(M220) The State appears in the light of the Ḥammurabi Code to have been composed of three great classes, the _amêlu_, the _muškênu_, and the _ardu_. To the first class belonged the king and the chief officers of state, and also the landed proprietors. Their liabilities for fines and punishments were higher. Also in their case the old law of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” still held; while others came under a scale of compensations and damages. This may point to a racial difference. The ancient laws of Arabia may have been carried with them by Ḥammurabi’s tribal followers, while the older subject-residents accepted the more commercial system of fines. The old pride of the Arab tribesman may have forbidden his taking money as payment for his damaged eye, or tooth. But the _muškênu_ was more “humble,” as his name denotes, and may well have formed the bulk of the subject-population. He was a free man, not a beggar. He was not without considerable means, as we see from the sections referring to theft from him. He had slaves,(62) and seems to have been liable to conscription. His fees to a doctor or surgeon were less than those paid by an _amêlu_. He paid less to his wife for a divorce,(63) and could assault another poor man more cheaply than could an _amêlu_. There can be no doubt that the _amêlu_ was the “gentleman” or “nobleman,” and the _muškênu_ a common man, or poor man. But the exact force of the terms is uncertain. In process of time _amêlu_ came to be used, like our “sir,” and even “esquire,” of those who had no special qualifications for the title. Like the “gentleman’s gentleman” of the servant’s hall, he was only a respectable person. So, even in the Code, _amêlu_ usually means no more than “man.” It already appears as a mere determinative of personality in the titles of laborers and artisans,(64) when it cannot stamp them as landed proprietors. But it may mark them as members of the guilds of craftsmen and recall the respect due to such. If, however, we press this, we must admit a guild of day laborers. There is no suggestion of any legal disability on the part of a _muškênu_; he is merely a person of less consideration. Whether or not his ranks were recruited from the children of slaves by free parents is not clear, but it is very probable that they were.