In 1903 D. H. MÜLLER delivered lectures on the Code embodied in _Vorläufige Mitteilungen über die Gesetze des Hammurabi_, published in the _Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Classe der K. K. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien_, vol. xiv, and in the _X. Jahresbericht der israelitisch-theologischen Lehranstalt in Wien_, 1903, issued _Die Gesetze Hammurabis und die mosaische Gesetzgebung_, afterwards published as a separate work (Vienna, A. Hölder, 1903), with some additions. It contained not only a transcription, but a remarkable translation into Hebrew, which did much to bring out the likeness to the laws of Moses, and made the Code accessible to a variety of deeply interested readers who would have missed the point of a transcription, or even of a translation into modern German. It was severely attacked by KOHLER and PEISER in the _Deutsche Literatur-Zeitung_, 1904, no. 5. MÜLLER replied in no. 8, where KOHLER answered him. MÜLLER, however, made many acute suggestions as to the Babylonian text, as well as the subject-matter, and his views have received continued support. His comparison with the other ancient codes, especially with the books of Moses and the Roman Twelve Tables, was full of fresh matter and well deserves careful study. In 1904 was published what promised to be an epoch-making work. J. KOHLER, Professor of Comparative Law in the University of Berlin, brought his unrivalled knowledge of ancient laws to bear on the legal side of the Code; and F. E. PEISER, so well versed in Babylonian Legal Documents (see p. 83, below), who had worked with KOHLER before, attempted an improved translation. The work appeared as Band I of _Hammurabi’s Gesetze_, and contained _Übersetzung, juristische Wiedergabe, Erläuterung_ (Leipzig, Pfeiffer). Band II was to contain philological researches, a transcription with a grammatical and lexicographical treatment. Band III was to be an _Urkundenbuch_, to give a selection of the more important documents of the Hammurabi period so as to form a contemporary commentary. In many points PEISER, or his translation, misled KOHLER, and the work was vigorously attacked by D. H. MÜLLER as _Die Kohler-Peisersche Hammurabi-Übersetzung_ in the _Zeitschrift für die Privat-und Öffentlichen Rechte der Gegenwart_, Bd. xxxi (Wien, Hölder, 1904). M. SCHORR also contributed an article on _Die Kohler-Peisersche Hammurabi-Übersetzung_ to the _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, vol. xviii, pp. 208-40, with a long series of acute and severe criticisms. We may note here MÜLLER’s _Zur Hammurabi-Kritik_ in _Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lix, pp. 145-9, ZIMMERN’s article under same title, same place, pp. 150-4, and MÜLLER’s article with the same title in _Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, xix, pp. 371-88, carrying on a controversy which cleared up some points. In this great work A. UNGNAD became associated with KOHLER, and to him is due the _Umschrift_