Chapter V: Discussions

All the above works contained more or less discussion of the Code from various points of view.

In October, 1902, the present writer read a paper before the _Cambridge Theological Society_, an abstract of which appeared in the January number of the _Journal of Theological Studies_ (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1903). The Code was here dealt with as _material for comparison with the Laws of Moses_, but no comparison was made. A. UNGNAD wrote _Zur Syntax der Gesetze Hammurabis_ in vol. xvii of the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, pp. 353-78 (Strassburg, K. J. Trübner, May, 1903), and again in vol. xviii, pp. 1-67. The text of the Code, by its careful phraseology and exact use of grammatical forms, has become a classic for the study of the language. The order of the sentence is, however, somewhat unusual, and probably shows the influence of the legal phraseology of the time, which was based on Sumerian law precedents. D. H. MÜLLER took up this point in _Die Wortfolge bei Hammurabi und die sumerische Frage_, an article in _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. xvii, pp. 337-42 (Wien, Hölder, 1904), followed by _Noch einmal die Wortfolge bei Hammurabi und die sumerische Frage_, vol. xviii, pp. 89-94. _Der Gebrauch der Modi in den Gesetzen Hammurabis_, xviii, pp. 95-8, by D. H. MÜLLER, appeared in the _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_ (Vienna, A. Hölder, 1904).

In the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vol. xviii, pp. 202-22, S. DAICHES contributed a most important article, _Zur Erklärung des Hammurabi-Codex_ (1904). The same title was used by A. UNGNAD for an article in the _Wissenschaftliches Correspondenzblatt der Philologie—Novitates_ for October, 1906, pp. 8-9.

In vol. xix of the _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, pp. 388-91, CHR. SARAUW took up the grammar of the Code in an article _Zum Kasus-System des Hammurabi-Kodex_, 1906.

E. WOHLFRAMM has since written _Untersuchungen zur Syntax des Codex Hammurabis_ (Leipzig, Drugulin, 1910).

In the _Expository Times_, vol. xiv, pp. 257-8, the present writer gave an article on the _Code of Hammurabi_, and in _The Journal of Theological Studies_, vol. v, pp. 313-16, under the same title, a notice of the bibliography at that date. A. W. SAYCE wrote on _The Laws of Hammurabi_, _Expository Times_, vol. xv, pp. 184-6. _The Code of King Hammurabi_ appeared in _The Times_, April 14, 1903; _The Laws of Hammurabi_, by L. T. HOBHOUSE, in _The Speaker_, March 7, 1903; D. O. DYKES in _The Juridical Review_, discussed some legal points; E. KÖNIG gave an estimate in _Beweis des Glaubens_, 1903, pp. 169-80. P. LOTICHIUS wrote _Die Gesetzessammlung des Königs Hammurabi von Babylon_ in _Protestantenblatt_, 1903, nos. 29, 30. C. F. LEHMANN contributed an article on _Hammurabi’s Code_ to _The Nineteenth Century_, 1903, pp. 1035-44. These served to give a wider publicity to the Code.

In _Notes on the Hammurabi Monument_, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. xxv, pp. 266-78, D. G. LYON, 1904 (New Haven, Conn.), and in _Notes on the Code of Hammurabi_, _American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, vol. xxii, pp. 1-28, R. F. HARPER (Chicago, University Press, 1905) made some important contributions to the understanding of the text. D. H. MÜLLER wrote _Ueber die Gesetze Hammurabis_ (Wien, Hölder, 1904); T. G. PINCHES had an article _Hammurabi’s Code of Laws_ in the _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1902, pp. 301-8, among other valuable comments pointing out a hitherto unrecognized fragment in Ashurbanipal’s Library. The present writer discussed some difficulties in _Notes on the Code of Hammurabi_ contributed to the _American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature_, vol. xix, pp. 96-107, 172-5 (Chicago, University Press, 1903); T. G. PINCHES wrote also on _The Laws of the Babylonians as recorded in the Code of Hammurabi_ in _The Journal of the Victoria Institute_, 1903, pp. 237-55.

P. CRUVEILHIER discussed _Le Code de Hammurabi_ in _Revue du Clergé français_, 1912, pp. 413 ff.

There is not space to chronicle all the reviews of these books and articles on the Code, though many of them are practically articles in themselves and marked advances. As a rule, later books used up all that appeared in the reviews of any note, and some of them give references to such sources. Such discussions are of fundamental importance for the exact understanding of the Code.

SEPARATE SECTIONS.

Many discussions arose as to the meaning of particular sections. Thus C F. LEHMANN(-HAUPT) wrote in _Klio_, vol. iii, pp. 32-41 (1904), on _Ein missverstandenes Gesetz Hammurabis_, which was also taken as the title of an article by F. E. PEISER in _Orientalistische Litteraturzeitung_, vol. vii, cols. 236-7 (1904). Neither of these scholars can be said to have quite settled the questions they had raised; but the subject of §§ 185-93 was greatly cleared by their thoughtful treatment.

In 1908 M. SCHORR contributed to the _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. xxii, pp. 385-92, an article on _Die §§ 280-282 des Gesetzbuches Hammurabis_, followed, pp. 393-8, by an article of D. H. MÜLLER on _Die §§ 280-282 des Kodex Hammurabis_.