled on the islands of the Aegean Sea and on the western coast of Asia Minor. In the VIII–VI centuries. BC e. as a result of the so-called “great colonization” appeared

From the book World History. Volume 4. Hellenistic period author Badak Alexander Nikolaevich

Diplomacy of ancient Greece The most ancient form of international relations and international law in Greece there was proxenia, i.e. hospitality. Proxenia existed between individuals, clans, tribes and entire states. The proxen of this city was used in

From the book Antiquity from A to Z. Dictionary-reference book author Greidina Nadezhda Leonidovna

WHO WAS WHO IN ANCIENT GREECE And Avicenna (lat. form from Ibn Sina - Avicenna, 980–1037) is an influential representative of the Islamic reception of antiquity. He was a court physician and minister under the Persian rulers. He owns more than 400 works in all areas of scientific and

From the book History of Religion: Lecture Notes author Anikin Daniil Alexandrovich

2.5. Religion of Ancient Greece Ancient Greek religion is noticeably different in its complexity from the ideas that the average reader develops about it based on familiarity with adapted versions of Greek myths. In its formation, a complex of religious

author

Section III History of Ancient Greece

From the book General History. Ancient world history. 5th grade author Selunskaya Nadezhda Andreevna

Chapter 6 Culture of Ancient Greece “But what delighted the Athenians most... were the magnificent temples, currently the only evidence that the past was not a fairy tale.” Ancient Greek author Plutarch Temple of the god Hephaestus in

From the book General History. Ancient world history. 5th grade author Selunskaya Nadezhda Andreevna

§ 33. Science and education in Ancient Greece Ideas about the world around usThe Greeks were always interested in the question: how does the world around us work? There were many people in Greece who devoted their lives to searching for an answer to it. They were called philosophers, that is, “lovers of wisdom.” They

From the book General History of the World's Religions author Karamazov Voldemar Danilovich

Religion of Ancient Greece General outline. The most ancient cults and deities Thanks to surviving sources, the ancient Greek religion has been studied comprehensively. Archaeological sites are numerous and well studied - some temples, statues of gods, ritual vessels have been preserved

From the book Comparative Theology. Book 2 author Team of authors

3.2.5. Religious system of Ancient Greece The ancient Greeks are one of the branches of the ancient Indo-Europeans. Having separated from the Indo-European conglomerate at the turn of the 4th–3rd millennia BC. e., tribes who spoke ancient Greek migrated to new lands - the south of the Balkans and

Ancient Greek views on human rights were formed in the general mainstream of mythological ideas that the polis (city-state) and its laws are of divine origin and based on divine justice. Law in general and the rights of individual people - members of the polis, go back, according to such ideas, not to force, but to the divine order of justice.

Thus, already during the time of “Homeric Greece” (end of the 2nd millennium BC), the Emlyns operated, in particular, with such concepts as “dike” (truth, justice), “themis” (custom, customary law), “time” (personal honor, honorable legal claim), “nomos” (law).

The idea of the unity of justice, polis and law is clearly present in the poems Hesiod a (VII century BC) “Geogony” and “Works and Days”. Justice (Dike) and Benevolence (Eunomia) are, according to Hesiod, sister goddesses, daughters of the supreme Olympian god Zeus and the goddess of justice Themis.

The criticism of violence and the defense of law in the poems of Hesiod testified to the strengthening of the individual human (personal) principle in the socio-political life of that time, since law always and everywhere presupposes the legal personality of a person, a free personality.

One of the "seven wise men" was Solon(c. 638 - 559 BC) - famous Athenian statesman and legislator. Implementing ideas about the proper measure in his legislation (594 BC), he destroyed the debt

slavery and introduced a moderate census democracy in Athens, permeated with the idea of compromise between the nobility and the demos, the rich and the poor. In his elegies, Salon noted:

...I freed everyone. And I achieved this

Law by power, combining force with law,

And so I fulfilled everything, as I promised,

I am equal to the laws of the simple and the noble,

For everyone, pointing out the direct truth,

That's what I wrote.

From the point of view of our topic, of particular interest is Solon's understanding of law (and its power) as a combination of right and force. Along with the distinction between right and law, this construction also includes the understanding of polis law as a universal (for all free) form and a generally valid measure official recognition and expressions of the rights of policy members. Such universality of the law expresses the requirement of legal equality: all citizens are equally protected by the law and are subject to its generally binding norms.

The search for an objective standard of justice and law for the polis and its citizens continued Pythagoreans(VI – V centuries BC). Pythagoras and his followers stand at the origin of the widespread and influential idea that human life should be reformed and brought into conformity with the conclusions of philosophy about the polis, justice and "proper measure" in human relationships. At the same time, the Pythagoreans formed a very important position for subsequent ideas about natural human rights that “justice consists in rewarding another equal.” This definition was a philosophical abstraction and interpretation of the ancient principle of talion (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth).

The process of formation and deepening of theoretical concepts of law and human rights in Ancient Greece developed generally in line with the search for the objective natural legal foundations of the polis and its laws.

So , Heraclitus(VI - V centuries BC) interpreted the polis and its laws as a reflection of the cosmic order. Knowledge about justice, law, etc. - this, according to Heraclitus, is part of the knowledge about the world in general, about the cosmos as an “ordered universe”, “world order”. All events in the world are based on the universal divine logos (reason) - the primary source of human justice and law.

The polis and its law are, according to Heraclitus, something common, equally divine and rational in their origins and meaning. “After all, all human laws are nourished by the one Divine, which extends its power as far as it wishes, dominates everything and prevails over everything.” Divine (reasonable, cosmic) law as the source of human laws is the same thing that in other cases is designated by Heraclitus as logos, reason, nature. This divine law gives a reasonable scale and measure to human phenomena, affairs and relationships, including human laws.

Taking into account the subsequent evolution of legal thought, we can say that all those doctrines of antiquity and modern times go back to the Heraclitean concept, which under the natural law of people understand a certain rational principle (the norm of universal reason), subject to expression in a positive law.

The relationship between the natural and the artificial is the relationship between what exists “in truth” (i.e. in nature, in reality), and what exists only according to “general opinion”, found in expanded form in Democritus

(c. V – VI centuries BC). Democritus regarded conformity to nature as a criterion of justice in ethics, politics, and legislation. “What is considered fair,” he asserted, “is not fair: unjust is what is contrary to nature.”

From these naturally right positions, Democritus interpreted the polis as the “common cause” of its citizens and their “support.” The interests of the “common cause” determine the essence and boundaries of the rights and obligations of the members of the policy. At the same time, Democritus had in mind the Hellenic democratic polis, which he contrasted with barbarian despotism (royal power). “Poverty is preferable to the so-called well-being of citizens under kings, just as freedom is preferable to slavery.”

The great idea of natural equality and freedom of all men was first expressed sophists(V – IV centuries BC). Fundamental Principle the views of the sophists were formulated Protagoras(c. 481 – 411 BC). It sounds like this: “The measure of all things is man; those that exist, that they exist, and those that do not exist, that they do not exist.”

Justifying the equality of members of the polis, Protagoras argued that the gifts of Prometheus (the ability to handle fire and other practical knowledge) and the gifts of Zeus (“Shame and truth”, the ability to live together) were given to all people (Hellenes), so that they all equally the art of polis life is accessible and they are all equally citizens of the polis.

The idea of natural legal equality and freedom of all people (including slaves) was substantiated by the sophist Apkidom. The following significant words are attributed to him: “The Divine created everyone free, but nature created no one a slave.”

Speaking about the need for everyone to comply with reasonable and fair policy laws, Socrates argued that only on this path is freedom achievable - a wonderful and majestic asset both for man and for the state.

The personal fate of Socrates, who came up with the principle of individual freedom and personal autonomy, his judgment and execution clearly demonstrate the real state of affairs in the field of human and civil rights in the era of Athenian democracy.

Socrates' rationalistic ideas were developed by his student Plato(427 –347 BC). His project of an ideal state does not include private property and the division of people into freemen and slaves. Following the Pythagoreans, Plato recognizes the equality of women and men, although women are among the highest rulers in Plato’s ideal state not allowed.

Describing justice in an ideal state, Plato wrote: “For everyone to mind his own business, this, perhaps, will be justice”; “justice consists in everyone having their own and doing theirs too.” Justice consists in “that no one should seize someone else’s property or be deprived of his own.”

Justice, according to Plato, presupposes “proper measure,” a certain equality. At the same time, he (with reference to Socrates) distinguishes two types of equality: “geometric equality” (equality in dignity and virtues) and “arithmetic equality” (equality of measure, weight and number). Explaining the meaning of this difference, Plato notes that “for unequals, equal would become unequal if the proper measure were not observed.” “Geometric equality” is “the truest and best equality”, “it gives more to the greater, less to the less, giving to each what is proportionate to his nature.”

These provisions were later adopted and developed in the teaching Aristotle(384 - 322 BC) about two types of justice - equalizing justice and distributive justice.

Distributive justice is the manifestation of fairness in the distribution of everything (power, honor, payments, etc.) that can be distributed among members of society. Equalizing justice operates in the sphere of exchange and “manifests itself in the equalization of what constitutes the object of exchange.” This type of justice is applied in the field of civil transactions, compensation for harm, crime and punishment.

The principle of distributive justice, according to Aristotle, is the division of the corresponding common goods for all citizens according to their merit, i.e. in proportion to their contribution or contribution to the common cause. Thus, he interprets distributive justice (not without the influence of Pythagorean ideas about the numerical characteristics of justice and other virtues) as equality in geometric proportion. In equalizing justice we mean arithmetic equality.

Interpreting law as political justice, Aristotle wrote: “The fact that the concept we are looking for consists of both justice in general and political justice (law) should not escape our attention. The latter takes place between people, to one communication, and has the goal of their self-satisfaction, moreover, between people who are free and equal, equal in the sense of either proportionality, or number in general. People who are not in such relationships cannot have political justice (rights) relative to each other, but they have a certain kind of justice, so named because of its similarity to the previous type. Those people have rights for whom there is a law defining their relations; the law presupposes a crime, the court presupposes the distribution of truth and untruth.”

Aristotle divides political law into natural and volitional (i.e., positive) law. He notes that although the entire field of law is changeable, the concepts of justice and law are changeable only to a certain extent. “It is clear,” he writes, which of the phenomena, which may be different, should be attributed to the area of natural law, and what should be attributed not to the area of natural law, but established by law and general agreement."

In Aristotle’s interpretation, various forms of political (state) structure (due to their political nature) correspond to the principle of justice and the idea of law, i.e., in other words, they are legal nature. “So, it is clear,” writes Aristotle, “that only those forms political system which have in mind the general good are, according to the principle of absolute justice, correct; the same forms, in which only the personal good of the rulers are meant, are all erroneous and represent deviations from the correct ones; they are based on the despotic principle, and the state is the communication of free people." This gives reason to talk about the presence in the teachings of Aristotle legal concept states.

In the Hellenistic era, the idea of state and law as a contract of general benefit to ensure individual freedom and mutual security of people was developed Epicurus(341 – 270 BC). The basic values of Epicurean ethics (freedom, pleasure, “Ataraxia” - serene peace of mind), like all of it as a whole, are individualistic in nature.

Human freedom is, according to Epicurus, his responsibility for the reasonable choice of his lifestyle. The sphere of human freedom is the sphere of his responsibility for himself; it is beyond both necessity, since “necessity is not subject to responsibility,” and impermanent chance. Freedom is gained through understanding “what depends on us” and “is not subject to any master.” “Necessity,” he said, “is a disaster, but there is no need to live with necessity.”

The main goal of the state and the basis of political communication are, according to Epicurus, to ensure the mutual security of people, overcoming their mutual fear, and not causing harm to them or each other. Within the framework of political communication, "security from people is achieved to some extent due to some power satisfying (troubling people), and welfare."

Epicurean interpretation of state and law as an agreement between people about their common benefit and mutual security is also connected with this understanding of the nature and purpose of political communication, the meaning of freedom. “Justice, which comes from nature,” wrote Epicurus, “is an agreement about the useful - with the goal of not harming each other and suffering harm.”

The contractual nature of state and law in the teachings of Epicurus means that they are not givens of nature, externally and blindly imposed on people, but their own self-determinations, human institutions.

He explained the contractual nature of justice as follows: “Justice in itself is not something, but in the relations of people with each other in any place there is always some agreement not to harm or suffer harm.”

The principle and criterion of justice are applicable, according to the concept of Epicurus, only in relation to participants in contractual communication (people, nations). The specific content of the concept of justice is variable - depending on the individual characteristics of a particular country, changing circumstances, etc. However, in all this variability, the principle of justice itself remains unchanged: “... in general, justice is the same for everyone, because it is something useful in the relations of people with each other.”

Laws, based on the theory of Epicurus, corresponding to justice, act as a means of protecting and protecting the “wise” from the “crowd”, as a public guarantee of freedom, security and autonomy of the individual. “Laws,” says Epicurus, “were issued for the sake of the wise, not so that they would not do evil.”

Epicurus' contractual interpretation of state and law implies equality, freedom and independence of people - members of contractual communication and is essentially the historically first philosophical and legal concept of liberalism and legal individualism. An important line of connection stretches from the contractual legal concept of Epicurus to the ideas of the social contract of the New Age.

Ancient Rome

Natural law ideas of ancient Greek thinkers about freedom and equality of all people received further development in Ancient Rome.

Philosophers of Ancient Rome Zeno, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and others developed a more profound doctrine of state and law.

From the natural positions of the Stoics it follows that slavery has no justification, since it contradicts general law and global co-citizenship of people.

In natural concept Seneca inevitable and divine in nature, the “law of fate” plays the role of that law of nature to which all human institutions are subordinated, incl. state and laws. The universe, according to Seneca, is a natural state with its own natural law, the recognition of which is a necessary and reasonable matter. According to the law of nature, all people are members of this state, whether they admit it or not. As for individual state formations and their institutions, they are random and significant not for the entire human race, but only for a limited number of people.

Based on natural law as a universally binding and equal world law for all, Seneca most consistently among the Stoics defended the idea of spiritual freedom and equality of all people.

Philosopher Marcus Aurelius(in 161 - 180) developed the idea of “a state with equal law for all, governed according to the equality and equal rights of all, and a kingdom that above all respects the freedom of its subjects.” From the spiritual principle common to all people, wrote M. Aurelius in his essay “To Myself,” it follows that we are all rational beings. “If so, then the reason that commands what to do and what not to do will also be common; if so, then the law is general; if so, then we are citizens. Consequently, we are involved in some kind of civil order, and the world is like a City. For who could point to any other general structure in which the entire human race would participate? From here, from this City, is the spiritual principle in us, and the rational, and the law.”

From the position of natural law, the philosophical doctrine of the state, law and human rights was very thoroughly developed by Cicero(106-43 BC).

Natural law (the highest, true law), according to Cicero, arose “earlier than any written law, or rather, earlier than any state was founded at all.” The state itself as a “general legal order” is, in essence, the natural right of the people themselves (citizens of the state). Law, according to Cicero, is established by nature, and not by human decisions and regulations. “If rights were established by the commands of peoples, by the decisions of leading people, by the verdicts of judges, then there would be the right to rob, the right to commit adultery, the right to present false wills - if these rights could be approved by a vote or a decision of the crowd.” The law established by people should not violate the order of nature and create right from wrong, or good from evil, honest from shameful.

Their general ideas about fair laws, Cicero specified in his proposed draft laws on religion and magistrates. Emphasizing the universal nature of these laws, he wrote: “After all, we make laws not only for the Roman people, but also for all peoples, honest and steadfast in spirit.”

Cicero fully praised the political and legal activity of citizens and emphasized that when “protecting the freedom of citizens there are no private individuals.”

From the point of view of ancient (Athenian, Roman) positive law, not all people are human, not all of them are recognized as eligible human beings. “And although we all,” wrote Ulpian, - bore the single name “people”, but, according to the law of peoples, three categories arose: free, and in contrast to them slaves, and the third category - those freed, i.e. those who have ceased to be slaves." Here, only by natural law is a slave recognized as free, i.e. person. Hence

the great idea of natural equality as the basis of past and modern ideas about the natural rights and freedoms of any person.

But a slave was not legally recognized as a person under current Athenian or Roman law; in this positive legal dimension, the slave was an object, not a subject, of law. He had his own way legal status“thing”, “talking instrument”, an object of property along with other household equipment and means of production.

What was developed by Roman jurists was of great importance for the development of the concepts of human rights and freedoms legal understanding and interpretation of the state, legal definition powers and duties of officials and institutions. According to Roman jurisprudence, the state in its relations with individuals does not stand outside and above the legal order, but inside it as its component part, which has all the basic properties of law in general.

In Roman jurisprudence, the basis and criterion of what is fair, legal and correct in the relationship between an individual and the state is law, not the state: legal understanding is primary here and it also determines the legal nature of the understanding of the state. The state, therefore, must treat individuals not according to their own special rules, but as a law-abiding subject in accordance with the requirements of law common to all.

Thus, Roman jurisprudence, extending the unified concept of law to the state (as an object of its study along with positive law), interpreted the relationship between the state and the individual as a legal relationship.

Among the cities of Ancient Babylon, which were mastered by the Semites, the power and development of Babylon over time eclipsed all other states of Mesopotamia. That is why this territory and nearby cities began to be called Babylonia.

Cultural and political significance of Ancient Babylon

The period of the heyday and development of Ancient Babylon is called the period of the reign of Hammurabi. The beginning of his reign dates back to the 17th century BC, and as soon as he ascended the throne, Hammurabi began to pursue a policy of conquest.

His desire was to create a unified Babylonian empire, and he succeeded. This was the reason for the growing cultural and political importance of the Babylonian Empire at that time. After the death of the king, dominion over Babylon began to belong to the Kassites, who managed to seize the state.

Population of Ancient Babylon

Ancient Babylon belongs to the slave states, in which society was primarily divided into free people and slaves. Slaves represented the lowest stratum of the population, and belonged to things owned by the owner.

The slaves of Ancient Babylon were divided into private, temple and royal. There were only a few exceptions to the rights of slaves, for example, the children of a slave by her owner were considered free.

In turn, the free citizens of Ancient Babylon were divided into full and not full. The first group of citizens could own land and bear duties in favor of the state.

And incomplete citizens were called “muskenu”, and their position in the society of Ancient Babylon is still ambiguous. Their difference from full-fledged citizens comes from the “Laws of Hammurabi,” according to which they bore a different type of punishment and guilt.

Features of the government system

Most historians point out that the political system of Ancient Babylon is in many ways reminiscent of the system of Ancient Egypt. Thus, it was an eastern despotism, headed by a king.

All types of power: legislative, religious, judicial and executive belonged exclusively to him. The structure of the government included three main departments, such as financial, military and public works. Also in power were the vizier, the chief of finance, the military commander, the clerk and the butler.

A government bodies represented a system of local and central government bodies. The locals included the king's governors who ruled large cities. There were also established bodies of community self-government, and they could exercise partial judicial and administrative power locally.

Developed Law of Ancient Babylon

The period of Hammurabi's reign is remarkable and famous for the fact that during his reign collections of laws were created, into which the king himself invested a lot of effort and his own knowledge. “The Laws of Hammurabi” were engraved on a black basalt pillar, the text of the laws was under the image of the king.

The Laws of Hammurabi are divided into three main parts. The introduction is devoted to information that the gods endowed the king with power and about the good deeds of Hammurabi. This is followed by the basic laws, and the last part is devoted to a detailed conclusion.

The basis for these numerous laws was the old customary law, the new legislation developed by Hammurabi and the Sumerian codes of law. It is highlighted that the “Laws of Hammurabi” lacked religious and moralizing elements.