But the great distinction of Rawlinson l_The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions

translation. Large numbers of Assyrian inscriptions were now before

the world. The ‘Monument de Khorsabad’ had appeared in 1848; Layard’s

collection followed in 1849, and included the inscription on the Black

Obelisk found in 1846. So far only a few words had been made out with

more or less of accuracy; but nothing had yet been done in the way of

a connected translation. The few lines of the Khorsabad inscription

which Hincks attempted in the Addenda to his paper (Feb. 26, 1850) had

not as yet appeared.[821] Rawlinson, however, observed that many of the

common expressions used at Behistun were adopted almost verbatim from

the Assyrian annals; and it was the discovery of these known passages in

the Assyrian inscriptions that first encouraged him to undertake their

translation. He disclaimed all pretensions to be ‘a complete master

of the Assyrian language’; and he still speaks of it as to a great

extent unintelligible. ‘The first outwork,’ he says, ‘has been carried

in a hitherto impregnable position, and that is all’ Indeed he is so

discouraged by the difficulty of the task that he is sometimes disposed

‘to abandon the study altogether in utter despair of arriving at any

satisfactory result.’ In consequence of the profusion of ideograms

in proper names, he finds that their ‘pronunciation is a matter of

exceeding difficulty, nay, as I think, of absolute impossibility’;

and it was in this department that he achieved the least success. He,

however, passes in review many of the principal inscriptions that were

then known, and analyses the contents of each.[822] He begins with the

earliest in date, the one taken from the North West Palace at Nineveh,

which he ascribes to King Assur-adan-pal—really Assur-natsir-pal. He

passes on to the inscription of his successor, whom he calls Temenbar

II. (really Salmaneser II.), which covers the Black Obelisk, and it is

to it that he devotes the largest share of attention.[823] His analysis,

partly a verbal translation and partly a summary, fills no less than

seventeen pages, and the achievement cannot fail to elicit unqualified

admiration. The unfortunate failure to identify a large proportion of

the proper names gives to it an unreal appearance that no doubt strikes

the modern student unfavourably and may at first lead him to exaggerate

its deficiencies. If, however, he is careful to remember that it is the

first attempt of the kind ever made, his feelings will soon turn to

astonishment that so much should have been correctly made out of what had

hitherto been absolutely unintelligible. He may profitably compare a few

passages with a modern version. For example, Temenbar begins: ‘At the

commencement of my reign after that I was established on the throne I

assembled the chiefs of my people and came down into the plains of Esmes,

where I took the city of Haridu, the chief city belonging to Nakharmi.’

A recent translation of the same passage runs: ‘At the beginning of my

reign when on the throne of the kingdom I had seated myself in state,

my chariots and [my] armies I assembled. Into the depths of the land of

Simesi I penetrated; Aridu the strong city of Ninni I captured.’ Again

Rawlinson translates: ‘I went out from the city of Nineveh and crossing

the Euphrates I attacked and defeated Ahuni, the son of Hateni, in the

city of Sitrat, which was situated upon the Euphrates, and which Ahuni

had made one of his capitals. Ahuni, the son of Hateni, with his gods and

his chief priests, his horses, his sons and his daughters and all his

men of war, I brought away to my country of Assyria.’ The modern version

says: ‘I departed from Nineveh; the Euphrates I crossed at its flood; I

marched against Akhuni, the son of Adini. The country of Shitamrat, a

mountain peak on the banks of the Euphrates, he made his stronghold. The

peak of the mountain I captured; Akhuni, with his gods, his chariots, his

horses, his sons, his daughters and his army, I carried away and to my

city of Assur I brought’;[824] and so on through the events of thirty-one

years of the reign of the great king. On the other hand, it would be too

much to say that even the sense is always preserved. There are, in fact,

many and serious divergencies from the correct translation as it now

stands, after more than forty years’ continuous study. It is impossible

that it could have been otherwise with the means then at hand. The

wonder is that so much could have been accomplished with one hundred

and fifty imperfectly understood characters; and with only five hundred

words arrived at conjecturally out of some six thousand. Rawlinson

himself warned the reader that here and there ‘little dependence can be

placed on the translation’; and he confesses that sometimes he could

not ‘conjecture even the meaning of several passages.’ Notwithstanding

his difficulty with the proper names, a host of new ones were now for

the first time identified: Amanus; the Hittites; Chaldæans; the rivers

Tigris, Euphrates, Belikh; the cities of Borsippa, Tyre, Sidon, Gabal,

Caleh. On the other hand, the Akkadians now make their first appearance

in modern history as ‘Hekdi,’ ‘which may be connected with the Armenian

“Haik.”’ Hazael of Damascus is still concealed as ‘Khazakan of Atesh’ and

‘Jehu the son of Omri’ appears as ‘Yahua the son of Hubiri,’ ‘a prince,’

says the translator, ‘of whose native country I am ignorant.’ He called

attention to the name of Yehuda in a Khorsabad inscription in connection

with that of Hamath; but he hesitated to identify it with Judah. Indeed

at this period he could not bring himself to believe that the son of

the Khorsabad king was Sennacherib and his grandson Esarhaddon, as

Hincks ventured to assert.[825] The signs for Sargon he transliterated

‘Arko-tsin,’ and those for Sennacherib, ‘Bel — — Adonim-sha’; but

Esarhaddon came out almost correct as ‘Assar-Adan.’ He concludes his

paper by an analysis of the inscriptions found at Khorsabad, containing

the annals of ‘Arko-tsin.’

It was not till the following year, and till after Rawlinson’s return

to Persia, that the publication of the third column of the Behistun

inscription was completed. It fills the fourteenth volume of the

‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ and the greater part of it was

laid on the table before May 1851.[826] A portion of the expense was

defrayed by a Government grant, made at the suggestion of Lord John

Russell; and the volume consists of seventeen large plates containing

the cuneiform text with transliteration and a Latin translation. Then

comes an ‘Indiscriminate List of Babylonian and Assyrian Characters,’

with their phonetic powers, and also such ideographic values as

had been ascertained. The list includes two hundred and forty-six

principal signs, many of which are followed by others varying in form;

and generally representing the different methods of writing found at

Persepolis, Babylon and Nineveh. An analysis of the text, extending over

a hundred pages, follows, but it has not been carried farther than to

the end of the first column. The ‘Memoir on the Babylonian and Assyrian

Inscriptions’ is even more incomplete. It covers only sixteen pages, and

breaks off in the middle of a sentence, before the analysis of the second

sign was concluded. No explanation is given of this abrupt termination.

The discovery of a separate sign for each combination of vowel and

consonant, explained by Dr. Hincks in his Appendix of January 1850,

no doubt exercised considerable influence on Rawlinson,[827] and we

are now in a position to recognise the full effect it produced in the

progress of the study. How far Rawlinson independently divined the

existence of some such principle is by no means clear, but we have no

doubt that when he read his first paper to the Society he was still of

opinion that the alphabetical system entered largely into the Assyrian

language. ‘Many of the characters,’ he then said, ‘can only be explained

as single consonants.’[828] In accordance with this view, when he had

occasion to refer to the Assyrian characters, he uniformly gives them

purely alphabetical values, although in many cases their correct syllabic

values had been already definitely fixed in Hincks’s Essay.[829] Hincks

himself pointed this out in one notable case. In 1850, Rawlinson said

that the suffix of the third person plural is a simple _n_; but soon

afterwards Hincks showed that the consonantal termination is followed by

_u_. This opinion Rawlinson adopted in 1851, and remarked of the word

‘Yatipsu,’ ‘the termination in _u_ marks, of course, the plural number

like the Hebrew.’[830] ‘When,’ says Hincks, ‘the commentary was published

[in 1850] no _u_ could be discovered. The sign he now reads _su_ was a

simple _s_.’[831] These facts are not sufficiently accounted for by the

explanation Rawlinson gives in his present Memoir. ‘In the articulation

_kat_, for example, which is composed of two characters, _ka_ and _at_,

either one or other of these signs must represent a simple letter rather

than a syllable; and as this peculiarity of expression pervades the

whole Assyrian alphabet, I think I am justified in still adhering to the

statement which I announced last year, that the phonetic signs were in

some cases syllabic and in others literal.’[832] However this may be,

he now finally abandons the description of the signs as letters, and no

simple alphabetical values are to be found in his ‘Indiscriminate List.’

There can be little doubt that the alteration in the method of writing is

to be best explained by a corresponding change of opinion.[833] However

great may have been his obligation to Hincks, he soon made the discovery

his own. He corrects the errors and supplies the deficiencies of his

predecessor. He suppresses the twofold signs for _a_, and limits the

regular syllabic combinations to the three vowels _a_, _i_ and _u_, which

thus yielded six instead of seven values for each of the consonants.

Following Hincks, he accepts only fifteen distinct consonantal values,

but he prefers to use _z_ and _kh_ in place of the _j_ and _g_ of Hincks,

now written _z_ and _ḫ_. With these he has given one hundred and seven

simple syllabic combinations, a much larger number than really exists;

but he has no less than seventy-eight correct, out of a possible number

that slightly exceeds eighty.[834] He, however, took no account of the

signs that indicated the exceptional combinations with the vowel _e_,

which amount to about a dozen. This defect was soon afterwards noticed

by Hincks, who, however, signally failed in his attempt to identify

them. On the other hand, we are now introduced for the first time to the

compound syllables that form so large a portion of the Babylonian signs.

These, unlike the simple syllables so successfully treated by Hincks,

consist of two consonants separated by a vowel. It is true that a few

made their appearance in Hincks’s short translation from the Khorsabad

inscription (February 1850), such as ‘sib,’ ‘kun,’ ‘bul’ and ‘gur,’ along

with three others that are incorrect.[835] We also learn from a later

publication that before the appearance of Rawlinson’s Syllabarium Hincks

knew the values of upwards of twenty other compound syllabic signs.[836]

But they do not seem to have been made known to the world, and they all,

with the exception of five, are now met in the Syllabarium for the first

time. Rawlinson gives sixty-eight of these syllables, and no less than

fifty are correct. He has been unable to give any phonetic value to sixty

out of his two hundred and forty-six principal signs, but in several

cases he has determined their ideographic meaning. The distribution of

the signs, as explained by Hincks, considerably diminished the number of

supposed homophones, and the compound syllables now enumerated tended

in the same direction. But Rawlinson dwells with increasing bitterness

on the extreme confusion introduced into the language by polyphones.

He complains that ‘after years of laborious research he has overcome

the difficulty to but a limited extent.’ ‘The meaning of a word,’ he

says, ‘may be ascertained from the trilingual inscriptions, or from its

occurring in a variety of passages with only one possible signification;

but unless its correspondent can be recognised in some Semitic tongue

it is often impossible, owing to the employment in it of a polyphone

character to fix its orthography; and this uncertainty presses on the

student with almost crushing severity.’[837] In addition to this, he had

to contend with the difficulty that besets all early decipherers—the

inability to distinguish between his own correct and incorrect values,

where the latter often cause more confusion than if the sound were

still regarded as doubtful. Notwithstanding all these obstacles, his

transliteration was sufficient to afford a considerable knowledge of

the nature of the language; and to enable the student to recognise the

connection of the words that resulted with their Semitic relatives. In

the forty years that elapsed between the version we are now considering,

and that given by Dr. Bezold, a whole army of scholars has been

ceaselessly at work upon the Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions, and

the point they have reached is naturally far in advance of that in which

it was placed by the first Essay of Rawlinson. The comparison of a few

passages, taken almost at random, will enable the reader to appreciate

the position the study had reached in 1851.[838] The first lines of the

inscription are rendered thus by Rawlinson, De Saulcy and Bezold.

PARAGRAPH I.

_Raw._ X Ha Kha ma ni s a melek[839]

_De S._ A Kh m n s ah sar(?)

_Bez._ _ᵐ_a ḫa ma ni iš ’ šarru

_Raw._ (—) (—) x Par sa i melek

_De S._ sar i ? F(ar) s i sar

_Bez._ par -sa -a-a šarru

_Raw._ X Par su X Da ri ya sar melek

_De S._ ? F(ar) s D r ia s sar

_Bez._ par su _ᵐ_ da ri i’a muš šarru

_Raw._ ki ha m i gab bi at t u a ab u a

_De S._ r a m i t b at t ou a at ou a

_Bez._ Ki a am i gab bi at tu u a abu u a

_Raw._ X Vas ta s’ pi abi sa X Vas ta s pi

_De S._ Is t s p at s Is t s p

_Bez._ _ᵐ_ uš ta az pi abu ša _ᵐ_ uš ta az pi

PARAGRAPH II.

_Raw._ X Ar ya ra m n ’a abi sa

_De S._ ar ia r m n ah at s

_Bez._ _ᵐ_ ar i’a-ra am na ’ abu ša

_Raw._ X ar ya ra m n a X Si s pi s

_De S._ ar ia r m n ah Ch s p s

_Bez._ _ᵐ_ ar i’a ra am na ’ _ᵐ_ ši i pi iš

_Raw._ abi sa X si s pi s X Ha kha ma ni s a

_De S._ at s Ch s p s A kh m n s a

_Bez._ abu ša _ᵐ_ ši iš pi iš _ᵐ_ a ḫa ma ni iš ’

_Raw._ X Da ri ya sar melek ki ha m i gab bi

_De S._ D r ia s sar r a m i ts b

_Bez._ ᵐ da ri i’a muš šarru ki a am i gab bi

_Raw._ a n eb(?) bi ha g a

_De S._ a n k m a d a

_Bez._ a na lib bi a ga a

PARAGRAPH III.

_Raw._ ha ga ni ul tu abu t (—)

_De S._ a d n s t at t Nin

_Bez._ a ni ni ul tu abu u(?) zeru

_Raw._ u ni Melik iv? su n

_De S._ ou n sar i ou n

_Bez._ ú ni šarru (_pl._) šu nu

_Raw._ X Da ri ya sar melek ki ha m

_De S._ D r ia s sar r a m

_Bez._ _ᵐ_ da ri i’a muš šarru ki a am

_Raw._ i gab bi VIII as eb(?) (—) ya

_De S._ i ts b VIII B k (kim) Nin ia

_Bez._ i gab bi VIII ina libbu zeru i’a

_Raw._ at t u a as pa na t u a melik ut

_De S._ at t ou a B F n t ou a sar t

_Bez._ at tu u a ina pa na tu u a šarru tu

_Raw._ i t ip su

_De S._ i t kh ou(?)

_Bez._ i te ip šu

The passage is thus translated by the three scholars:

_Raw._ ‘[Ego Darius, rex magnus, rex regum, Hystaspis filius

Arsamis nepos] Achaemenis rex gentium Persicarum; rex Persidis.

Darius rex [ ] dicit: mihi pater meus Hystaspes: pater qui

Hystaspis [Arsames: pater qui Arsamis] Ariaramnes: pater qui

Ariaramnis Teispes: pater qui Teispis Achaemenes. Darius rex [ ]

dicit: ob hanc [rationem nos Achaemenses appellamur ab antiquo

oriundi (?)] sumus; ab antiquo stirps noster reges fuere(?)

Darius rex [ ] dicit: octo e genere meo ante me regnum egere.’

_De S._ ‘[_Lacune_] Akhéménès roi des rois, homme perse, roi du

pays de Perse, Darius roi grand, dit: Mes pères, Hystaspe; le

père de Hystaspe [_lacune_] Ariaramnès; le père de Ariaramnàh

Chispis: le père de Chispis, Akhéménès Darius, roi grand dit:

Pour raison cette [_lacune_] au temps de nos pères nous avons

régné, au temps des pères notre race [furent] leurs rois. Darius

roi grand dit: Huit dans l’état de ma race, mes pères dans mon

visage [avant moi] la royauté ont pris elle (?) [_lacune_].’

_Bez._ ‘[Ich, Darius, der grosse König, der König der Könige,

der König der Länder (?)] der Achämenide: König der Schar (?)

der Menschen, ein Perser, König von Persien. So spricht Darius

der König: Mein Vater [ist] Uštazpi; der Vater des Uštazpi

[war Arshâma, der Vater des Arshâma] Ariaramna, der Vater des

Ariaramna Šišpiš, der Vater des Šišpiš, [war] Aḫamanis. So

spricht Darius der König: Darum [werden wir Achämeniden genannt;

von Alters her sind wir erprobt], von Alters her (?) waren unsere

Sprossen Könige. So spricht Darius der König: Acht in mitten

meiner Familie übten vor mir die Königsherrschaft aus.’

In the August of this year (1851) Rawlinson was able to announce that

he had met with an inscription that satisfactorily fixed the date of

the Lower Assyrian dynasty. We have said that this was in reality done

long before by Longpérier when he identified the Khorsabad king with

the Sargon of Isaiah (1847); and by Hincks, who was satisfied that

the builders of the later palaces were Sennacherib and Esarhaddon

(1849). But we have seen that Rawlinson long refused to recognise these

identifications as satisfactorily established. At length, however, he

found in a tablet from Khorsabad (Pl. 70 Botta) an account which he

acknowledged referred to the capture of Samaria by Sargon in the first

year of his reign; and he also succeeded in identifying ‘Omri.’[840] He

thought that Sargon, whose identification he acknowledged in his Analysis

of the Behistun inscription,[841] was the same personage as Shalmaneser,

who figures in the same inscription as the conqueror of Ashdod; and he

made out the names of other cities that fell before the arms of that

king: ‘Hamath, Beroea, Damascus, Bambyce, Carchemish.’

But the inscription to which he now more particularly drew attention was

recently found by Mr. Layard on a colossal bull at the great entrance

of the Kouyunjik Palace; and Rawlinson speedily recognised that it

contained the Annals of Sennacherib, its founder, and son of Sargon. The

annals extend only to the seventh year of the king, but they recount the

subjugation of Babylon in the beginning of his reign, and the defeat of

Hezekiah and the capture of Jerusalem in his third year. The narrative

agrees with what was already known from the Hebrew writings and from

Polyhistor. The discovery, in a cuneiform inscription, of the three names

Hezekiah, Jerusalem and Judah, and an account of events related in the

Book of Kings, naturally stimulated the interest of a wider public than

is generally occupied with archæology.[842] From this period dates the

great popularity these studies enjoyed for a time, a popularity that

culminated more than twenty-five years later by the despatch of George

Smith on a mission to the East by the ‘Daily Telegraph.’

A year after the publication of the third column of the Behistun

inscription, Hincks read a paper ‘On the Assyrio-Babylonian Phonetic

Characters’ (1852), which may be regarded as having closed the early

stage of inquiry into the subject.[843] In this essay he contributes

no less than a hundred and eighteen new values, of which sixty-eight

certainly, and possibly more, are correct. When these are added to

the Syllabarium of Rawlinson, upwards of two hundred correct signs,

in addition to those for the vowels and diphthongs, were now at the

disposal of the decipherer. It had also been proved conclusively that

‘the characters all represent syllables and were originally intended

to represent a non-Semitic language.’ In opposition to the system that

still found an advocate in De Saulcy, it was shown that ‘instead of

the vowels being unrepresented, or only represented by points, as in

all Semitic writing that was first applied to a Semitic language, we

have in the cuneatic inscriptions every vowel definitely expressed.’

This new Syllabarium demonstrates for the first time how extensively

polyphony prevailed. Indeed one of its chief merits consists in the

enumeration of the different values expressed by the same sign. This had

been done to a slight extent by Rawlinson, who puts the polyphones in

an apologetic manner in a separate column, under the heading ‘Phonetic

Powers arising from Ideographic Values.’ This excited the contemptuous

criticism of De Saulcy, who was still so far from appreciating the true

nature of the language that he declared: ‘Either this language was for

the Assyrian an inextricable _gâchis_, or one or other of these values

must be chosen.’[844] The present Memoir of Hincks, which must soon after

have fallen into his hands, ought to have convinced him that the former

alternative is the only one available. Indeed the number of polyphones is

so great that the two hundred and fifty-four characters which Hincks now

deals with express no less than three hundred and forty-four different

values. In the Appendix to the Khorsabad inscription (January 19, 1850)

it will be recollected that he gave seventy-one simple syllabic values,

of which we found fifty-seven correct. In a lithographed paper, presented

to a meeting of the British Association in the course of the same year,

he added to their number, so that, with the vowels, his contribution

amounted to a hundred. These apparently include the twenty-five (correct)

compound syllables already mentioned. In the present Memoir he added

a hundred and eighteen new values (sixty-eight correct), so that he

claims to have discovered by his own unassisted ingenuity no less than

two hundred and eighteen values. He acknowledges that he is indebted to

Rawlinson for seventy-seven in addition to these, and he states that

they were substantially agreed as to the signification of one hundred

and seventy-seven signs.[845] They disagree as to forty-nine; but the

disagreement, generally speaking, does not extend to the consonantal

value; it arises from the doubt as to whether the sign conveys the

value of _e_ or _o_, as Hincks thought, or of _i_ or _u_, as Rawlinson

maintained. Hincks frankly confesses he received seventy-seven values

from Rawlinson after 1850; but Rawlinson has not told us how many

values he borrowed from Hincks during that year. The probability is

they were extremely few, if any; the transliteration and translation

of the inscriptions taken at Behistun and from the Black Obelisk were

made before the Appendix was sent to press, and neither could have

been accomplished unless Rawlinson had previously drawn up a very

comprehensive list for his own use. No doubt he took full advantage of

Hincks’s paper to introduce occasional corrections and emendations, and

it is to be regretted that he has not gratified our curiosity as to the

extent of his obligations.

In the present Memoir Hincks modified in some respects his original mode

of writing. Following Rawlinson’s example, he has discarded the use of

_c_ in favour of _k_ for the Koph series; and he adopts _s_ to express

the three Hebrew sounds of _s_, _s̱_ and _š̱_ (_s_, _ts_, and _sh_). He

also follows Rawlinson in substituting _z_ for _j_, and _kh_ for _g_.

All these modifications have been accepted except the last, which is now

written _ḫ_. On one other point, however, he was less conciliatory. In

deference to Rawlinson, he drops his two sounds for _a_: his long _ā_

becomes now simply _a_; but he insists on the distinct recognition of the

union of the consonant with _e_ or _o_. ‘We must,’ he says, ‘consider the

seven forms which might belong to each.’ These forms, therefore, are now

_a_, _e_ or _o_, _i_ and _u_; and one of the chief points of disagreement

with Rawlinson is that the latter ignores the sounds of _e_ or _o_ and

substitutes either _i_ or _u_. Hincks was quite right in maintaining

that Rawlinson unduly neglected the vowel _e_; for his ‘Indiscriminate

List’ only contains one syllable formed with _e_, viz. _ep_. Hincks

was, however, wrong in supposing that there is any regular syllabic

combinations so framed. The regular syllabic combinations are six, not

seven, and they are formed with _a_, _i_ and _u_ only—as Rawlinson

rightly saw. The combinations with _e_ are exceptions to the rule, and

have been ascribed to local or dialectic changes.[846] They amount to

about twelve and, strange to say, only one was correctly identified by

Hincks (_te_). The _o_ sound seems to be practically unknown.

In the passages we selected to illustrate Rawlinson’s transliteration of

the Behistun inscription, we placed that given by De Saulcy two years

later side by side with it, not on account of its intrinsic merit,

but because of the claims put forward on his behalf by some of his

countrymen. It seems to be generally admitted that the honour attaching

to the first decipherment of the Babylonian inscriptions cannot be justly

claimed by more than three scholars—Hincks, Rawlinson and De Saulcy. We

have endeavoured to lay before the reader the contributions made by the

first two. There can be no doubt that Hincks displayed remarkable insight

into the formation of the language, and that his ingenuity in detecting

the value of the signs, and in recognising their relation to one another

was very great. Whether he would have been able to go farther and acquire

equal distinction as a translator is another question. His genius seems

to have been more adapted to elucidate matters of grammar and philology.

Rawlinson had a rare ability of assimilating the suggestions of other

scholars so quickly as to be almost oblivious that they were not

original, and of carrying them rapidly to a perfection that was all his

own. Thus Hincks’s elementary Syllabarium of 1850 appears in Rawlinson’s

Memoir of 1851, so vastly improved as to be practically an independent

work. But the translation of the inscriptions was entirely his own, and

in this department Hincks never entered into competition with him. Here,

according to M. Menant, his rival was De Saulcy. It is unfortunate that

De Saulcy’s early contributions should have become almost inaccessible,

and we have not found any detailed account of their contents.[847] They

date from 1847, but his earliest efforts, even according to M. Menant,

only deserve mention because the author himself was disposed to treat

them too severely.[848] On June 20, 1847, in a letter to Burnouf, he

attempted to identify some of the kings mentioned in a genealogical

fragment found at Van. Ten days later he endeavoured to solve the riddle

of the second name in the Khorsabad inscription. In the following

July he suggested that the name on the Michaux stone should be read

‘Saosdoukin’; and in December he imagined that he had found the sense of

the Van inscriptions. He, however, honestly confesses that in the light

of subsequent knowledge all these efforts were vain. ‘He has,’ he says,

‘passed the sponge over all he has hitherto done, and has recommenced the

study of Assyrian _ab ovo_.’[849]

In 1849, however, he contributed two pamphlets which it is admitted

were of greater importance. In the first, which appeared on September

14, he undertook a transcription of the Babylonian column of the Elvend

inscription with translation and analysis. He succeeded, we are told, in

separating the Babylonian signs correctly, so that each group could be

compared word for word with the Persian. In his analysis he is said to

have justified the values he attributed to each sign, and the meaning

he attached to each word. He regarded the signs as purely consonantal,

and sought to bring them all into relation with the twenty-two Hebrew

letters. He seems to have thought that some of the signs are capable of

division: one portion fixed, representing the consonant, and the other

a variable appendix indicating the vowel. In the second pamphlet, dated

November 27, he treated the Persepolitan inscriptions in the same manner,

but with a growing suspicion that the Assyrian letters might after all

turn out to be syllabic.[850] By this means he arrived at the consonantal

sound of a hundred and twenty signs which M. Menant says were generally

correct. When Rawlinson published his Syllabarium, in 1851 (two years

later) De Saulcy observed that sixty-eight of these one hundred and

twenty signs received the same values. Not satisfied with this success,

he seems actually to have thought that Rawlinson had borrowed them

without acknowledgment from him: ‘J’avais donc lu et publié avant M.

Rawlinson soixante-huit des valeurs exactes publiées par lui; il eût

été de bon goût, peut-être, de prendre, ne fût-ce qu’une seule fois, la

peine de citer mon nom.’[851] It is, of course, quite impossible to admit

the claims made on his behalf. We have not been able to see the signs

to which reference is made, but it is quite certain that, in September

1849, there were not sixty-eight signs in the Persepolitan inscription

still remaining unknown either to Hincks or Rawlinson. It must be

recollected that De Saulcy’s pamphlets appeared more than two years after

Hincks had already accomplished a somewhat similar classification with

a considerable measure of success; and therefore after the consonantal

values of a large number of signs had long been correctly ascertained.

On the other hand, the earlier papers of Hincks were quite accessible to

De Saulcy, and we learn from Mohl that they were well known in France a

year before the appearance of his two pamphlets.[852] ‘What,’ asks M.

Menant, ‘did Rawlinson owe to De Saulcy’s labours on the Assyrian text?

It is impossible to say,’ he answers, ‘for Rawlinson has not given an

account of his preliminary studies.’[853] The answer is, however, much

simpler than this. Rawlinson owes nothing to De Saulcy, for the reason

that his transliteration of the Behistun inscription was accomplished

before he left Bagdad in October 1849,[854] and therefore before it

was possible for him to receive even the earliest of De Saulcy’s

pamphlets. Menant afterwards concedes that Rawlinson’s work on the

Obelisk proves preliminary labours which he graciously admits may justly

claim to be independent.[855] Nor is it true, as Menant says, that ‘it

was by following De Saulcy’s steps that all later progress has been

accomplished.’[856] The precise opposite approaches more nearly to the

truth. It was by abandoning the alphabetical system, to which De Saulcy

clung with strange pertinacity to the last, that all later progress

was in reality accomplished; and two months after these pamphlets were

written this was precisely what was done by Hincks with unmistakable

perspicuity in the Appendix to his Khorsabad Essay.

The two tracts of De Saulcy, written in 1849, gave the transliteration

according to his peculiar system of the whole of the Achaemenian

inscriptions accessible to him. The text of the Behistun inscription had

not, of course, escaped as yet from the jealous hands of the English

Major. The translation of these inscriptions was comparatively easy, for

it was only necessary to follow the Persian version, which was already

known. De Saulcy may therefore claim to be the first who accomplished

this task, which neither Hincks nor Rawlinson thought necessary to

attempt. But De Saulcy did not rest satisfied with this achievement. On

February 3, 1850, he published a transliteration of ninety-six lines of

the inscription engraved upon the bulls at the entrance to Khorsabad;

and he accompanied it by a translation, which two years later he still

considered was sufficiently accurate. On February 12, he also contributed

a Memoir on the Royal Names at Nimrud.[857] These two publications

appeared between Major Rawlinson’s lectures of January 19 and February

16. In the first lecture, Rawlinson gave the earliest translation of a

purely Assyrian inscription that had ever appeared, with the exception of

the few lines rendered by Longpérier and Hincks. It was taken from the

Black Obelisk, and he promised to read at the next sitting a _précis_

of the Khorsabad inscription.[858] It was clear, therefore, that he

had already prepared it. Meanwhile, after this announcement was made,

and thirteen days before it was carried into execution, De Saulcy’s

translation appeared. This forms the second long Assyrian inscription to

be translated, and it can scarcely be denied that De Saulcy and Rawlinson

had worked upon it independently of each other. The report of Rawlinson’s

second lecture was given in the ‘Athenæum’ on March 2. It is, as we have

said, impossible to estimate the comparative merits of the two works,

because we have not seen De Saulcy’s pamphlet. It can only be judged by

what we know of that writer’s later acquirements.

The transliteration from which we have quoted made its appearance in

February 1854, having apparently been sent to press in June 1853, or some

three years after Rawlinson’s version of the same text.[859] It cannot,

therefore, claim the indulgence so willingly accorded to a first effort;

on the contrary, it is distinctly put forward as a rival Essay, intended

to prove ‘the essential error of Rawlinson’s method of reading.’ It was

designed at the same time to show that not one of the general results

reached in the two Memoirs of 1849 had now to be abandoned, and also to

establish his legitimate right to a large share of priority of discovery

to which De Saulcy says he attached great value. We have already disposed

of his claims to priority so far as regards the consonantal values of the

Babylonian signs found in the trilingual inscriptions, and we are at a

loss to imagine in what other direction he fancied that he had achieved

priority. So far indeed from his studies having ever been in advance of

his contemporaries, they uniformly lagged far behind, and he evinces a

singular inability even to follow the results obtained by their genius.

A remarkable instance of this is seen in his rejection of Longpérier’s

reading of ‘Sargon’ in the Khorsabad inscription. ‘The _kh_, _k_ or _g_,’

he writes in 1852, ‘is in reality a _d_’; and in the Table he published

in 1854 it is actually found under that heading. He regrets that he is

obliged to renounce all hope of finding the ‘Sargon of the Bible’ at

Khorsabad; and he reads ‘Sardon’ instead.

De Saulcy still adheres to his alphabetical interpretation, and it is

no doubt the syllabarium of Rawlinson that is ‘the essential error’ he

sets himself to remove. His transliteration accordingly consists, as the

reader will have observed, of an immense agglomeration of consonants

which the student is left to bring within the possibilities of human

utterance as best he may. It is clearly a comparatively easy task to

arrange a number of signs according to the simple consonantal sounds they

contain. Hincks reached this point in 1847, and De Saulcy’s latest effort

seems to carry us back to that rudimentary stage of the inquiry. Here

we find the signs distributed among the various classes of gutturals,

dentals and so on, exactly as in Hincks’s Table seven years before. It

is possible that the later writer is more complete and accurate; it could

scarcely have been otherwise, considering the large amount of data now

available and the impossibility of not being guided, to some extent at

least, by the Syllabarium of Rawlinson and Hincks. Yet in this elementary

work of simple classification there are numerous errors he might have

escaped if he had condescended to place more dependence upon their

authority. Thus, for example, among his gutturals we find (of course bare

and stripped of their vocalic garments) the signs for _ip_, _up_, _al_

and _zi_. His dentals include two gutturals, the signs for _ga_ and _gi_.

Among his labials he gives us the signs for _as_ and _ku_. Among his

linguals are those for _ki_ and _su_ and they include the signs for the

syllables _tar_, _kur_ and _rit_; while the sign for _ul_ is found among

the sibilants. Notwithstanding all his efforts to escape syllabic values,

he was forced to enumerate a few—_kam_, _ak_, _akh_, _at_, _bar_, _far_,

_in_ or _an_, _ar_, _as_, _is_. Some of these are correct; but not even

here would he submit to authority, and he has accordingly blundered. His

_ak_ should be _uk_, his _akh al_, his _far par_, and of the two signs

he gives for _as_, one should be _si_ and the other _sur_, while his

_is_ should be _us_. With few exceptions all these might have been found

correctly given by Rawlinson three years before. Hincks had long ago

pointed out in his Khorsabad Essay (June 1849) that a clear distinction

is maintained between the vowels, and between the surd and sonant

consonants. Yet here we find the signs for _m_, _w_, _ou_ and _b_, and

those for _l_ and _r_ all classed indifferently together. His treatment

of the vowels is not less behind the knowledge of the time. The single

vowel _a_ is represented by no less than seven signs that really express

_an_, _a_, _ap_, _i_, _ruh_, _man_, _it_. Two of these signs, according

to De Saulcy, also express _ha_, and one either _e_ or _i_. _Ha_ has four

signs, none correct. They are really the signs for _a_, _it_, _i_ and

_il_. He was correct in supposing the language contained two diphthongs,

_ai_ and _ia_; but neither of his signs for _ai_ is correct: one has, in

fact, the value of _tir_.

It may be said in conclusion that on all points of difference between

Rawlinson and De Saulcy, both as regards the theory of the language

and the details of its expression, Rawlinson was right and De Saulcy

hopelessly wrong. De Saulcy was not only unable to teach Rawlinson

anything, but, as we have already observed, he was incapable to a very

remarkable degree of apprehending the truth from others. He lived for

many years afterwards, but his Essay on the Behistun inscription seems

to have been the last occasion on which he meddled with cuneiform

studies. He probably recognised more clearly than some of his admirers

how incompetent he was to make any useful contribution to the subject.

It is impossible to refrain from sympathy with him. He tells us he

spent a whole year in ‘comparing sign by sign and transcribing all the

Achaemenian texts without exception.’[860] Nothing is more calculated

to overwhelm the mind with despondency than to pass years of fruitless

toil amid such arid wastes as these and to discover in the end that the

natural ability to make useful application of the knowledge acquired

is wholly wanting. For the true genius of a decipherer is a rare gift,

and no amount of industry or learning can compensate for its absence.

Hincks and Rawlinson possessed it with exceptional intensity. Many

of the other scholars whose labours we have reviewed were endowed to

a less degree—Grotefend, Jacquet and Lassen. Even Longpérier, in the

few lines he contributed to the subject evinced no little aptitude in

this direction; but De Saulcy was singularly deficient in the special

qualifications it required. It would have been more worthy of the

position he occupied in other departments of study if he could have

restrained the irritation that the consciousness of the waste of so

much effort could not fail to produce. It was lamentable that he should

fretfully pretend to have anticipated the discoveries of Rawlinson, or

that he should have presented his own crude performance as a possible

rival to his. It would almost seem, from the extreme rarity of his

pamphlets, that he endeavoured to suppress the evidence of his failure,

and it would be well if his countrymen were to allow his work in this

department to pass out of the reach of farther controversy.

The translation of the Babylonian Column of the Behistun inscription

was apparently thought at the time to dispense with the necessity of

any special publication of the Semitic columns of the other Achaemenian

inscriptions at Persepolis and Naksh-i-Rustam. De Saulcy had indeed

devoted himself to this portion of the subject in 1849, and Menant

informs us that ‘all the trilingual inscriptions then known were

already translated.’[861] But they do not appear to have attracted

the attention of any more competent scholar till 1859, when M. Oppert

published a portion of them in the second volume of his ‘Expédition en

Mésopotamie.’ He gave the text, with transliteration and translation

of the Window inscription L and B (Darius); D and E (Xerxes), and the

unilingual H (Darius) from Persepolis; the long inscription and the

three short ones at Naksh-i-Rustam, the K of Xerxes at Van, and the S

of Artaxerxes Mnemon at Susa. He also gave a new translation of the

Behistun inscription without text or transliteration. A peculiar feature

of his book is that he has made a transcription of the inscription into

Hebrew characters. A complete edition of the Babylonian columns of the

Achaemenian inscriptions was published by Dr. Bezold in 1882, with text,

transliteration, translation and commentary, and is now the standard

edition.

We have now brought to a close this tedious history of the various steps

that led up to the decipherment of the Achaemenian inscriptions; and we

have described the share taken in its accomplishment by a long succession

of scholars, from Tychsen to Oppert. The whole of these inscriptions

were now interpreted and their contents made known to the world. The

difficulties of the cuneiform character, which at first appeared

insuperable, were at length surmounted.

The subject for a long time seemed to yield no results at all

commensurate to the labour and ability lavished upon it. Its interest

seemed to be limited to the arid domains of philology, or at best to

throw a sidelight upon a few matters of no great importance in ancient

history. Some scholars were gratified to find that their old and greatly

maligned friend Herodotus was ascertained to be much more trustworthy

than was long supposed; but these were matters that could only affect

a small and comparatively worthless class of _dilettanti_. At length,

however, there came the great Assyrian discoveries and the apparition in

the cuneiform records of ‘Jehu, the son of Omri,’ and a host of other

notabilities of sacred history. The study was raised at once, especially

in England, to an entirely different plane of interest. Lectures began

to be delivered upon it throughout the provinces; books were written

by Vaux, Bonomi, Fergusson, and many others, to explain the subject to

the public. The great work of Layard was quickly followed by a popular

edition, and was translated into German. Curiosity was stimulated

by the appearance, in 1853, of an account of the results of farther

explorations. Whether the new learning would tend to confirm the ancient

records or whether it would compel a revision of cherished beliefs

began to be debated in many quarters, far beyond the circle of learned

societies.

An account of the progress subsequently made in the knowledge of the

Assyrian language lies beyond the scope of our present work. It was

indeed a happy accident that the power of reading Assyrian should have

been acquired just as a countless number of inscriptions in that language

were brought to light. Excavations continued at Nineveh and elsewhere

under the direction of Mr. Layard during the winters of 1849 and 1850;

and in the autumn of 1851, Colonel Rawlinson returned to Bagdad.

He was charged with the general supervision of the work, while Mr.

Hormuzd Rassam assumed the practical direction in the field. Parliament

sanctioned a grant of three thousand pounds, and many large sums were

contributed by private individuals, including five hundred pounds

from Lord John Russell.[862] Soon after, Rassam discovered the famous

inscription of Tiglath Peleser, which afforded the earliest glimpse into

a long-forgotten history. In it the genealogy of the Assyrian kings was

traced back to the fourteenth century B.C., and the names of no less than

twenty-five sovereigns were recorded.[863] The inscription itself was

written at a time when Assur was still the capital of the kingdom and

Nineveh was too unimportant to be mentioned. Rawlinson was surprised to

find that the language was more polished then than at a later time, and

he was obliged to admit that the discovery ‘annihilates all my theories

about the modernicity of Assyrian civilisation.’[864] Shortly after, he

was able to announce that ‘all the Assyrian kings mentioned in the Bible

have now been identified,’[865] and many others who occur in profane

history, so, that almost a perfect list has now been obtained. Two French

expeditions were engaged at the same time on the work of exploration. M.

Place, from 1851 to 1854, devoted himself chiefly to Khorsabad, though

with scarcely the success his perseverance merited. But the chief effort

was made by the Commission headed by M. Fresnal, 1852-4, which included

M. Oppert among its members, and which concerned itself principally with

the exploration of the ruins of Babylon. Meanwhile Southern Babylonia

was explored by Mr. Loftus, whom we have already mentioned in connection

with Susa; and by Mr. Taylor, the Vice-Consul at Bussorah. It is to their

labours during the winters of 1853 and 1854 that we owe the recovery of

the history of the Early Babylonian Empire that long preceded even the

foundation of Assyria. The forgotten cities of Nippur, Erech, Larsa,

Ur and Eridu were once more summoned to surrender the records of a

civilisation reaching back many thousand years before the Christian

era. In 1854, Rawlinson was able to send home a list of eighteen of the

primitive kings of the ancient Babylonia and of twenty other personages

of less exalted station; and he records his surprise at the discovery of

‘monarchs who must have reigned before the establishment of the Assyrian

Empire.’[866] Till then it was generally held that Babylon owed its

foundation to the late period of the great Nebuchadnezzar.[867] Early in

1854, a fruitful discovery was made in the Lion Room of the North Palace

of Assurbanipal at Kouyunjik.[868] Here large numbers of tablets were

found, which subsequent investigation showed to consist of lexicons and

phrase-books to enable the student to acquire the primitive language of

Babylonia, from which it afterwards became apparent the larger portion

of the Assyrian literature had been derived. Rawlinson was the first to

detect the existence of this language in a tablet sent to him from Larsa

by Mr. Loftus.[869] He announced the discovery in a valuable paper,

contributed to the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society’ in 1855, on

the Early History of Babylonia. At that time, however, he had made but

little progress in this new study, for he says: ‘I have no hesitation in

pronouncing the language to be Semitic.’[870] In the following year he

found out his mistake, and, having carefully studied the vocabularies

from Kouyunjik, he speaks of it more guardedly as ‘the Chaldean or

Hamitic language of Babylonia.’[871] Six years later, we still hear

of the ‘Hamitian language, of which not much is yet understood.’[872]

For a time it was known also as the Proto-Chaldean;[873] Hincks seems

to have been the first to call it by its later name of Akkadian,[874]

but Rawlinson was the earliest to make any considerable progress in

its study. In 1866, he endeavoured to translate the tablets bearing on

astronomy and other scientific subjects; but he found ‘the primitive

Babylonian language’ was so extensively employed in these documents

that it was ‘advisable to undertake a thorough examination of this

ancient and most difficult language.’ The result was that he thought it

was intermediate between the African languages and the Proto-Turanian

or Finno-Ugrian, which he proposed to classify under the name of the

‘Erythean Group.’ He considered it came from the uplands of Central

Africa, and was the speech of the Akkads or Highlanders. From that

circumstance it gradually acquired the name of Akkadian, suggested by

Hincks.[875]

The recovery of this ancient language is among the most interesting

results of cuneiform discovery. The most ancient records in the world are

written in it, and it opens a page of history hitherto entirely unknown.

It shows that a Turanian race led the van of civilisation, and was the

founder of both the religion and literature of the Semitic people of Irak.

The first period of discovery was now drawing to a close. The French

retired in 1854, and Colonel Rawlinson in March 1855. Nearly twenty years

were to elapse before the excavations were renewed by George Smith, in

1873.

Meanwhile the number of scholars interested in these subjects began to

increase. Dr. Samuel Birch did good service in assisting the publication

of Layard’s inscriptions.[876] Mr. Bosanquet contributed a large

number of articles on the questions of chronology raised by these new

discoveries,[877] a matter that also occupied Rawlinson.[878] Hincks

also turned his attention to translation, and it is to him we owe the

translations in Mr. Layard’s ‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ published in 1853,

and also a version of the Bavian inscription.[879] In 1854 he wrote an

essay on Assyrian mythology, but he still continued to be chiefly engaged

with the grammar. His dissertation on the Pronoun appeared in 1853; on

the Verb in 1855 to 1856, a work that has been characterised as his most

valuable contribution;[880] on Akkadian, 1855; on Tiglath Peleser, 1857;

on Polyphony, 1863; and finally a treatise on Assyrian Grammar, begun in

1866 in the ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society,’ which was interrupted by

his death. Mr. Fox Talbot was also added to the number of translators.

In 1856 he rendered a portion of the East India House inscription, and

for a number of years he applied himself to the translation of the most

important inscriptions.[881] Mr. Norris, relieved from the burden of

the Susian Column, turned his attention to Assyrian weights (1856), and

subsequently became known as the author of the first Assyrian dictionary

(1866).[882] In France, M. Oppert acquired an interest in Assyrian during

his recent journey to the East, and he earned a reputation in this

department of study by the appearance of his ‘Etudes Assyriennes’ in the

‘Journal Asiatique,’ February 1857. From that period he has continued

to be one of the most prolific and the most useful of the cuneiform

scholars of France. The number of these was farther increased by the

appearance of M. Menant, in 1858, as the writer of a ‘Notice sur les

Inscriptions cunéiformes de la Collection de M. L. de Laval.’[883] Soon

afterwards (1860) he published the ‘Ecritures cunéiformes,’ an ‘Exposé

des Travaux qui ont préparé la Lecture des Inscriptions,’ which is still

a useful apology for the science.[884] For, notwithstanding all the

magnificent results already obtained, the science was still in need of

an apologist.[885] In 1852, Professor Wilson, the President of the Royal

Asiatic Society, went so far as to regard the Assyrian Inscriptions as

still ‘merely dumb memorials of antiquity.’[886] Very great discrepancies

were indeed yet to be found in translations of the same passages by

different scholars, and the true meaning of a large number of words

continued to be warmly disputed. It was found, in fact, that M. Stern of

Göttingen still maintained that the language was entirely alphabetical;

that there were no ideographs; and he read every syllable of one

inscription differently from De Saulcy, except the proper names.[887]

Mr. Fox Talbot attributed the prevailing incredulity ‘to the fact that

each cuneiform group represents not always the same syllables, but

sometimes one and sometimes another’: in other words, to the existence

of polyphones. Hence it was inferred that the system adopted ‘cannot be

true, and the interpretations based upon it must be fallacious.’[888]

He proposed, therefore, to submit the whole matter to a practical test.

He accordingly translated the inscription of Tiglath Peleser, recently

found at Kaleh Sherghat, and forwarded it in a sealed envelope to the

President of the Asiatic Society. Three other scholars—Rawlinson,

Hincks, and Oppert—were then invited to make independent versions of the

same inscription, and to communicate them under cover to the Society.

Carefully lithographed copies had been executed for this purpose, so that

there might be no variation in the text. A competent jury of examiners

were selected, among whom were Professor Wilson (the President), Mr.

Grote, Dean Milman, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, and Whewell; and on the day

appointed the sealed packets were opened in their presence. It was

found that Dr. Hincks had not had time to translate the whole, and that

Oppert had committed the double blunder of working from a copy executed

by himself, and of making his translation in English, a language with

which he was imperfectly acquainted. A careful comparison was, however,

undertaken, and the Jury issued their report on May 29, 1857. Grote and

Milman were of opinion ‘that the coincidences between the translations,

both as to the sense and the verbal rendering, were very remarkable.’

Wilkinson made a separate report, and stated that ‘the similarity is

quite equal to what it would be in the translation of an ordinary

historical inscription in Egyptian hieroglyphics.’ ‘Indeed,’ he adds,

‘the resemblance is so great (very often exactly the same, word for word)

that the interpretation could not be arbitrary’; but while ‘there is a

remarkable concurrence as to the general meaning of each paragraph ...

very many words were differently translated.’ The closest resemblance was

found to exist between the versions of Rawlinson and Hincks. Talbot was

‘less positive and precise,’ and Oppert showed the greatest divergence.

The examiners farther noted their opinion passage by passage, and as we

look down the pages, among many verdicts of ‘very near,’ ‘much alike,’

and so on, we find other judgments much less satisfactory, such as

‘many coincidences and many variations’; ‘some coincidences and great

variations’; and even ‘totally different.’

Much indeed yet remained to be done before accuracy could be achieved,

and the voice of the doubter was not yet stilled. In France especially,

the greatest scepticism prevailed as to the genuineness of the

translations, and those of Oppert, in the ‘Journal Asiatique’ were

received with general incredulity.[889] Neither De Saulcy nor Longpérier

took any farther share in the work, and their silence increased the

discouragement. A very eminent Frenchman, Count de Gobineau, had just

written on the ‘Ecritures des Textes cunéiformes’ and attacked the

whole system pursued by Rawlinson and Oppert.[890] The one he proposed

to substitute is too grotesque to merit description, but the defection

of a scholar so well known in Oriental studies intensified the growing

unbelief.[891] It was at this conjuncture that Menant published his

book on Cuneiform Writing, in which he related the successive steps

that had led up to the decipherment of the inscriptions (1860): an

undertaking which he describes four years later, in his second edition,

as having slowly produced a beneficial effect. Some people may have been

more influenced by the striking reward conferred upon M. Oppert by the

Institut in 1860, which awarded him the prize of twenty thousand francs,

founded by the Emperor for the ‘work or the discovery most calculated

to the honour of France,’ and this, we learn with surprise, afforded

‘une sanction qui devrait dissiper toutes les susceptibilités.’ These

susceptibilities were, however, by no means dispelled by any such

Imperial mandate. Mohl writes with evident sympathy that ‘people decry

a language in which one can never know if a syllable is ideographic or

phonetic, and, when phonetic, which of two or three different values

it may have in that place.’[892] Gobineau still remained recalcitrant

(1864), and Sir George Cornewall Lewis contended in the ‘Astronomy of the

Ancients’ that neither Egyptian nor Assyrian could ever be restored.[893]

Lord Macaulay also rejected the interpretation with undisguised

contempt.[894] It was only by slow degrees that these doubts were finally

extinguished, and that the cuneiform languages have conquered the

universal recognition of all competent inquirers.

When Rawlinson returned from Bagdad in 1855, he was appointed a Director

of the East India Company, and he entered Parliament as Member for

Reigate. In 1859 he went to Persia as British envoy, a position from

which he retired in the following year.

After his resignation, he devoted himself for some years almost

exclusively to his old cuneiform pursuits. He undertook to supervise

the publication of the ‘Inscriptions of Western Asia,’ and he might be

found at work upon them daily at the British Museum. Mr. George Smith

was appointed his working assistant, and in that position he gained

the intimate knowledge of the Assyrian language which he afterwards

turned to such excellent account. The first volume of the Inscriptions

appeared in 1859, and the last, or fifth, in 1884.[895] Rawlinson

entered Parliament once more in 1865, as Member for Frome, but retired

on his re-appointment to the India Office in 1868. He fell a victim to

influenza in 1895, at the age of eighty-five. During his life he was

gradually overwhelmed with honours bestowed upon him by learned Societies

in various quarters of the globe;[896] but a grateful country was long

reluctant to confer its seal of recognition. Military authorities are

naturally unwilling to acknowledge the merits of distinguished officers

who descend to civil employments; and in 1851, after the publication of

the Behistun inscription, he had to sue in somewhat humble terms for

promotion to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. On his return from Bagdad

in 1855, when the walls of the Museum were lined with the trophies he

had accumulated and the country was enraptured with the new arcana of

knowledge his genius had unveiled, Lord Clarendon thought a knighthood

worthy of his acceptance. This he hastened to decline, and shortly

afterwards he received the more appropriate honour of K.C.B. (1856).

The dignities to which he subsequently rose were due to political

services and social position, and seem to have been entirely unconnected

with the achievements we have recounted.

As for Dr. Hincks, he appears never to have obtained any reward whatever,

unless the Gold Medal of a provincial academy can be regarded as

such.[897] He had the misfortune to be born an Irishman, and to fill

the obscure position of a country clergyman, so that he was, no doubt,

reconciled from the first to the inevitable sequence of disparagement

and neglect. After all, hieroglyphic figures and cuneiform signs are

inconvenient subjects for pulpit oratory, and not likely to edify a

rustic congregation or to lead to preferment in the Church. The estimate

in which he was held, even in learned circles, may be gathered from

the short paragraph allotted to him in the ‘Athenæum,’[898] where

he explained one of the most far-reaching discoveries in Assyrian,

as compared to the three long columns that follow, devoted to a few

unimportant observations made by Rawlinson. But notwithstanding his

apparent failure to obtain the recognition that was his due, when the

evening of life approached and the time for departure came, he could

dwell with satisfaction on the work of his life; and though in the years

to come few might remember his name, he could not fail to enjoy the

conviction that the rich fields of knowledge he had opened to view would

remain the assured possession of man for all generations to come.

APPENDICES

A.—TABLE SHOWING VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE LETTERS OF THE OLD PERSIAN

ALPHABET.

B.—TABLE SHOWING THE TRUE VALUES OF OLD PERSIAN LETTERS, AND THE AUTHOR

AND DATE OF THEIR DECIPHERMENT.

C.—TABLE SHOWING THE VALUES GIVEN TO EACH SIGN OF THE SUSIAN (MEDIAN)

SYLLABARY.

APPENDIX A

_TABLE SHOWING VALUES ASSIGNED TO THE LETTERS OF THE OLD PERSIAN ALPHABET_

+--------------+----------+----------+------------+-------------+-------

| Alphabet | 1798 | 1800 | 1803-1815 | 1823-1832 | 1826

+----+---------+----------+----------+------------+-------------+-------

| 2 | 𐏐 | | Sign of | Sign of | |

| 3 |[Persian]| ě | r | e | e |

| 4 | 𐎣 | l, ě | p | e | e |

| 5 | 𐎿 | ê, t, n | | s | s‛ |

| 6 | 𐎿 | | | Defective | |

| 7 | 𐎲 | l, s | b | v | r |

| 8 | 𐎼 | | | r | |

| 9 | 𐎼 | l, ê | | r | r |

| 10 | 𐎺 | ê i(u) | | e | i |

| 11 | 𐎭 | | kh | d | d |

| 12 | 𐎡 | m, ǎ, ä |o (vocal) | o | y |

| 13 |[Persian]| m | | n | n |

| 14 | 𐎱 | a, ǒ | | p or b | p |

| 15 | 𐎻 | ä | | g | v |

| 16 | 𐎨 | ǎ, ä, r | r (fort) | o | e |

| 17 |[Persian]| ä | | uncertain | |

| 18 | 𐏀 | ǎ | | gh | e |

| 19 | 𐎮 | l | | uncertain | |

| 20 |[Persian]| a | | Defective | |

| 21 | 𐎠 | a | e or a | e or a | a |

| 22 | 𐎬 | a | | th | |

| 23 | 𐎶 | | a | o | â | m

| 24 | 𐎫 | i(u) | | t | t |

| 25 | 𐎤 | d | | z, changed | h | q

| | | | | to k, 1815 | |

| 26 | 𐎰 | n, s | | i | h |

| 27 | 𐎹 | b, k, r | | h | e |

| | | | | | |

| 28 | 𐎩 | r | | ng | |

| 29 | 𐎷 | b, r | | h | e |

| 30 |[Persian]| k | | Defective | |

| 31 | 𐎴 | b, x, y | | tsch | b, changed | n

| | | | | | to m |

| 32 | 𐎪 | x | | dj | |

| 33 | 𐎸 | x | | k | |

| 34 | 𐎯 | d, y | | z | |

| 35 | 𐎥 | u⁽ᵘ⁾ | | u | |

| 36 | 𐎢 | u, uᵘ | | u | ou |

| | | | | | |

| 38 | 𐏁 | s | ou, w | sch, sh | ch |

| | | | ii, y | | |

| 39 | 𐎳 | ǒ | | f | |

| 40 | 𐎽 | s | |sch, changed| ch |

| 41 | 𐏃 | j, y | | a | ou |

| | | | | | |

| 42 | 𐎧 | ô | | kh | kh |

| 43 | 𐎵 | | | | |

| 44 | 𐎦 | | | | |

| 45 |[Persian]| | | | |

| 46 | 𐎾 | | | | |

| 47 | 𐏋 | | | King | |

| 48 | 𐏍 | | | | |

| 49 | 𐏏 | | | | |

| |[Persian]| x | i | | |

| |[Persian]| n | | v | |

| |[Persian]| n | | | |

| |[Persian]| t | kh | | |

| |[Persian]| sʹ | | | |

| |[Persian]| | s | | |

| |[Persian]| | o | | |

| |[Persian]| | | r | |

| |[Persian]| | | m | |

| |[Persian]| | | | h |

| |[Persian]| | | | | †

| |[Persian]| | | | | ‡

+----+---------+----------+----------+------------+-------------+-------

-------------+-----------+------------+---------+----------+----+

1836 | 1836 | 1837 | 1838 | 1838 | |

| | | | | |

-------------+-----------+------------+---------+----------+----+

| | | | | 1 |

| | | | | 2 |

| | | | | |

| | | | | 3 |

k | k | e | | | 4 |

ç | ç | ç | | | 5 |

| | | | | 6 |

b | b | b | | | 7 |

| | | | | 8 |

r | r | r | | | 9 |

i | w | i | | v | 10 |

d | d | d | | | 11 |

ô |y, medial | ô | | | 12 |

| t | th | | | 13 |

p | p | p | | | 14 |

g |v, initial | g | | | 15 |

v | î y, | è(n) medial| | ch or c | 16 |

| | w | | | 17 |

z | z | gh | | | 18 |

l? | kʹ | w | | | 19 |

| | | | | 20 |

â | â | â | | | 21 |

dh | t‘ | m | | | 22 |

m | m | ǒ | | | 23 |

t | t | t | | | 24 |

q | with u 36 | k | | th | 25 |

y | z | i | | | 26 |

h | h with 12 | h | y | y | 27 |

h? | ñ | ng | | z | 28 |

î | ‘m? | hh | | | 29 |

| | | | | 30 |

n | n | s | | | 31 |

gh? uncertain| gʹ | dsh | | | 32 |

gh? uncertain| g‛ | s s | | | 33 |

gh | d‛ | z? | | | 34 |

û | g | y | | | 35 |

u |u with 10 | u | | | 36 |

| | | | | 37 |

ch | s‛ | sh | | | 38 |

f | f | f | | | 39 |

l | s‛ | r_k_ (h?) | |r before u| 40 |

a |a, initial | ǎ | h | h | 41 |

kh | k‛ | kh | | | 42 |

| | | | | 43 |

gh? uncertain| g‛ | gʹ | | | 44 |

| | | | | 45 |

| | | | | 46 |

| | | | | 47 |

| | v | | | 48 |

| | | | | 49 |

† | t | | | | |

‡ | v, | | | | |

-------------+-----------+------------+---------+----------+----+

----------+------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+----+

| |August 1846| 1846 | 1846 | |

----------+------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+----+

| | | | | 1 |

| | | | | 2 |

| | | | | 3 |

k | k | k | k before a & i | k | 4 |

ç | s | s |s before a, i, u?| s | 5 |

| | | | | 6 |

b | b | b | b before a, i, u| b | 7 |

| | | | | 8 |

r | r | r | r before a & i | r | 9 |

w | w | w | v before a & u | w? | 10 |

d | d | d | d before a | d | 11 |

i | i | i | | i | 12 |

thr | tr | tř | tř | thr | 13 |

p | p | p | p before a, i, u| p | 14 |

v | w before i | v | v before i | w(i) | 15 |

k’ | ch | ch | ch before a & | ch | 16 |

| | | | | 17 |

z | zh | z | z before a, u? | zh | 18 |

k’h |d (before i)| t with i | d before i | d(i) | 19 |

| | | | | 20 |

â | a | a | a | a | 21 |

d’h | t before u | t’h | t before u | t(u) | 22 |

ʹm | m | m | m before a | m | 23 |

t | t | t | t before a & i | t | 24 |

q | k before u | kh | k before u | k(u) | 25 |

θ | z | th |th before a, i, u| th | 26 |

j for y | y | y | y before a, i, u| y | 27 |

z’ | j | jh | j before a | j | 28 |

‘m | m before i | m (with i)| m before i | m(i) | 29 |

| | | | | 30 |

n | n | n | n before a & i | n | 31 |

g’ | zh before i| j | j before i | j(i) | 32 |

ψ | kh before u| m (with u)| m before u | m(u) | 33 |

dh | d before u| dh | d before u | d(u) | 34 |

g | g | g | g before a | g | 35 |

u | u | u | u | u | 36 |

| | | | | 37 |

s | sh | sh |sh before a, i, u| sh | 38 |

f | p before r | f | f before a? | ph(r) | 39 |

‘r | r before u | r (with u)| r before u | r(u) | 40 |

h | h | h |h before a, i, u | h | 41 |

kh | kh | kʹh | kh before a & u | kh | 42 |

| | n (with u)| n before u | n(u) | 43 |

gh | g before u | gh | g before u | g(u) | 44 |

rp | rp | q? | doubtful final | | 45 |

| | ñ | ñ | ñ | 46 |

| | | | | 47 |

dᵃh | | dah? | | | 48 |

----------+------------+-----------+-----------------+---------+----+

APPENDIX B

_TABLE SHOWING THE TRUE VALUES OF OLD PERSIAN LETTERS; AND THE AUTHOR AND

DATE OF THEIR DECIPHERMENT_

+----------------+------------------------+-----------------------------+

| Persian | Correct Values | Name of Decipherer and Date |

| Cuneiform | Spiegel, 1881 | |

| Signs | | |

+----+-----------+------------------------+-----------------------------+

| 2 | 𐏐 | Sign of Separation | Münter, 1800 |

| 4 | 𐎣 | k before a | Burnouf and Lassen |

| 5 | 𐎿 | s before a, i, u | Grotefend, 1802, s |

| 6 | 𐎿 | Defective | |

| 7 | 𐎲 | b before a, i, u | Münter, 1800, b |

| 8 | 𐎾 | Defective | |

| 9 | 𐎼 | r before a & i | Grotefend, 1802, r |

| 10 | 𐎺 | v before a & u | Lassen, 1836, w? Jacquet, |

| | | | 1838, v |

| 11 | 𐎭 | d before a | Grotefend, 1802, d |

| 12 | 𐎡 | i | St. Martin, 1823, y. |

| 13 | [Persian] | tř | Lassen, 1836, t? Grotefend, |

| 14 | 𐎱 | p before a, i, u | Grotefend, 1802, p |

| 15 | 𐎻 | v before i | St. Martin, 1823, v |

| 16 | 𐎨 | c before a | Jacquet, 1838, ch or c |

| 18 | 𐏀 | z before a, i, u | Burnouf and Lassen |

| 19 | 𐎮 | d before i | Holtzmann, 1846, d before i |

| 21 | 𐎠 | a | Tychsen, 1798, a. Münter, |

| 22 | 𐎬 | t before u | Lassen, 1836 |

| 23 | 𐎶 | m before a | Rask, 1826, m |

| 24 | 𐎫 | t before a & i | Grotefend, 1802, t |

| 25 | 𐎤 | k before u | Grotefend, 1815, k |

| 26 | 𐎰 | th before a, i, u | Jacquet, 1838, th |

| 27 | 𐎹 | y before a, i, u | Beer and Jacquet |

| 28 | 𐎩 | j before a | Hincks and Rawlinson |

| 29 | 𐎷 | m before i | Lassen, 1836, m before i |

| 31 | 𐎴 | n before a & i | Rask, 1826, n |

| 32 | 𐎪 | j before i | Rawlinson, 1838, j |

| 33 | 𐎸 | m before u | Rawlinson, 1838, m before u |

| 34 | 𐎯 | d before u | Tychsen, 1798, d. Lassen, |

| | | | 1836, d |

| 35 | 𐎥 | g before a | Lassen, 1836, g |

| 36 | 𐎢 | u | Tychsen, 1798. Grotefend, |

| | | | 1802, u |

| 38 | 𐏁 | s (sh) before a, i, u | Tychsen, 1798, s. Grotefend, |

| 39 | 𐎳 | f before a | Grotefend, 1803, f |

| 40 | 𐎽 | r before u | Grotefend, 1815, sr |

| 41 | 𐏃 | h before a, i, u | Grotefend, 1803, a |

| 42 | 𐎧 | kh before u | Grotefend, 1802, kh |

| 43 | 𐎵 | n before u | Rawlinson, 1846, n before u |

| 44 | 𐎦 | g before u | Lassen, 1836, g |

| | 𐎾 | l? | Oppert, 1847, l? |

| | 𐏋 | k h s | Grotefend, 1802, king |

| | 𐏍 | dah | Lassen, 1844, dah |

| | [Persian] | nâma (name) } | |

| | [Persian] | putřa (son) } | Oppert, 1874. Weissbach |

| | [Persian] | Pârsa (Persia) } | considers these signs of |

| | [Persian] | Auramazda } | doubtful authority |

| | [Persian] | Franâ? } | (‘Altpers. Keil.,’ p. 1). |

+----+-----------+------------------------+-----------------------------+

APPENDIX C

_TABLE SHOWING THE VALUES GIVEN TO EACH SIGN OF THE SUSIAN (MEDIAN)

SYLLABARY_

Vowels and consonants are indicated by capital letters.

+------------------------+-----------------------------------------------

| The number given to |

| each sign by |

+------------------------+ Cuneiform

|Westergaard and Hincks | Signs[899]

| +-------------------+

| |Norris |

| | +--------------+ +-------------+---------------+--------

| | | +-------+ | Values[900] | [901] |1846-7

| | | Weisbach| | | 1844-53 |[902]

+----+----+-------+------+--------+-------------+---------------+--------

| 1 | | 111 | 1 |[Susian]| Determin. | Aussonderungs | Det.

| 2 | 14 | 68 | 2 |[Susian]| al; city | ? |

| 3 | 65 | 42 | 3 |[Susian]| an; det. | A |an; det.

| _a_| 35 | 89 | 4 |[Susian]| tak | |

| 4 | 61 | 38 | 7 |[Susian]| na | na, N | na

| _a_| 60 |ideog. | 6 |[Susian]| month | |

| 5 | 85 | 56 | 8 |[Susian]| še | sa | si

| 6 | 9 | 28 | 9 |[Susian]| pu | ? |

| 7 | | 86 | 10 |[Susian]| muš | ? |

| 8 | 88 | 104 | 11 |[Susian]| šir, zir | as, ars | ersa

| 9 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ? |

| _a_| 81 | 51 | 13 |[Susian]| la | | rus

| 10 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ar, A | ar

| _a_| 47 | 61 | 12 |[Susian]| su | |

| 11 | 26 | 16 | 15 |[Susian]| ak | k | K

| _a_| 59 | 7 | 16 |[Susian]| H | |

| _b_| 18 | 14 | 17 |[Susian]| gau; sea | |

| 12 | 34 | 23 | 18 |[Susian]| tu | thu | tu

| _a_| 77 | 67 | 19 |[Susian]| ar; window | |

| 13 | 71 | 45 | 20 |[Susian]| ra | R | ra

| 14 | 10 | 78 | 22 |[Susian]| par | pha | per

| 15 | 33 | 21 | 23 |[Susian]| ti | ti | ti

| _a_| 57 | 84 | 24 |[Susian]| maz | |

| 16 | 63 | 40 | 59 |[Susian]| ne | ? | ser

| _a_| 15 | 60 | 26 |[Susian]| si | |

| 17 | 19 | 15 | 27 |[Susian]| gi | ? | su, sa

| 18 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ? |

| 19 | 27 | 17 | 28 |[Susian]| ik, K | KH | K

| 20 | 31 | 105 | 29 |[Susian]| kup? | ? |

| 21 | |rejects| 25 |[Susian]| ziš? | ? |

| 22 | 99 | 10 | 30 |[Susian]| hu | ju [yu*] | yu, u

| 23 | 78 | 48 | 61 |[Susian]| ir, R | ra | ER

| _a_| 22 | 70 | 68 |[Susian]| kan | |

| _b_| 50 |ideog. | 31 |[Susian]| Ship | |

| 24 | 72 | 46 | 32 |[Susian]| ri | ri | ri

| 25 | 6 |76, 29 | 21 |[Susian]| pe, pat | tu | tu

| 26 | 54 |80, 81 | 35 |[Susian]| man | ve, we | wi

| _a_| 25 | 75 | 36 |[Susian]| kaš | |

| 27 | 13 | 31 | 37 |[Susian]| ap | P | ap, pu

| _a_| 64 | 97 | 38 |[Susian]| nap | |

| 28 | 28 |18, 69 | 39 |[Susian]| uk | Q | wa, K

| 29 | | 65 | 40 |[Susian]| az | pu | va

| _a_| 29 |ideog. | 41 |[Susian]|Horse, Donkey| |

| 30 | 43 | 24 | 42 |[Susian]| at | T | ta, T

| 31 | 17 | 11 | 34 |[Susian]| ka | ka, kha | ku

| 32 | 38 | 25 | 50 |[Susian]| ut, T | T | ta, T

| 33 | 8 | 72 | 51 |[Susian]| pi | pi | pi, pu

| 34 | 39 | 20 | 53 |[Susian]| te | phi | pu, pi

| _a_| 24 | 71 | 54 |[Susian]| kar | |

| 35 | 45 | 72 | 52 |[Susian]| am? | ? |

| 36 | 55 | 82 | 56 |[Susian]| mar; road | pe | ner, pi

| 37 | 58 | 36 | 57 |[Susian]| um, M | M | M

| _a_| 44 | 106 | 58 |[Susian]| sak | |

| 38 | 49 | 2 | 60 |[Susian]| U | jo [yo*] | yu, U

| 39 | 73 | 47 | 65 |[Susian]| ru | ru | ru

| _a_| 79 | 90 | 67 |[Susian]| tik | |

| _b_| 40 | 92 | 66 |[Susian]| tup | |

| _c_| 69 | 85 | 46 |[Susian]| muk | |

| _d_| 12 | 79 | 47 |[Susian]| pan | |

| _e_|102 | 102 | 48 |[Susian]| zik | |

| _f_| 70 | 87 | 49 |[Susian]| tum | |

| 40 | 11 | 77 | 55 |[Susian]| pir | PH | P

| 41 | 4 | 4 | 62 |[Susian]| E | |

| 42 | 67 | 44 | 68 |[Susian]| un | ? | na, N

| _a_|103 | 88 | 64 |[Susian]| tan | |

| 43 | 23 | 73 | 43 |[Susian]|kur; mountain| khu | ker

| 44 | 41 | 22 | 44 |[Susian]| tú | ? |

| 45 | 90 | 58 | 45 |[Susian]| iš, S | S | S

| 46 | 2 | 1 | 69 |[Susian]| I | | I

| 47 | 98 | 6 | 70 |[Susian]| ya |ja, J [y, ya*] | ya

| 48 | 66 | 43 | 71 |[Susian]| in, N | I | N

| 49 | 5 | 26 | 72 |[Susian]| pá | pa | pa

| 50 | 96 | 63 | 73 |[Susian]| zi | ? | ta?

| 51 | 32 | 19 | 74 |[Susian]| ta | ta | ta

| 52 | 86 | 55 | 76 |[Susian]| šu | su | su

| _a_| 74 | 99 | 77 |[Susian]| rap | |

| 53 | 36 | 95 | 78 |[Susian]| tur | T.H. | ter

| 54 | 93 | 64 | 79 |[Susian]| zu | ? | si

| 55 |101 | 108 | 75 |[Susian]| Man | wo |

| 56 | | 110 | 89 |[Susian]| Det. | Aussonderungs | Det.

| 57 | 56 | 83 |90, 91|[Susian]| me, maš | Z |sh, wash

| 58 | 46 | 59 | 98 |[Susian]| sa | ? |

| 59 | 42 | 93 | 92 |[Susian]| tar | ? |

| 60 | 16 | 30 | 93 |[Susian]| pa | phu, pu [po*] | pu

| _a_| 68 | 98 | 94 |[Susian]| tin | |

| 61 | 75 | 100 | 95 |[Susian]| rak | ? |

| 62 | 80 | 37 | 96 |[Susian]| ur? | ? |

| 63 | 7 | 32 | 97 |[Susian]| ip, P | T’H | ut, tu

| 64 | 89 | 57 | 99 |[Susian]| aš | S | as

| 65 | | | |[Susian]| Defective | ? |

| 66 | 94 | 112 | 100 |[Susian]| Det. | thi |

| 67 | 51 | 33 | 101 |[Susian]| ma | wa, W | wa

| 68 | 76 |101, 91| 102 |[Susian]| tuk, raš | ro, r‛u | rus

| 69 | 21 | 13 | 104 |[Susian]| ku | qu | ku

| 70 | 37 | 96 | 103 |[Susian]| taš | ? [qa*] | tas

| 71 | 30 |ideog. | 107 |[Susian]| King[907] | ku | ku

| _a_| 97 | 41 | 108 |[Susian]| ? | |

| _b_| 95 | 74 | 109 |[Susian]| en | |

| 72 | 48 | 5 | 106 |[Susian]| yi; water | H | I

| 73 | 84 | 53 | 105 |[Susian]| sǎ | s‛a | sa

| 74 | 91 | 62 | 110 |[Susian]| za | za | sha

| 75 | 1 | 8 | 111 |[Susian]| A | O | A

| 76 | 3 | 3 | 80 |[Susian]| U | U | O, U

| 77 | 62 | 39 | 81 |[Susian]| ni | ni | ni

| 78 | 82 | 52 | 83 |[Susian]| ul, L; house| ? | ER

| _a_| 83 | 50 | 84 |[Susian]| li? | ? |

| 79 | 52 | 34 | 85 |[Susian]| mi | vi (wi) | wi

| 80 | 92 | 54 | 87 |[Susian]| ši | s‛i | si

| 81 | 20 | 12 | 88 |[Susian]| ki |kha (ka) [kho*]| ku

| 82 | 87 | 103 | 86 |[Susian]| šin | as‛ ars‛ | ersa

+----+----+-------+------+--------+-------------+---------------+--------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The number given to each sign by Westergaard and Hincks |

--------------------+--------+--------------+---------------------+ |

1849-50[903] |1852-55 | 1859[905] | | |

| [904] | | | |

--------------------+--------+--------------+---------------------+----+

Ha | Det. | Det. | Det. | 1 |

He, E? | af | up | hal; city | 2 |

A |an; det.| an; God | | 3 |

| tak | tak | tak, dak | _a_|

n (a) | na | na | | 4 |

s (a) | si | s‛i (ḥi?) | šē, sē | 5 |

| pu | bu | pu, bu | 6 |

ç (a) | sar | ṣir | sar | 8 |

| | | | 9 |

| lu | la | lu | _a_|

Ar | | | | 10 |

| thu | ṣu | çu | _a_|

K | ak | ak | | 11 |

| ven | A‛, aḥ | Ah, Ih | _a_|

| gau | kam, kav | ko, go; sea | _b_|

t, (o, ou) | u | u | to, do | 12 |

| ar | ḥar |har, ar; arch, window| _a_|

rr (a) | ra | ra | | 13 |

p (a) | par | bar | par, bar | 14 |

t (e, i) | ti | ti | ti, di | 15 |

N | nǐ | ni | nē | 16 |

| pe | | çi | _a_|

Aï | ga | gi | | 17 |

| | | | 18 |

KH | ik | k | | 19 |

| kwe | | ? | 20 |

Hou | yu | ḥu | hu | 22 |

r or l (a) | R | ir | ir, ar, ur | 23 |

| kan | kan | kan, gan | _a_|

| he | nun | Ship | _b_|

r or l (e, i) | ri | ri | | 24 |

dè | pa | bi, bat | pē, bē, pat, bat | 25 |

| van | man, van | | 26 |

| kas | kas | kas, gas | _a_|

GH | ap | ap | | 27 |

| nabu | nap | | _a_|

| uk | uk | | 28 |

| | asʹ | aç, az | 29 |

| ke | Horse | Horse | _a_|

TH | T | at | | 30 |

G (hard) k (a) | ka | ḳa | ka, ga | 31 |

t (a) | T | ut | | 32 |

b or p (e, i) | pi | pi | pi, bi | 33 |

f or ph (e, i) | ṭa | ta | tē, dē | 34 |

| gar | ḳar, gar | | _a_|

|tye, am?| | git | 35 |

M or W | M | im | im, M | 37 |

| te | | sak (ideog.) | _a_|

M or W, Oû | hu | U | U, yu | 38 |

| ru | ru | | 39 |

| ro | sik | tik, dik | _a_|

| ṭi | lu, tip | tip, dip | _b_|

| no | | mak, vak | _c_|

| pat | pat | pan, ban | _d_|

| passan?| sik | sik, zik | _e_|

| nos | | mun | _f_|

F or PH, f or ph (a)| far | pir | pir, bir (par, bar) | 40 |

n (o, ou) | E | I | Ē | 41 |

Ô | un | un | | 42 |

| tin | tan | tan, dan, tin | _a_|

| kar | kur | kar, gar; mountain | 43 |

| tu | du | tu, du | 44 |

CH | S | is | is, us, S | 45 |

I | I | I | | 46 |

Ya | ya | ya | Ya | 47 |

Y | in | in | | 48 |

b or p (a) | ba | ba | pa, ba | 49 |

kch (e, i) | chi | ṣi | ći, ǵi, źi, zi | 50 |

d or t (a) | ta | da | ta, da | 51 |

s (o, ou) | su | su | šu, su | 52 |

| rab | rab | rap | _a_|

th (a) | tar | tur | tur, dur | 53 |

DT | su | sʹu | ću, ǵu, źu, zu | 54 |

m, w (o, ou) | yo | Man | | 55 |

| Det. | Det. | | 56 |

Z | vas | mas, vas | | 57 |

| tha | sʹa | ça | 58 |

| tar | tar | tar, dar | 59 |

q (e, i) | po | pa | po, bo | 60 |

| ne | | tin, din | _a_|

| rak | rak | | 61 |

| re | ur | um, perhaps ur | 62 |

MW, Ou | fa | ip | ip, P | 63 |

S | as | as | as | 64 |

| | | | 65 |

th (e, i) | Ṣ | Det. | | 66 |

m, w (a) | va | ma, va | | 67 |

Ç | ras | tuk, ras | ras | 68 |

q (o, ou) | ku | ku | ku, gu | 69 |

Q | tas | das | tas, das | 70 |

k (e, i) | ko | ga | King | 71 |

| cho | um? | nu | _a_|

| sen | ṭu | kin, gin | _b_|

A, Ha | hi | A; water | Yi; water | 72 |

ch (a) | sa | ša | ša, sa | 73 |

z (a) | ṣa | ṣa | ća, ǵa, źa, za | 74 |

A | A | ḥa | ha, a | 75 |

Ou (short) | U | U‛ | O | 76 |

n (e, i) | ni | nu | ni | 77 |

dh (e, i) | al | ul |al, il, ul, L; house | 78 |

| el | li | | _a_|

m, w (e, i), oui | vi | mi, vi | | 79 |

ch (e, i) | ṣi | si | ši, s | 80 |

kh (o, ou) | ki | k | | 81 |

Sign for plural | san | sin | san | 82 |

--------------------+--------+--------------+---------------------+----+

The preceding are the 110 signs given by Menant. The five other signs are

+-----------+------+------+--------+---------+-----------+------------+

+-----------+------+------+--------+---------+-----------+------------+

| | 53 | 35 | 5 |[Susian] | mu | mu, vu |

+-----------+------+------+--------+---------+-----------+------------+

FOOTNOTES

[1] Later Assyrian includes 570 different signs, but only 300 are in

common use (_British Museum Guide_, edited by E. A. W. Budge, 1900, p.

41).

[2] The _British Museum Guide_ goes so far as to mention B.C. 8000 as a

probable date (p. 3).

[3] On this subject see Sir Henry Howorth, _English Historical Review_,

April 1898; Weissbach (F. H.), _Zur Lösung der Sumerischen Frage_, 1897;

and especially Mr. Pinches’ ‘Sumerian or Cryptography,’ _J. R. A. S._

1900.

[4] _Die Achämenideninschriften Zweiter Art._, by F. H. Weisbach, 1890,

p. 77. Inscription H.

[5] A much defaced inscription at the corner is conjectured from

the position of the name Xerxes to have been set up by his son

Artaxerxes Longimanus: only the Semitic portion is partly legible, and

it is the only trace of that king at Persepolis. Carl Bezold: _Die

Achämenideninschriften_, 1882, pp. 47.

[6] _Viagi fatti da Vinetia alla Tana_ (Vinegia, 1545), p. 46.

Camara is no doubt the same place as the Comerum of Friar Odoricus, 1825

A.D. Cf. Curzon (Hon. G. N.), _Persia_, 1892, ii. 130. It must have been

about ten miles from Persepolis, which Barbaro seems to regard as about a

day’s journey.

[7] ‘_Dio Padre in uno tondo_,’ p. 46.

[8] _De le Antiquità_, Venetia, 1540. Cf. the edition in the British

Museum, _Il Terzo Libro di Sebastiano Serlio_, Venetia, 1534, p. 100.

[9] See Menant, _Les Achéménides_ (Paris 1872), p. 33, where, however,

the reader will find a copy of Serlio’s drawing.

[10] Don Garcia: _L’Ambassade_ (Paris, 1667), p. 163.

[11] _Relation des Grandes Guerres_, par le P. Fr. Anthoine de Gouvea

(Rouen, 1646), p. 78. The original was written at Goa, in 1609, and

published at Lisbon, 1611: _Relaçam em que se trata das Guerras, etc._

(Lisboa).

[12] So spelt in the Portuguese edition, p. 30; ‘Bandimico’ in the French

edition, p. 79.

[13] Gouvea, _Relation des Grandes Guerres_, p. 107.

[14] _Op. cit._ pp. 134, 174.

[15] _Ambassade de Don Garcia de Silva Figueroa en Perse_, traduit par de

Wicqfort (Paris, 1667), p. 5. The Spanish original does not appear in the

Catalogue of the British Museum, where, however, may be found the tract

_De Rebus Persarum_, Antwerp, 1620.

[16] See the letter of Don Garcia in _Purchas, His Pilgrimes_, ii. 1534.

[17] ‘_The Preacher’s Travels_, penned by J. C., sometime student in

Magdalen Colledge in Oxford,’ London, 1611, p. 84.

[18] He only mentions one (p. 146). He does not seem to have noticed any

difference in the animals in the farther Portico.

[19] ‘_Brute et grossière estampe_’: _Ambassade_, p. 163. We have already

said that this statement is incorrect. _Supra_, p. 11.

[20] _Viaggi di Pietro della Valle_ (Brighton, 1843), i. 382.

[21] _Viaggi_, ii. 231.

[22] _Viaggi_, vol. ii. For his account of Persepolis see _Lettera xv._

pp. 228-68.

[23] They are given on p. 253.

[24] Herbert (Sir Thomas), _Travels_, 1665, pp. 111-17.

[25] _Some Yeares Travels_, by Sir Thomas Herbert, Bart. See the various

editions published in 1634, 1638, 1665 and 1677. The first edition, _A

Relation of some Years Travaille, begunne anno 1626, by T. H. Esquier_,

London, 1634, has recently been practically withdrawn from the Museum

Library in order to enjoy the honour of appearing within a glass case.

[26] Ed. 1634, p. 56.

[27] _Cf._ ed. 1634, p. 59.

[28] Ed. 1638, p. 145.

[29] It will be recollected that Della Valle’s letters were not published

till 1658.

[30] _Vermehrte neue Beschreibung der Muscowitischen und Persischen

Reyse_ (Schleszwig, 1656).

[31] _Estat de la Perse en 1660_, par le Père Raphaël (Du Mans, Paris,

1890), p. xliii.

[32] _Morgenländische Reyse-Beschreibung des Hochedel gebornen J. A.

Mandelslo_ (Schleszwig, 1658), pp. 10-17.

[33] _The Voyage and Travels of J. Albert de Mandelslo, rendered into

English by John Davies of Kidwalley_, London, 1662.

[34] It will be remarked that Olearus does not mention Della Valle, whose

book was not then published.

[35] _Some Years Travels_, by Sir Tho. Herbert, Bart. (1665), pp. 145-59.

[36] Herbert (1665), p. 153. For a photograph of the north door see

Curzon, _Persia_, ii. 176.

[37] Joret (J. B.), _Tavernier_ (1886), p. 180.

[38] _Estat de la Perse_, p. lxxviii.

[39] Thévenot (Jean de), _Voyages_, 5 vols. (Amst. 1727), iv. 491.

[40] _Les Beautés de la Perse_, par le sieur A.D.D.V. (Paris, 1673), pp.

55-66.

[41] _Voyage de M. de Thévenot_, Bk. III. chap. vii. pp. 501 ff.

[42] Thévenot (Amsterdam, ed. 1727), vol. iii; see preface and pp. 1-2.

_Estat de la Perse_, pp. lxxv-lxxviii.

[43] Thévenot, iii. 262.

[44] Thévenot, iv. 486.

[45] Joret, p. 203.

[46] _Estat de la Perse_, p. lxxvi.

[47] Thévenot, iv. 510.

[48] Thévenot, iv. 520.

[49] For Tavernier see _Les Six Voyages_ (Utrecht, 1712, 3 vols.), i.

728; and the excellent Memoir of him by M. Joret, 1886.

[50] _Les Voyages de J. Struys_ (Amsterdam, 1681). Ouseley (Sir W.),

_Travels_, ii. 232.

[51] Struys, pp. 316-317.

[52] Cf. _Philosophical Transactions Abridged_, iii. 543, where reference

is made to _Phil. Trans._ June 1693; xvii. 776. Hyde (Dr. Thomas),

_Veterum Persarum ... Historia_, 1760, pp. 548, 557, Pl. 14. _Cf._ Evetts

(Basil T. A.), _New Light on the Bible_ (1892), p. 74. Menant, _Les

Langues perdues_ (Paris, 1885), p. 62.

[53] Daulier, _Les Beautés_, p. 55.

[54] This view may have been suggested by Chardin, who was known to Hyde.

(Hyde, p. 548, _note_.)

[55] Hyde, _Vet. Pers. Hist._ p. 557. _Cf._ Menant, p. 65.

[56] See _Voyages de Monsieur le Chevalier Chardin_ (Amsterdam, 1711),

iii. 98 ff, Plates 52-74; but four of these are devoted to copies of the

inscriptions (Pl. 69-73).

[57] _Voyages du Chevalier Chardin_ (ed. Langlès, Paris, 1811), viii.

242-318.

[58] Chardin, _Voyages_, viii. 401.

[59] _A New Account_, by J. Fryer (London, 1698), p. 251.

[60] Chardin, viii, 321-3.

[61] Now known as Inscription L. Not to be confounded with the L of

Niebuhr.

[62] _Ib._ pp. 343, 347-51.

[63] _Ib._ p. 385.

[64] _Amoenitates Exoticae_, by Engelbert Kaempfer (1712), 297-353.

[65] P. 332. The four inscriptions in Niebuhr are lettered H, I, K, and

L. H and I are Persian; K is Susian; and L Babylonian. L is the H of

Bezold, p. 39; Menant, p. 78. I is unilingual.

[66] P. 346. Chardin, Pl. 69, p. 320.

[67] Pp. 338, 339. A inscription.

[68] P. 348. C inscription.

[69] B inscription.

[70] P. 350. G inscription.

[71] P. 334.

[72] P. 349.

[73] _Voyages de Corneille Le Bruyn_ (Paris, 1725), iv. 301-408.

[74] A inscription, Table 126 (Le Bruyn).

[75] Cᵃ inscription, Table 131 (Le Bruyn).

[76] B inscription, Table 132 (Le Bruyn).

[77] G inscription, Table 133 (Le Bruyn).

[78] L inscription, Table 134 (Le Bruyn).

[79] _Ib._ pp. 317, 351. Buckingham also fancied he beheld a female in

the Palace of Xerxes.

[80] _Ib._ pp. 353-4.

[81] _Voyage en Arabie_, par C. Niebuhr (Amsterdam, 1783), vol. ii. pp.

98-133.

[82] Vol. ii. p. 122.

[83] Morier observes: ‘On comparing Le Bruyn’s, Chardin’s and Niebuhr’s

drawings with the sculptures, I found them in general correct in outline,

but imperfect in the details of dress, arms, &c.... They have not been

done justice to in the works of those travellers.’—_Second Journey

through Persia_ (London, 1818), p. 76.

[84] Morier says Le Bruyn has exaggerated the mutilation. _A Journey

through Persia_, by James Morier (London, 1812; referred to as _First

Journey_), p. 134. Elsewhere he says the faces of _all_ the figures to

the right are mutilated; _Second Journey_, p. 76.

[85] In Porter’s drawing this personage appears at the other end of the

row. _Cf._ Plates, Niebuhr, ii. 120, and Porter, _Travels in Georgia_, i.

670.

[86] Niebuhr, ii. 117.

[87] Niebuhr, _ib._ p. 111.

[88] P. 125.

[89] _Supra_, pp. 71, 73.

[90] Niebuhr, _ib._ p. 112.

[91] _Ib._ p. 113.

[92] This, as we have noticed, had been already done by Flower.

[93] P. 117. Professor Sayce makes the obvious remark that another easy

way of settling this point is the consideration ‘that the ends of all the

lines were exactly underneath each other on the left side, whereas they

terminated irregularly on the right.’ _Fresh Lights from the Monuments_,

by A. H. Sayce (1890), p. 10.

[94] ‘Quelques voyageurs en ont tiré la conséquence que les anciens

Perses ayent écrit de haut en bas, commes les Chinois. Mais si l’on

examine de plus près les inscriptions, comme quelques uns les ont copiées

icy, et qu’on les compare avec mes copies, on trouvera que les lignes

qui sont droites sont toutes couchées de côté, ce qui fait que le nombre

des lettres n’est à beaucoup près pas si grand que peut-être on a pu le

penser d’après les copies de mes prédécesseurs.’ Niebuhr, _ib._ p. 113.

[95] P. 126. Morier saw only one column. _First Journey_, p. 141.

[96] Heeren, _Historical Researches_ (Eng. ed. 1846), vol. ii. Appendix

VI.

[97] Morier, _Second Journey_, p. 264.

[98] For his fate see Flandin, _Voyage en Perse_, i. 113.

[99] _Second Journey_, p. 68.

[100] _First Journey_, p. 128. On Persepolis and Murgab see chaps. vii.

and viii.

[101] Ouseley (Sir W.), _Travels in various Countries_ (3 vols. 1821),

vol. ii. note p. 439.

[102] Inscription M.

[103] _Second Journey_, p. 117.

[104] _Second Journey_, p. 75; Ouseley, ii. 255. They were afterwards

given to the British Museum, and for a long time were the only materials

for the study of Persian art. The practice of taking away specimens

seems to have been continued by later travellers, and, as Porter says,

much of value was ‘doomed to the predatory mallet’ (p. 632). When Rich

visited the ruins in 1821, he observed that ‘many parts had been defaced

by the passion for preserving curiosities. This rage has induced some

even to chip off bits of inscriptions. One has endeavoured to chisel off

a very fine head, which was well preserved, and, not succeeding, he has

apparently in wrath thrown his mallet against the head and smashed it.’

(_Koordistan_, ii. 222.) Rich found the inscription on the robe of the

king in the Palace of Xerxes had suffered from these proceedings. ‘They

have been variously defaced by people chipping off pieces (mostly very

recently) for curiosities. I have copied what remains of three of them’

(_Babylon and Persepolis_, Pl. 19). A disease visited the people of the

country shortly after, and those of them who had assisted in these acts

of Vandalism thought themselves justly punished. Flandin, ii. 113, 127.

[105] Ouseley (Sir W.), _Travels_, vol. ii. For Persepolis and Murgab see

chaps. xi. and xii.

[106] Ouseley, ii. 91.

[107] Plates 41 and 47, pp. 256-7.

[108] Ouseley, p. 286.

[109] _Ib._ pp. 265-7.

[110] Pp. 426-9.

[111] Plate 49: 1. Morier, from a pillar of the palace. 2. Gordon (and

Morier), from over the winged figure. 3. Ouseley, from the solitary

monolith.

[112] Mohl, _Rapports annuels faits à la Société Asiatique, 1840-45_:

1843, p. 13.

[113] Porter (Sir Robert Ker), _Travels in Georgia_, &c. (London, 1821),

i. 679.

[114] Plates 17 and 18, pp. 516, 518. See the curious engraving of a

Royal tomb at Persepolis in Hyde, p. 307, where he says the soul or

Icuncula is about to ascend to heaven.

[115] Porter, p. 524.

[116] _Ib._ p. 587. D’Hancarville had, however, already suggested that

they were ‘partly bulls.’ See the various opinions on this question

stated by Ouseley, ii. 247, note.

[117] Porter, p. 634.

[118] Porter, p. 502.

[119] _Ib._ pp. 622-3.

[120] _Ib._ p. 488-9, Plate 13.

[121] Pl. 44, p. 616. He omits the first four lines.

[122] Pl. 55 and 56, p. 681. _Cf._ Niebuhr, Pl. 31. Porter left out lines

18 and 19 of Inscription H. Westergaard, _Ueber die Keilinschriften_

(Bonn, 1845), p. 2.

[123] Porter’s _Travels_ were published in 1821, the same year as

Ouseley’s, and three years after Morier’s _Second Journey_, 1818. Loftus

complains of the ‘exceedingly rough and incorrect sketch’ made by Porter

of a bas-relief at Susa: _Chaldæa and Susiana_, p. 415. Yet Flandin

admits Porter’s talent in drawing. The plates of all his predecessors

were, he says, superseded. He became the ‘oracle of the archæologists,’

especially in architecture and sculpture (Flandin, i. 9). The most

important contribution since made in English is the chapter on the

subject in Lord Curzon’s _Persia_, Vol. II. chap. xxi.

[124] Texier (Ch. F. M.), _Description de l’Arménie_ (1842-52), i. xv.

[125] Kinneir (J. Macdonald), _Geographical Memoir_ (1813), p. 126.

Flandin estimates the distance at eight kilomètres. See Menant, _Les

Achéménides_, p. 129. Murray says vaguely, ‘near’ Hamadan (Handbook,

_Asia Minor_, p. 328). Curzon uses the same expression (i. 566).

[126] Morier, _Second Journey_, p. 267.

[127] Porter, ii. 120.

[128] Rich (C. J.), _Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan_, ii. 126.

[129] Vaux (W. S. W.), _Nineveh and Persepolis_ (London, 1851), p. 441,

note A. _J. R. A. S._ (1882), vol. xiv., article on Van by Professor

Sayce.

[130] Elvend, O and F; Van, K.

[131] Rich, _Koordistan_, i. xvi, xviii.

[132] Rich, _Koordistan_, ii. 186.

[133] _Ib._ p. 215.

[134] Rich, _ib._ pp. 216-18.

[135] _Babylon and Persepolis_, by C. J. Rich (1839), p. 240.

[136] Rich, _Koordistan_, ii, 217-19.

[137] Niebuhr had found only 2½ feet of the stairs visible (_Voyage_, ii.

111).

[138] _Koordistan_, ii. 223.

[139] _Babylon and Persepolis_, Pl. 13, 14, and 15; Inscr. Cᵃ.

[140] _Ib._ Pl. 16, 17, 18; Inscr. E.

[141] Rich, _ib._ Pl. 18; Inscr. G.

[142] Pl. 19 (_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_).

[143] Pl. 20, 21, 22; Cᵇ.

[144] Pl. 23; P.

[145] Pl. 24, 25, 26; D. See Weissbach und Bang, _Die Altpersischen

Keilinschriften_ (1893), pp. 5-10.

[146] Rich, _Babylon and Persepolis_, pp. 250, 252.

[147] _Ib._ p. 256.

[148] _Ib._ pp. 247-55. Cf. _Koordistan_, ii, 222.

[149] Diod. Sic. ii. 13.

[150] Rawlinson (George), Herodotus edited by (1862), ii. 490; _The Five

Great Monarchies_ (1879: referred to as _History_), iii. 416. Perrot and

Chipiez, _History of Art in Persia_ (Eng. ed., 1892), p. 393, but _cf._

p. 38.

[151] _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ (referred to as _J. R. A.

S._) x. 193.

[152] This was suggested by Dr. Hincks in the _Dublin University

Magazine_, Jan. 1847, p. 15.

[153] _J. R. A. S._ x. 187, 192.

[154] Rawlinson, in _Records of the Past_, O.S. i. 128. Oppert, _ib._

ix. 68. _Cf._ the later attempts of Spiegel, _Die Altpersischen

Keilinschriften_ (1881), p. 41, and Weissbach, _op. cit._ p. 29.

[155] Perrot, p. 33, translator’s note.

[156] Evetts (Basil), _New Lights on the Bible_, p. 42.

[157] Kinneir, _Geographical Memoir_, p. 181. _Ib._ ‘Asia Minor’ (1818),

p. 462.

[158] Porter, _Travels_, ii, 154-8.

[159] _Memoirs of Sir Henry Rawlinson, Bart., G.C.B._, by George

Rawlinson (Longmans, 1898). In the title-page he is described as K.C.B.

According to Dod the higher rank was conferred in 1889: K.C.B. in 1856.

[160] _J. R. A. S._ x. 15. Layard, however, says he sometimes at least

availed himself of a powerful telescope. _Nineveh and Babylon_ (1882), p.

xliii.

[161] _Memoir_, p. 63.

[162] _J. R. A. S._ x. 7, _note_.

[163] _Athenæum_, Nov. 8, 1884.

[164] _Memoir_, p. 144.

[165] _Memoir_, p. 156, _note_.

[166] Rawlinson, in _J. R. A. S._ xii. 408.

[167] Fergusson (James), _The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis_, p. vii.

[168] Texier, ii. 151.

[169] Fergusson, p. 160, _note_.

[170] Flandin (Eugène), _Voyage en Perse_ (2 vols., 1851), i. 5. _Cf._ p.

497.

[171] Flandin, _Voyage_, i. 451.

[172] I. 423, 443, 448.

[173] I. 450-1.

[174] II. 79, 362.

[175] II. 83-4. _Cf._ Pl. 194-203.

[176] II. 125.

The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions · 第 11 / 13 章

But the great distinction of Rawlinson lay in his unequalled power of