(M7) The whole of this inscription is not entirely new matter. The scribes of Ashurbânipal somewhere found a copy, or copies, of this inscription and made it into a series of tablets. Probably their originals were Babylonian tablets, for we know that in Babylonia the Code had been made into a series which bore the name of _Nînu ilu ṣîrum_, from the opening words of the stele. But, judging from the colophon of the Assyrian series, the scribes knew that the inscription came from a stele bearing the “image” of Ḥammurabi. A number of fragments belonging to such copies by later scribes were already published, by Dr. B. Meissner(8) and Dr. F. E. Peiser.(9) These were further commented upon by Professor Fr. Delitzsch,(10) who actually gave them the name “Code Hammurabi.” Some of these fragments enable us to restore one or two sections of the lost five columns. These fragments are now easily set in order and will doubtless lead to the discovery of many others, the meaning of which has not yet been recognized. They exhibit some variants of interest, showing that they were not made directly from this particular monument. Even at Susa another fragment was found of a duplicate stele. Hence we may hope to recover the whole text before long. (M8) The publication of the Code naturally excited great interest among scholars. It appeared in October, 1902, and, during the next month, Dr. H. Winckler issued a German translation of the Code under the title, _Die Gesetze Hammurabis Königs von Babylon um 2250 v. Chr. Das Älteste Gesetzbuch der Welt_, being _Heft 4_ of the fourth _Jahrgang_ of _Der alte Orient_. This marked an advance in some points on Scheil’s rendering, but is not entirely satisfactory. The present writer read a paper in October, 1902, before the Cambridge Theological Society, an abridged report of which appeared in the January _Journal_. He further published a baldly literal translation in February, 1903, entitled, _The Oldest Code of Laws in the World_.(11) In the _Journal des Savants_ for October and November, 1902, M. Dareste gave a luminous account of the subject-matter of the Code, especially valuable for its comparisons with the other most ancient law-codes. This of course was based on Scheil’s renderings. In the _Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung_ for January, 1903, Dr. H. Winckler, reviewing the fourth volume of the _Mémoires_, gave a useful account of the Code comparing it with some of the previously published fragments.