Hammurabi’s code was considered a big advance in the rule of law because it gave the written law supreme power. The ideal expressed by the code was that everyone would be subject to a set of clear rules rather than the arbitrary decisions of one person. Even the King had to follow the law.
But it occurs to me that it’s easier to talk the talk than walk the walk. So is there evidence that Hammurabi actually followed in practice the principles he posted? Or was it a case where Hammurabi put up public announcements that a king’s powers were limited to what was in the law but then went ahead and did whatever he wanted anyway?
I think evidence is rather thin on the ground in this regard.
Remember, literacy wasn’t all that common, and was largely a skill set acquired by professional training. In other words, there are unlikely to have been writers critiquing the system impartially from outside, or even writing anything about H. that wasn’t propaganda of a sort. Even if it existed, that writing would have had to escape destruction. Clay tablets are labor-intensive to copy and comparatively easy to destroy. Finally, Hammurabi aside, time has only preserved a small portion of the available writings, and of that only a fraction has been recovered, and of that only a fraction has been transcribed, and of that only a fraction (admittedly a larger one) has been translated, and of that only a fraction has been published, and of that only a fraction is searchable online by people like us.