10. Philological divergence not decisive.
11, Order of clauses.
12, Suggestions of conscious change: (a) selection,
(0) revision, (c) amendment. ,. 18. Similarity to other ancient codes, li. VIEWS AS TO CHARACTER OF CONNEXION.
OI oR ge
Ke)
Doe Oo bO
Vili.
DOP Cobo Rt
Dow ono
H
= SOWOIAMS who
OO ~TH OR Oo POR
I. HistoRY AND ANALYSIS.
i. DISCOVERY OF THE CODE. — This body of ancient laws was first recovered to modern scholar-
ship by the discovery, in December 1901 and January 1902, of three enormous fragments of a block of black diorite, which, when fitted together, formed a stele 2°25 metres high and tapering from 1°90 to 1°65 metres. At the upper end of the front side was a sculptured bas-relief representing the king Hammurabi receiving his Code of Laws from the seated sun-god Shamash. The discovery was made by J. de Morgan at the Acropolis of Susa, the ancient Persepolis, once capital of an inde- pendent Elamite monarchy. :
This bas-relief measures °65 metres in height and ‘60 metres across. Immediately below it com- mences the longest Semitic inscription in cunei- form hitherto discovered. It is arranged in paral- lel columns, but each column is written belt-wise across the curved surface of the stele. Hence a reader must have turned his head on one side—to the left—to read the inscription. On the front side there are sixteen of these columns preserved. There were once five more, of which scarcely a trace is preserved, the inscription having been chiselled out and the stone repolished. n the reverse, twenty-eight columns are completely pre- served, with one or two breaks due to the sur- face being destroyed. The whole inscription may therefore be estimated to have contained forty- nine columns, four thousand lines, and about eight thousand words.
ii. LITERATURE CALLED FORTH BY THE DIS- cOVERY.—1, The inscription is most beautifully cut in the well-known style characteristic of the Hammurabi period. Careful rubbings or ‘squeezes’ were taken and sent to France. V. Scheil, with remarkable promptitude, published the text by photogravure in the fourth volume of the Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse (Leroux, Paris), under the direction of the French Minister of Public Instruction. This editio princeps was accompanied by an excellent transliteration into Roman char- acters, a good first translation, with a few useful footnotes, and a recapitulation of the legal enact- ments. This superb volume, in quarto, appeared in October 1902.
2. It at once attracted attention. In October the present writer gave a full account of it in a paper read before the Cambridge Theological Society, an abstract of which appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies, J anuary 1903. In November, H. Winckler published an independent version in German under the title of Die Gesetze Hammurabis, Kénigs von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr.: Das dilteste Gesetzbuch der Welt (Hinrichs, Leipzig ; second edition in March, third in Novem- ber, 1903). This was in some respects an improve- ment on Scheil’s translation, and was accompanied by some ingenious footnotes. About the same time R. Dareste gave a full account of the Code, comparing it with other ancient codes, in the Journal des Savants for October and November. In December the New York Independent began a series of articles by W. H. Ward, called ‘The most ancient Civil Code’ (December 11, 18, January 8, 15, 22). This closely followed Winckler’s trans- lation, but introduced some parallels from the laws of Moses. In February the present writer pub- lished a translation which aimed at being as literal as possible. This was accompanied by an exhaust- ive index, and appeared as the Oldest Code of Laws in the World (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh). In March appeared an article entitled ‘The re- cently discovered Civil Code of Hammurabi,’ by C. F. Kent, in the Biblical World. This gave a very readable account of the whole subject, and pointed out many Mosaic parallels. The transla- tion followed Winckler. In August, F. Mari issued an Italian translation, IZ Codice di Hammurabi e la Bibbia (Desclée & Co., Rome). In November,
CODE OF HAMMURABI
CODE OF HAMMURABI 585
D. H. Miiller gave, in the XY Jahresbericht der Israclitisch-Theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien, a very full account of the Code under the title ‘ Die Gesetze Hammurabis und die mosaische Gesetz- gebung’ (A. Holder, Vienna). This is specially noticeable for a beautiful Hebrew rendering, as well as an improved transcription and German translation. It has a very full commentary. About the same time appeared the first volume of Hammurabi's Gesetz, by J. Kohler and F. E. Peiser (Pfeiffer, Leipzig). It contains a new trans- lation, juristic version, and some good explanatory matter.
A number of books have been devoted to the comparison of this Code with other ancient legis- lations: S. Oettli, Das Gesetz Hammurabis und die Thora Israels (Deichert, Leipzig) ; J. Jeremias, Moses und Hammurabi (Hinrichs, Leipzig [first edition in March, second in November, 1903]); R. Dareste, ‘Le Code Babylonien d’Hammourabi’ (Nouvelle Revue Historique de droit frangais et étranger, xxvil. p. 5f., Larose, Paris); C. Stooss, ‘Das babylonische Strafrecht Hammurabis’ (Schweizerische Zeitschrift fiir Strafrecht, xvi. ps 1ff.); G. Cohn, Die Gesetze Hammurabis, a
ectorial address (Fiissli, Ziirich); H. Grimme, Das Gesetz Chammurabis und Moses (Bachem, Cologne); Pére Lagrange, ‘Le code de Hammou- rabi’ (Revue Biblique, xii. p. 27, Lecoffre, Paris) ; S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (A. & C. Black, London); W. St. C. Boscawen, First of Empires (Harper, London). Besides these, there have been a large number of reviews and notices. Most of the books just cited refer to other literature on cognate subjects. The comparisons with the Bible which they suggest will be given in square brackets at the end of the cor- responding sections of the Code (below, p. 599 ff.).