A very large amount of work has been done by others on various aspects of the Code of Hammurabi, especially on the Continent, where the facilities for publication appear to be greatly superior to those in England. What is done here is, however, of excellent quality; and MR. S. A. COOK undertook a detailed comparison with the laws of Hammurabi and other codes which[6] leaves very little to be desired. MR. ST. CHAD BOSCAWEN in his _First of Empires_ stated some interesting opinions, and MR. CHILPERIC EDWARDS has given a fresh translation. PROFESSOR R. F. HARPER gave a useful handbook of the text with new translation, index, vocabulary, sign-list, &c., which makes the study simple to those who can read cuneiform. Reference may be made to the Bibliographies given in these and other books listed in the Bibliography printed on pp. 65 ff. With such a volume of literature already published, it may seem superfluous to add a further contribution. Indeed, when the present writer read an account of the Code to the Cambridge Theological Society in October 1902, he was quite content to call his paper _The Code of Hammurabi, fresh material for comparison with the Mosaic Code_. He would have been well content to leave it as such, being rather concerned to furnish material for study than to make direct contributions to the application of it to subjects beyond his competence. Much that has been published on this comparison, however, seems to him really inadequate or so ill-considered that it appears to be a duty to submit a different view. He is fully conscious that it is only one view and may prove to be wrong. Yet it seems to him that it is a view which takes account of more facts than any other, and, while not admitting of formal proof, is both reasonable and probable. Briefly stated, the view thus taken is that the Code of Hammurabi belongs to the same group of ancient legislations as the Hebrew, and that both are compromises between two distinct types of law.