diem docet is applicable, there is great danger of producing a piece of work that is antiquated before it leaves the press. At times a publication appeared too late to be utilized. So Delitzsch's important contribution to the origin of cuneiform writing[4] was published long after the introductory chapters had been printed. In this book he practically abandons his position on the Sumerian question (as set forth on p. 22 of this volume) and once more joins the opposite camp. As far as my own position is concerned, I do not feel called upon to make any changes from the statements found in chapter i., even after reading Weissbach's Die Sumerische Frage (Leipzig, 1898),—the latest contribution to the subject, which is valuable as a history of the controversy, but offers little that is new. Delitzsch's name must now be removed from the list of those who accept Halévy's thesis; but, on the other hand, Halévy has gained a strong ally in F. Thureau-Dangin, whose special studies in the old Babylonian inscriptions lend great weight to his utterances on the origin of the cuneiform script. Dr. Alfred Jeremias, of Leipzig, is likewise to be added to the adherents of Halévy. The Sumero-Akkadian controversy is not yet settled, and meanwhile it is well to bear in mind that not every Assyriologist is qualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. A special study is required, and but few Assyriologists have made such a study. Accepting a view or a tradition from one's teacher does not constitute a person an authority, and one may be a very good Assyriologist without having views on the controversy that are of any particular value.

Lastly, I desire to call attention to the Bibliography, on which much time has been spent, and which will, I trust, be found satisfactory. In a list of addenda at the end of the book, I have noted some errors that slipped into the book, and I have also embodied a few additions. The copious index is the work of my student, Dr. S. Koppe, and it gives me pleasure to express my deep obligations to him for the able and painstaking manner in which he has carried out the work so kindly undertaken by him. The drawing for the map was made by Mr. J. Horace Frank of Philadelphia.

To my wife more thanks are due than I can convey in words for her share in the work. She copied almost all of the manuscript, and in doing so made many valuable suggestions. Without her constant aid and encouragement I would have shrunk from a task which at times seemed too formidable to be carried to a successful issue. As I lay down my pen after several years of devotion to this book, my last thought is one of gratitude to the beloved partner of my joys and sorrows.

MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.
University of Pennsylvania,
June, 1898.

FOOTNOTES:

CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.

[Transcriber's Note: These changes and additions are printed only here; the main text is as it was in the original.]

Page, Line.

22. See Preface.

35, 10. Isin or Nisin, see Lehmann's Shamash-shumukin, I. 77; Meissner's Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht, p. 122.

61. Bau also appears as Nin-din-dug, i.e., 'the lady who restores life.' See Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, I. 2, Nos. 95, 106, 111.

74. On Ã, see Hommel, Journal of Transactions of Victoria Institute, XXVIII. 35-36.

99, 24. Ur-shul-pa-uddu is a ruler of Kish.

102, 13. For Ku-anna, see IIIR. 67, 32 c-d.

102, 24. For another U-mu as a title of Adad, see Delitzsch, Das Babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos, p. 125, note.

111, 2. Nisaba is mentioned in company with the great gods by Nebopolassar (Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, I. 1. Pl. 32, col. II. 15).

165. Note 2. On these proper names, see Delitzsch's "Assyriologische Miscellen" (Berichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kgl. sächs. Gesell. d. Wiss., 1893, pp. 183 seq.).

488. Note 1. See now Scheil's article "Recueil de Travaux," etc., XX. 55-59.

529. The form Di-ib-ba-ra has now been found. See Scheil's "Recueil de Travaux," etc., XX. 57.

589. Note 3. See now Hommel, Expository Times, VIII.