This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 6th May 2011
Hi everyone and welcome to this week's Friday quiz question.
What is the earliest surviving system of laws in the world?
Good Luck
Katy
one could be tempted to say the ‘mythical’ ten commandments… but that would be too obvious… presumably something along those lines though… must be carved in stone for it to have survived… unless that too is a myth…?
I suppose it is the Law Code of Hammurabi.
Here I go again, what does 'surviving' mean here? Is it 'that we know about' or 'still in force'?
Have to agree with you, Ferval. This question lacks precision in its phrasing but, hey, so do most of the questions posed on these boards. How I hate questions that take the format: What was the worst, or best, or greatest, etc. .....? You may as well ask what is your favourite colour?! No objectivity to the question or the ensuing thread.
That is not to say that this question falls into that category. It does not but it is a little ambiguous as you point out.
Besides that all societies promulgate rules or laws that govern their daily conduct going back as long as humans have lived in communities. Hammurabi's is neither remarkable nor any different to the law codes of contemporary societies, whether written or not , or for that matter, older societies whose codes do not survive.
Where is the question setter gone? Is Hammurabi the right answer or not? Is Daniel-K right?
The Code of Hammurabi is correct. Sorry its taken a little while to respond back.
I'll also ensure that future questions are more precise - so thanks for letting me know what you don't like.
Your turn
Staying on a legal theme - What was unusual about the defendant at the trial of Pope Formosus?
He was dead, although they decked his corpse out in all his papal finery. He was found guilty, excommunicated and then thrown in the Tiber. They fished him out later and sold bits of him as relics.
I think.
Yep.
I'm trying to remember what poor old Formosus had done to upset everyone so badly. Nordmann explained it all yonks ago on my old Luther thread. I think it was actually because of some indiscretion committed by his mother.
Teenagers can be a real pain, especially when they're the Pope. One young Pontiff caused outrage at the Vatican with his wild parties and general bad behaviour. He ended up trying to raise cash by selling the Papacy to a rellie, then changed his mind and said he wanted to be Pope again. He was only eighteen though, and we were all a bit daft at that age.
Who was he?
Pope Benedict...
Can't remember which one though. He was Pope 3 times I think.
Stab in the dark - how about Pope Benedict XII?
You can have it, 1507George! It was actually Pope Benedict IX, but he was indeed Pope three times. He was quite a lad by all accounts.
The info on Formosus is here (#23). It wasn't Formosus's mum, but Lambert's mum I was thinking of:
Edward Everett was an American politician who served with great distinction in many roles. In 1863 he wrote a letter including the following -
"I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
Who did he send the letter to, and to what was he referring?
I know there were two speeches at the dedication of the cemetary at Gettysburg, the famous (short) address by Lincoln and another much longer one by someone else, so I'm going to take a stab that the other speech was by Everett and he wrote the letter to Lincoln modestly contrasting his own efforts with Lincoln's concise masterpiece.
Abe Lincoln, re the Gettysburg Address. Everett had delivered a two-hour formal address on the same occasion.
Daniel wins it by a short head.
Your turn to set a question.
I remembered the two speeches at Gettysburg not from a history book but from Gore Vidal's novel about Lincoln. Vidal also wrote a novel about Julian the Apostate, the last pagan Roman Emperor. But who did Eusebius claim had been the first Christian Roman Emperor some while before Constantine the Great?
Hi Katy,
About the time I learnt about the Laws of Hammurabi, I also learnt about the Laws of Manu, in I think, India. I wonder who preceded whom. I am quite foggy about anything else because it was a very long time ago.
Tas
The Laws of Hammurabi are certainly older (1700 BCE) whereas the Laws of Manu (1500 BCE) are younger by 200 years.
The laws of Hammurabi have been found on a Clay Tablet.
Tas
, in reply to message 17.
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 6th May 2011
Diocletian?
Not Diocletian. It is starting to look like I've killed the quiz. I'll try and come up with a decent clue. For the moment I will just say the Emperor in question was earlier than Diocletian.
Marcus Aurelius?
Later than Marcus Aurelius. So we've got his range at least.
Well, Alexander Severus did want to build a temple to the founder of Christianity, so he's a candidate, surely?
Oh hell's teeth, they changed emperors more often than their socks in that period and I know nothing about many of them virtually nothing about most of them.
, in reply to message 25.
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 6th May 2011
Theodosius?
Not Alexander Severus. Not Theodosius. I didn't realise this one would be that hard.
Let's move on. Easy clue: If the Duke of Edinburgh had been born further south (or, even better, further south-east) he might be known as this.
A bit too easy a clue, Daniel, but interesting since although I've heard the name, he's one of the ones I know nothing about. Phil the Arab.
We have a winner. I know the clue was easy but I'm not going to be around tomorrow so I wanted the question answered before the end of today. You can bear the terrible burden of being question-setter for a while now, ferval.
Damn, should have waited.
OK, staying in a loosely related vein, where can you see the tomb of a saint whose namesake was a martyr described as "a man of most contemptible laziness", read an inscription including "Fili dele pute", meaning "Son of a whore" and, if you feel so inclined, throw 3 coins in a sewer?
Rather than have this drag on all day, here's a clue. It's a church but one with something unchristian in the cellar.
Next clue, we're in Rome and and the saint enjoys citrus fruit.
Or we could be with the Vikings in London, I suppose ....
Ding dong, chocks away!
Up and at 'em, Ur.
OK so it's the Basilica of St Clemente, and it's got a Mithraeum underneath, and frescos where the ungodly think they've captured St Clement but really they've got a rock or something. The sewer bit escapes me.
Down in the basement, in the remaining parts of the early house through from the mithraeum, there's the deafening noise of running water, an underground stream which is thought to join the cloaca maxima and you can see down into it. Naturally there are those who can't resist chucking in coins.
The whole complex is one of the best of the less frenetic sites in Rome.
Question please Ur, I need to have a diversion, it's too wet to go out.
Sorry, been out samba-ing at the Birmingham Walkathon.
If you see the Abbots Bromley Horn Dance in Abbpts Bromley, and away from the village, what is different?
Hmmmm, could it be that watching the display of the abbots horns in the village is considered participation in a local tradition whereas anywhere else, it's liable to have you put on a register?
Are you speaking from experience there?
Given I've never heard of the abbot and certainly never seen his horn, no, but it sounds....... interesting.
Does this ritual involve the headgear of some sort of ungulate? I would guess there's a cloven hoof around as well.
Abbots Bromley was one of the estates granted to Burton Abbey under the will of Wulfric Spot, and yes, the "horns" - which modern pedants would not describe as "horns" are part of the ritual - and part of the mystery.
No takers, so here's the answer:
When danced in Abbots Bromley itself, according to wikimisledia :
The "horns" are six sets of reindeer antlers, three white and three black. In 1976, a small splinter was radiocarbon dated to around 1065. Since there are not believed to have been any reindeer in England in the 11th Century, the horns must have been imported from Scandinavia.Â
When "dancing out" the real horns remain in the Parish church, and are replaed by 6 sets of red deer antlers.
his shows the "real" horns in use :
Well!!!
It seems pretty damn certain that the horns were imported, there's no evidence of reindeer in Britain after about 7000BC, but there's plenty of evidence of importation of antler material during the Viking period. 1065 - suspiciously precise date, just makes the 'English' rather than 'Norman' is there a bit of a spin here?
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.