counted only three windows on the north side of the Hall of the Hundred
Columns. Their number is not yet ascertained. See Curzon, ii. 177. This
is a point, says Fergusson, ‘which nothing but the most inexcusable
carelessness could have left at all doubtful.’
[178] _Cf._ the account already given of the principal palace at Murgab
(Flandin, 8vo, ii. 83) with the Pl. 197. See also the account of the
Palace of Darius, p. 176, and the Palace of Ochus, p. 184, and compare
with the plates. Of the Palace of Darius he says: ‘C’est à peine si l’on
en retrouve assez de traces pour reconnaître la distribution intérieure
de l’édifice,’ p. 176.
[179] II. 125.
[180] Flandin, ii. 98, 106-10.
[181] _Ib._ i. 493.
[182] II. 186.
[183] _Ib._ p. 160.
[184] _Ib._ p. 177; Fergusson, p. 117.
[185] Flandin, ii. 179.
[186] _Ib._ p. 187; Fergusson, p. 132.
[187] Flandin, p. 196; Fergusson, p. 176; Ouseley, ii. 239; Niebuhr, ii.
121.
[188] Notwithstanding an escort of irregular horse, Baron de Bode,
however, narrowly escaped receiving a volley into his party from the
Bakhtiyari, whose impetuosity was only restrained by Mr. Layard, who
happened to be among them at the time. Layard, _Early Adventures_ (1894),
p. 210.
[189] Flandin, ii, 380-81.
[190] _Ib._ p. 433.
[191] Flandin, ii. 481.
[192] _Ib._ i. 489, _note_.
[193] Some of the plates seem to have appeared in 1848 (_J. R. A. S._
1848, ix. 393, _note_), but the earliest received in the British Museum
was in August 1850; others not till September 1851. The plan of the
S.E. edifice and the general plan of the ruins were not available for
Fergusson up to December 1850. See Fergusson, p. 96, _note_; p. 132,
_note_.
[194] Flandin, i. 492.
[195] _Ib._ i. 10.
[196] For a few of these scenes see ii. 28, 93, 103, 174, 397. He cared
little whether the punishment fell on the right man. After one of these
encounters he writes: ‘Au bout d’une heure le Ket-Khodâh arriva avec
quelques hommes qui en conduisaient un autre les mains liées, qu’ils me
présentèrent comme celui qui avait été instigateur des offenses dont je
me plaignais. _Je ne le reconnaissais pas; mais peu importait._ Ce que
je voulais, ce que je devais à mon habit de frengui, c’était de ne pas
laisser impunie une aggression comme celle dont j’avais eu à souffrir
... _je me contentai donc du prétendu coupable qui m’était amené_: le
Ket-Khodâh le fit coucher sur le dos; on lui attacha le bas des jambes à
un bâton dont les extrémités étaient tenues en l’air par deux hommes qui
lui administrèrent des coups de verges sur la plante des pieds. Lorsque
je crus avoir assez fait pour l’exemple j’arrêtai les coups’ (ii. 398).
[197] Noeldeke (Theod.), _Persepolis: Die Achaemenidischen Denkmäler_,
Berlin, 1882, 2 vols. fol.
[198] Noeldeke, _ib._ ‘Vorwort,’ vol. i.; Pl. 148-50.
[199] Note to No. 46. _Cf._ No. 76.
[200] Note to No. 95.
[201] The following may be referred to as complete failures: Plates 9,
10, 14, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 58.
[202] _La Perse_, par Mme Jane Dieulafoy, Paris, 1887.
[203] Fergusson, _Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis_, p. 162.
[204] Kinneir, _Geographical Memoir_, p. 100; Porter, ii. 411; Curzon,
ii. 309.
[205] Kinneir, p. 92.
[206] _Ib._ p. 100.
[207] W. K. Loftus, _Chaldæa and Susiana_ (1857), pp. 417-19. A sketch of
the stone may be seen in Walpole’s _Travels in Turkey_, ii. 426, and is
reproduced in Loftus, p. 419.
[208] Ouseley, i. 420.
[209] Rawlinson, _Memoir_, p. 63; Bonomi, _Nineveh and its Palaces_
(1889), p. 479; Loftus, p. 344; _J. R. A. S._ xii. 482. This inscription
was long known as the Susra Inscription, from the name of the king as
deciphered by Rawlinson.
[210] Layard, _Early Adventures_, pp. 352-6.
[211] Layard, _ib._ p. 167. For drawings see Perrot and Chipiez, _History
of Art in Persia_, p. 378.
[212] Loftus (W. Kennett), _Chaldæa and Susiana_ (1857), p. 343.
[213] _Ib._ p. 352.
[214] Loftus, pp. 366-7.
[215] _Ib._ pp. 368, 375.
[216] ‘_A Suse_: Journal des Fouilles, par Madame Jane Dieulafoy,
Officier de la Légion d’Honneur’ (Paris, 1888), p. 115.
[217] _Ib._ p. 132.
[218] _Ib._ p. 158.
[219] _Ib._ p. 160.
[220] _Ib._ p. 167; for illustration see _L’Acropole de Suse_, par Marcel
Dieulafoy (Paris, 1893), p. 298.
[221] _A Suse_, pp. 194-5.
[222] _A Suse_, pp. 196-8.
[223] _Ib._ p. 263.
[224] De Morgan, _Recherches Archéologiques_, p. 69, _note_ 5.
[225] _A Suse_, p. 309.
[226] _Ib._ p. 319.
[227] ‘Nous avons acquis, au prix d’un travail opiniâtre et d’efforts
dont nul ne soupçonnera jamais l’âpreté, des richesses archéologiques
inestimables. Les reliques des Palais achéménides ne furent pas arrachées
à un monument superbe, mais ressuscitées des entrailles avares de la
terre et conquises au péril de notre vie. En ma qualité d’historiographe
des fouilles, il m’appartient de parler hautement et sans fausse
modestie. La mission de Susiane a livré une bataille désespérée et la
Providence aidant, elle revient victorieuse.’ _A Suse_, p. 353.
[228] _Recherches Archéologiques_, par J. de Morgan, G. Jéquier et G.
Lampre (Paris, 1900), vol. i. p. ix.
[229] _Recherches_, p. 79; Loftus, _Chaldæa_, p. 367.
[230] _Recherches_, p. 72.
[231] Tranchée 12.
[232] See Chronological Tablet in Radau, _Early Babylonian History_, p.
30.
[233] _Recherches_, pp. 145 and 165.
[234] _Ib._ p. 183. Gallery B.
[235] _Recherches_, pp. 187-8.
[236] Galleries C and D.
[237] Menant, _Les Achéménides_, p. 146.
[238] Oppert, _Records_, O.S. ix. p. 81.
[239] Spiegel, _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_, p. 53.
[240] Oppert, _Le Peuple des Mèdes_, p. 215. Quoted by Spiegel, p. 117.
[241] Menant, _Les Achéménides_, p. 143.
[242] Benfey, _Die Persischen Keilinschriften_ (1847), p. 68; Spiegel, p.
129; _Records_, O.S. ix. 87.
[243] Niebuhr (C.), _Voyage en Arabie_, ii. 106.
[244] See Appendix A. The defective letters are Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 17, 20,
30, 37 and the diagonal No. 2.
[245] _Cf._ the alphabets. Spiegel, _Altpersischen Keilinschriften_
(Leipzig, 1881), pp. 142, 144, 159.
[246] Tychsen (O. G.), (Rostock, 1798, 4to) p. 5.
[247] Tychsen, pp. 22-6.
[248] See Appendix A, which shows the letters of the cuneiform alphabet
arranged according to Niebuhr’s list, and the values Tychsen has assigned
to each. The numbers preceding the letters in the text refer to the
numbers of the letters in Niebuhr’s alphabet.
[249] Tychsen, p. 27.
[250] He made this discovery afterwards, either independently or else he
accepted it from Münter. See Heeren, _Historical Researches_ (Eng. ed.
1846), ii. 329.
[251] Tychsen, pp. 29-30.
[252] _Ib._ pp. 17, 22.
[253] Münter (F. C.), _Versuch über die keilförmigen Inschriften_
(Kopenhagen, 1802, 8vo), p. 8.
[254] _Magasin Encyclopédique_, rédigé par A. L. Millin, Year IX, vol.
iii.
[255] Münter, p. 25.
[256] Heeren (A. H. L.), _Historische Werke_: ‘Ideen über die Politik’
(1824), xi. 407.
[257] Münter, pp. 85, 106, 123.
[258] P. 123; but _cf._ p. 87, where he pronounces more definitely for
different languages.
[259] _Recueil d’Antiquités_, vol. v. Pl. 30; for the Babylonian bricks,
Millin, iii. 20.
[260] Münter, p. 78.
[261] _Ib._ p. 113.
[262] _Ib._ p. 105.
[263] _Ib._ p. 106, _note_.
[264] Münter, pp. 105, 109.
[265] _Ib._ p. 114.
[266] _Ib._ p. 117.
[267] Münter’s consonants are:
P 4 𐎣 wrong
Kh 11 𐎭 wrong
Kh [Persian] defective
R 3 [Persian] defective
Strong R 16 𐎨 wrong
S [Persian] defective
B 𐎲 right
his vowels:
E or A 21 𐎠 right A
A 23 𐎶 wrong
I [Persian] defective
Ou &c. 38 𐏁 wrong
O vocal 12 𐎡 wrong
O [Persian] defective
[268] Münter, p. 125.
[269] ‘Aber selbst die Flectionen, die mir überall im Wege standen,
mussten mich in meiner Erwartung, hier nomina propria anzutreffen,
immer ungewisser machen, und dadurch musste ich auch immer mehr davon
abgeschreckt werden in dem Wort mit den 7 Buchstaben einen Königstitel zu
suchen.’ p. 127.
[270] _Ib._ p. 126.
[271] Münter, p. 118.
[272] Münter, p. 128.
[273] _Ib._ p. 140.
[274] _Ib._ p. 120.
[275] _Ib._ p. 90.
[276] See above, p. 24.
[277] Vol. xxviii. Hager’s _Dissertation_, p. xv., _note_.
[278] _Journal des Savants_, 1790.
[279] Vol. v. Pl. 30. See _J. R. A. S._ xi. 389.
[280] Münter, Pl. 2, figs. 1 and 2.
[281] Hager (Joseph), _Dissertation on the Newly-Discovered Babylonian
Inscriptions_ (London, 1801), p. xvi.
[282] See Millin _Magasin Encyclopédique_ (Year IX), ii. 36.
[283] Hager, p. xviii.
[284] _Ib._ pp. xix. 40-41.
[285] _Ib._ pp. 20, 37, 40, 48.
[286] Hager, p. 50.
[287] Millin, _loc. cit._ p. 46.
[288] Dorow, _Die Assyrische Keilinschriften erläutert_ (Wiesbaden,
1820), p. 25.
[289] Hager, pp. 60-1.
[290] _Ib._ pp. 53, 56.
[291] Hager, pp. 52, 62.
[292] See Millin (Year VIII), v. 441. It was reprinted at Helmstadt,
1803, 1 vol. 4to.
[293] De Sacy, in Millin, _ib._ p. 450.
[294] _Ib._ p. 453.
[295] _Ib._ p. 443.
[296] Millin, pp. 445-7. The Michaux Stone, as is now well known, is a
Kudurru, or landmark, of which class it is still the oldest specimen.
It dates from B.C. 1120, and being chiefly an inventory of effects and
measurements, the difficulties of its translation have been only recently
overcome. See Maspero (G.), _Dawn of Civilisation_ (Eng. ed. 1894), p.
762.
[297] Letter to Dorow, _Die Assyrische Keilinschriften_ (1820), pp. 28,
59.
[298] Grotefend (G. F.), _Neue Beiträge_, Hanover, 1847, 4to.
[299] Heeren, _Werke_, xi. 344.
[300] _Ib._ pp. 345, 352.
[301] Year VIII (1803), v. 438. De Sacy’s essay is accompanied by a
plate giving the text, transliteration and translation of the B and G
inscriptions of Niebuhr.
[302] Vols. iv. and v.
[303] _Historische Werke_, xi. 325. We have used the edition of 1824 as
the more accessible. On comparing it with the earlier edition of 1815,
we have not found any difference of importance. Both editions contain
the same two plates. No. 1 is taken from De Sacy, as above, and edited
by Tychsen. It gives Grotefend’s alphabet exactly as it subsequently
appeared, but without the later emendations of the _sr_ and _k_, together
with the long list of defective signs. At the bottom is a transliteration
of the Xerxes inscription (G). No. 2 is by Grotefend. It gives the
cuneiform text in the three species of writing of the inscriptions of
Xerxes and Cyrus, and that on the Caylus Vase, with the translation. The
three columns are divided so as to show the words of each species that
correspond to one another. Kaulen says Grotefend’s essay appeared in
the second edition of 1805 (_Assyrien und Babylonien_, 1899, p. 126).
Weisbach says its first appearance was in 1815 (_Achämenideninschriften
Zweiter Art_, 1890, p. 3). We have not found the second edition in the
British Museum.
[304] De Sacy, _Mémoires sur diverses Antiquités_, Paris, 1793. It is
given by Heeren (Eng. ed.), vol. ii. App. 2, p. 332.
[305] 𐎲 was assumed to be the same as the 𐎼 _r_ in ‘Darius.’
[306] The true Zend spelling is ‘khchayo’; the ‘h’ before ‘y’ expressed
in cuneiform is understood in Zend. Burnouf (Eugène), _Mémoire sur deux
Inscriptions_ (1836), p. 76.
[307] Millin, Year VIII, v. 461.
[308] _Ib._ p. 462.
[309] _Cf._ Grotefend’s own account of how he heard of _bun_. Heeren
(Eng. ed.), ii. 337.
[310] It seems to have been completed by the time he wrote the tract on
the Zend alphabet, which is reviewed in Millin, Year VIII, vi. 96 (1803).
[311] Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 329.
[312] Millin (1803), v. 458.
[313] See Heeren (ed. 1815), vol. i. part 2, p. 704.
[314] Heeren (1824), xi. 372. See Eng. ed. ii. 350.
[315] _Ib._ p. 351.
[316] Heeren (Eng. ed.), 126; Millin (1803), v. 438, Plate.
[317] See _supra_, p. 73.
[318] Heeren, _ib._ p. 126. Millin, ii. 370, iii. 211.
[319] Heeren (ed. 1815), pp. 592, 595. _Cf._ Eng. ed. ii. 339.
[320] _Ib._ (1824), xi. 353, _Cf._ Eng. ed. ii. 337.
[321] Millin, iii. 212 (1803).
[322] The two words are as follows:
m n i sh i y correct
𐏃 · 𐎧 · 𐎠 · 𐎶 · 𐎴 · 𐎡 · 𐏁 · 𐎡 · 𐎹 ·
Grotefend A kh a o tsch o sch o h
m z correct
𐎠 · 𐎢 · 𐎼 · 𐎶 · 𐏀 · 𐎭 · 𐎠 ·
Grotefend A _or_ E u r o gh d a _or_ e
[323] Menant, _Les Langues perdues_, p. 111.
[324] Millin, xi. 99 (1803).
[325] Millin, vi. 96.
[326] Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 330.
[327] The Caillou Michaux. De Sacy also held that this inscription was
different from the third Persepolitan, and that the Babylonian bricks
and cylinders offered another variety (Millin, 1803, v. 440). De Sacy
reported that the inscriptions on the bricks at Paris differed entirely
from the inscriptions published by Hager (Hager, p. 58, _note_.)
[328] Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 324-5; Millin, ii. 372; cf. _Werke_, xi.
334, 339, 355. Heeren also thought the first species was the oldest.
[329] Heeren, _Werke_, xi. 342.
[330] Grotefend’s views on this point were explained in the _Fundgruben
des Orients_, vol. v. pt. 3. See Grotefend, _Neue Beiträge_ (1840), p. 7.
[331] Dorow, _op. cit._ p. 26. _Cf._ Grotefend, _Neue Beiträge_ (1840),
p. 23.
[332] Dorow, pp. 32, 38, 41. He recurs to this subject in _Neue Beiträge_
(1840), pp. 6 and 7, and refers for his original treatment of it to
_Fundgruben des Orients_, vol. iv. pt. 4, and vol. vi. pt. 2.
[333] Dorow, p. 42.
[334] _Erläuterung über einige Babylonische Cylinder_ (1820), by
Grotefend; and _Nachträgliche Bemerkungen_ which follow it.
[335] Cf. _J. R. A. S._ 1848 (Annual Report, 1846) p. vii. Holtzmann,
_Beiträge zur Erklärung der Persischen Keilinschriften_ (Carlsruhe,
1845), p. 13.
[336] _Neue Beiträge_ (1837), p. 17.
[337] _Ib._ p. 25.
[338] _Ib._ p. 35.
[339] _Ib._ p. 28.
[340] _Ib._ p. 39.
[341] Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 16.
[342] In the same year Burnouf suggested ‘this is,’ or ‘I am’ (_Mémoire
sur deux Inscriptions_, p. 170).
[343] Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 24.
[344] Smith’s _Biblical Dictionary_, art. ‘Nineveh,’ p. 560.
[345] _J. R. A. S._ (1861), xviii. 77.
[346] Mohl (Jules), _Vingt-sept ans d’Histoire des Etudes Orientales_, i.
546; Report, June 1854.
[347] See Grotefend’s Alphabet, App. A. _Cf._ Burnouf, _Mémoire_, Pl. 1.
See his correct values, App. B.
[348] Dorow, p. 28.
[349] Millin, v. 451, 465.
[350] Dorow, p. 58.
[351] ‘Journey to Babylon in 1811,’ by J. C. Rich, p. 6; published in
_Babylon and Persepolis_, 1839.
[352] Vaux, _Nineveh and Persepolis_ (1851), p. 187.
[353] It was translated into French by M. Raymond, the Consul at Bussora,
1818. _Journal Asiatique_, i. 58.
[354] Rich, p. 185.
[355] _Ib._ p. 188.
[356] Rich, p. 186, _note_. This statement is, however, too sweeping, for
Grotefend always clearly distinguished two distinct kinds of Babylonian,
corresponding to the cursive and the hieratic. Rich’s first and third
are examples respectively of these two styles. The former, or cursive,
occurs in lapidary inscriptions such as Rich has described; the second,
or hieratic, on bricks and cylinders, and in the long inscription of Sir
Harford Jones (the India House Inscription). Rich’s second species is
not a distinct variety. Its peculiarity consists only in the ‘distortion
of oblique elongation,’ due perhaps to the eccentricity of the engraver.
(See Rawlinson in _J. R. A. S._ x. 24.)
[357] Rich, p. 99.
[358] _Ib._ p. 190.
[359] Rich, p. 183.
[360] Dorow, p. 26.
[361] _Ib._ p. 26. _Neue Beiträge_ (1840), p. 16.
[362] _Neue Beiträge_ (1837), p. 6, Plate 1.
[363] _Ib._ (1840), p. 23.
[364] Klaproth (H. J.), _Aperçu de l’Origine des diverses Ecritures_
(Paris, 1832), p. 63.
[365] _Ib._ p. 63. Cf. _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 69.
[366] _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), pp. 68-70.
[367] _Ib._ p. 85, _note_.
[368] _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 82.
[369] St. Martin agreed with Grotefend in the signs for _s_, _r_, _d_,
_b_ or _p_, _a_, _t_, _kh_, and _sch_ (𐏁) which, in accordance with
French orthography, he read _ch_. He rejected _k_, _f_, _sr_, _a_ (No.
41), all of which are correct.
[370] The following is the list of _incorrect_ values assigned by
Grotefend, showing the changes made by St. Martin:
Grotefend St. Martin Correct
_v_ _r_ _b_
_e_ _i_ _v(a)_
_o_ _e_ _ch_
_gh_ _e_ _z(u)_
_o_ _a_ _m_
_i_ _h_ _th_
_h_ _e_ _y_
_h_ _e_ _m_
_tsch_ _b_ and _m_ _n_
[371] ‘Lob verdient, dass er sich bescheidet, einige Zeichen als
unentziffert hinzustellen.’ Lassen, _Altpersische Keilinschriften_ (Bonn,
1836), p. 18.
[372] Klaproth, _Aperçu_, p. 63.
[373] The _b_ (𐎴) is given in the _Journal Asiatique_.
[374] See Heeren, _Werke_, xi. 363; _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 83.
[375] Klaproth gives St. Martin’s Darius Inscription.
[376] Rask (E.), _Ueber das Alter der Zend-Sprache_ (Berlin, 1826), p.
28; Klaproth, p. 67.
[377] See above, p. 179.
[378] For St. Martin’s alphabet see _Journal Asiatique_ (1823), p. 67,
Plate; Burnouf, _Mémoire_, Pl. 1; and Klaproth, _Aperçu_, p. 63. St.
Martin was engaged upon the second and third columns at the time of his
death. His Memoir remained incomplete, and, so far as we know, it has
never been published in a separate form. _Journal Asiatique_ (3ᵉ série),
v. 359.
[379] Translated from the Danish by Hagen, Berlin, 1826.
[380] In 1832 Schlegel asserted that the Zend and the Zend-Avesta were
forgeries by the Guebres (or Parsees) of Guzerat (Heeren, Eng. ed., ii.
341). Rawlinson, in 1847, was still of opinion that Zend dates after
Alexander, possibly some centuries (_J. R. A. S._ x. 50). He was also
convinced of the late origin of the Zend-Avesta.
[381] Rask, p. 28.
[382] Rask, p. 80. St. Martin had already intimated a doubt as to their
absolute identity (_Journal Asiatique_, 1823, p. 77).
[383] Published in _Journal Asiatique_, 1826.
[384] Menant (I.), _Les Langues perdues_, Perse, p. 21.
[385] _Zoroasters lebendiges Wort_, S. F. Kleuker, Riga, 1777.
[386] Tychsen, _De Religionum Zoroastricarum apud veteres gentes
Vestigiis_. See Heeren, i. 237.
[387] Rask, _op. cit._ 1826.
[388] _Mémoire_, p. 8.
[389] See above, p. 96.
[390] Ouseley (Sir W.), vol. ii. Pl. 46; Burnouf, _Mémoire_, pp. 9, 17.
[391] Niebuhr, vol. ii. Pl. 31, p. 123.
[392] See above, p. 187.
[393] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 29.
[394] _Ib._ p. 25.
[395]
𐎺 · 𐏀 · 𐎼 · 𐎣
Grotefend _e_ _gh_ _r_ _e_
St. Martin _i_ _e_ _r_ _e_
Burnouf _i_ _z_ _r_ _k_
Correct _r(a)_ _z_ _r(a)_ _k(a)_
[396] See above, p. 182.
[397] _Mémoire_, p. 38.
[398] The true transliteration is ‘vazraka,’ and its meaning ‘great.’ See
Spiegel, p. 46.
[399]
𐎠 · 𐎼 · 𐎷 · 𐎡 · 𐎴
Burnouf _a_ _r_ _i_ _o_ _n_
Correct _a_ _r_ _m_ _i_ _n(a)_
[400] _Mémoire_, p. 149.
[401] Ib. p. 138:
𐎠 · 𐎰 · 𐎢 · 𐎼 · 𐎠
Burnouf _a_ _y_ _u_ _r_ _a_
Correct _a_ _th_ _u_ _r_ _â_
[402] _Mémoire_, p. 151.
[403] _Mémoire_, p. 148.
[404] _Ib._ p. 158.
[405] _Mémoire_, p. 157.
[406] _Ib._ p. 154.
[407] _Ib._ p. 133.
[408] _Mémoire_, p. 159.
[409] Correct values from Grotefend, acknowledged by Burnouf, are:
_r_, _d_, _a_ (Münter), _f_, _kh_, _p_, _s_ or _ç_, _ch_ 8 in all
Incorrect values from Grotefend, _o_, _u_, _g_, _h_ 4 in all
12 35 15 27
Correct values from Grotefend, not acknowledged by Burnouf,
_t_, _u_, _a_ 3 in all
24 36 41
---------
15 in all
=========
He credits St. Martin with _t_, because he agreed with him that the
central wedge should be drawn slightly lower than the other two (p. 137).
He credits the _u_ to St. Martin and the _a_ to himself, because he says
both are short, whereas Grotefend made them long (p. 142-3). But these
reasons are clearly insufficient to deprive Grotefend of the merit of
having suggested to Burnouf the values of the three letters.
[410] The twelve correct values claimed to have been discovered by
Burnouf are:
Grotefend Burnouf
4 𐎣 _e_ _k_ Correct
7 𐎲 _v_ _b_ Correct (from Münter)
16 𐎡 _o_ _v_ Wrong (from Münter), _ch_
18 𐏀 _gh_ _z_ Correct
19 𐎮 uncertain _l_? _d(i)_ }
25 𐎤 _k_ _q_ _k(a)_ }
22 𐎬 _th_ _dh_ _t(u)_ }
26 𐎰 _i_ _y_ _th_ } Correct values
29 𐎷 _h_ _î_ _m(i)_ }
34 𐎯 _z_ _gh_ _d(u)_ }
40 𐎽 _sr_ _l_ _r(u)_ }
41 𐏃 _a_ _a_ _h(a)_, Correct (from Grotefend)
[411] _I.e._ fifteen from Grotefend, one, _i_, from St. Martin, two from
Rask, and eleven of his own: that is, deducting the _a_ of Grotefend
already included. As we have seen, he credited himself with the _b_ of
Münter, which Grotefend did not accept—twenty-nine in all.
[412] Rawlinson; _z(j)i_, Oppert.
[413] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 110.
[414] _Ib._ pp. 113, 115.
[415]
_I.e._ 2 from Münter, _a_, _b_
10 from Grotefend, _r_, _d_, _f_, _kh_, _p_, _s_ or _ç_, _ch_,
_t_, _u_, _a_ (41)
2 from Rask, _n_, _m_
2 from himself, _k_, _z_
--
16
[416] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 166.
[417] _Ib._ p. 58.
[418] _Ib._ p. 82. _Cf._ Spiegel, p. 47.
[419] _Mémoire_, pp. 59-60, 89, 95, 100. In Grotefend these are
represented by ‘coelestem,’ ‘defunctum,’ ‘amplificet,’ ‘populorum.’
[420] Heeren (ed. 1815), vol. i. p. 601.
[421] _Mémoire_, Pl. 2 and 3.
[422] Elsewhere ‘fortis.’
[423] _Mémoire_, p. 119. Burnouf suspected, as we have said, that the
word he transliterated ‘buiom’ and translated ‘excellent’ should be
‘bumom’ and mean ‘earth’: ‘He has given this earth’ (p. 149). The change
of the _i_ into _m_ turned out afterwards to be correct, and the word
‘bum’im’ does signify ‘earth,’ the passage being ‘who created this earth.’
[424] See Spiegel, p. 47.
[425] _Göttingen Anzeigen_ (1832), p. 122. Holtzman (A.), _Beiträge_, p.
16.
[426] _Mémoire_, pp. 133, 138, 146, 154, 155. Grotefend had already
detected Persia.
[427] _Ib._ p. 148. He considers Ionia the probable reading, but he
cannot yet admit it decisively. Some writers add Aria to Burnouf’s
correct discoveries (_J. R. A. S._ x. 12, _note_, Rawlinson), but the
word he translates ‘Arion’ and identifies with Arran, between the Caspian
and Black Seas, occurs in line 12 and signifies Armenia. The word for
Aria is in the sixteenth line, and he identifies it with Haroyu of the
Parsees, the Indian Sarayu (p. 155).
[428] _Mémoire_, pp. 40, 61, 65-6.
[429] _Ib._ pp. 41-2, 55.
[430] _Mémoire_, pp. 87, 161.
[431] _Ib._ p. 163.
[432] _Ib._ pp. 57, 108, 163, 165.
[433] _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_ (Bonn, 1836), preface, p. iv.
[434] Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 9.
[435] _Journal Asiatique_ (3ᵉ série), v. 372.
[436] Lassen, p. 15.
[437] Burnouf, _Mémoire_, p. 2.
[438] _Ib._ p. 128.
[439] Rawlinson generously credits him with twelve (_J. R. A. S._ x. 4).
[440] See Grotefend’s alphabet in Burnouf, Pl. 1.
[441] He states that by š he means to indicate the same sound as
Grotefend by _sch_ (_Altpers. Keil._ p. 24).
[442] 𐎹, _h_ (really _y_); 𐎡, _i_ = _ê_.
[443] 𐎤 (no independent value given, but in composition of the diphthong
he treats it as _a_: it is really _k_); 𐎢_u_ = _ô_.
[444] 𐎢, _u_; 𐎺, _w_ (really _v_) = _q_.
[445] Lassen, p. 6.
[446] I inscription, line 12. Lassen, pp. 89, 152. Rawlinson’s _Herod._
iv. 186.
[447] See above, p. 219.
[448] Lassen, p. 48.
[449] ‘Ich glaube nämlich erwiesen zu haben, dass der Vocal “_a_” nur
initial, in der Mitte nur vor “_h_” und vor andern Vocalen ausdrücklich
durch ein Schriftzeichen geschrieben, allen Consonanten dagegen
inhärirt, wenn er nicht durch ein anderes Vocalzeichen ausgeschlossen
wird.’—Lassen, p. 16.
[450] _Ib._ p. 53.
[451] See above, p. 224.
[452] Lassen, p. 42.
[453] Lassen, p. 88.
[454] _Ib._ pp. 84, 108.
[455] _Ib._ p. 113.
[456] Lassen, p. 117.
[457] Jacquet considered this correction one of the most ingenious Lassen
made (_Journal Asiatique_, 3ᵉ Série, vol. v. p. 562).
[458] Lassen, p. 38.
[459] _Ib._ p. 39.
[460] Lassen, pp. 41, 119-20.
[461] See above, p. 226.
[462] Lassen, p. 46.
[463] pp. 29, 54.
[464] Lassen, pp. 38, 107.
[465] _Ib._ p. 128.
[466] _Ib._ pp. 107, 112. _Cf._ Spiegel, p. 50.
[467] Spiegel is taken as representing the correct version. _Cf._
Spiegel, p. 64 (Inscr. Cᵃ); Burnouf, Plate III.; Lassen, p. 174; Menant,
_Les Achéménides_, p. 53, Inscr. C.
[468] Lassen, pp. 94-100.
[469] Lassen’s transliteration of the provinces is as follows:
Pârᵃça, p. 155; Mâd, p. 63; Bâbis‘us‘, p. 67; Ârᵃbâh, p. 69; Âzurâ, p.
79; G‘udrâhâ, p. 84; Ârᵃmin, p. 85; Kᵃtpᵃt‘uk, p. 88; Çᵃpᵃrd, p. 89;
Hunâ, p. 89; Açᵃgᵃrt, p. 101; Pᵃrzᵃwᵃ, p. 102; Zᵃrᵃk, p. 103; Aryᵃwᵃ, p.
105; Bâk‘tris‘, p. 106; Çug‘d, p. 106; Qârᵃzmiᵃh, p. 107; Zᵃtᵃgᵃdus, p.
108; Arᵃqᵃtis, p. 112; Aidus, p. 113; Gadâr, p. 114; Çᵃka, p. 114; Mᵃk,
p. 114; Qwan, p. 115.
The correct transliteration is:
Pârsa, Mâda, Bâbir’u, Arabâya, Athurâ, M’udrây, Arm‘ina, Katapat’uka,
Sparda, Yaunâ, Asagarta, Parthava, Zarâñka, Haraiva, Bakhtrish, Sug’da,
Uvârazami‘ya, Thatag’ush, Harauvatish, Hiñd‘ush, Gañdâra, Sakâ, Maka,
Uvaja.
Of these Lassen identified twenty correctly:
Persia, Media, Babylon, Assyria, Armenia, Cappadocia, Çapardia (Sparda),
Acagartia, Parthae, Zarangae, Areiae (Aria), Bactria, Çugdia, Chorazmia,
Sattagadus, Arachosia, India, Gadar (Gandara), Çacae, Maci.
He was wrong in Chaona, Arbela, Gudraha and Hunae (Lassen, _passim_;
Spiegel, p. 50; Menant, p. 80). When Jacquet wrote, in 1838, he
understood that Lassen had already given up the Huns. _Journal Asiatique_
(Oct. 1838), vi. 403.
[470] _Beiträge_ (Hanover, 1837), p. 17.
[471] Grotefend, _Beiträge_ (1837), pp. 34, 45. See Plate IV. where a
misprint makes it look like _rk_.
[472] _Ib._ p. 17. See alphabet in Plate IV.
[473] Spiegel, p. 140.
[474] _Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes_, ii. 172 for _i_ and
_u_; p. 174 for all three. Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 15.
[475] As regards the _y_, Lassen always substitutes the palatal _j_ for
the half-vowel, and Holtzmann follows him; but this was, no doubt, due
to the practical exclusion of _y_ from the German alphabet. Lassen says
that Beer and Jacquet both corrected the sign to _j_, though we know that
Jacquet always wrote _y_; and Rawlinson acknowledges that he received
the _y_ from Lassen. From the time of Benfey (1847) the _y_ is finally
adopted in German transliterations.
[476] _Mémoire de E. Jacquet_, par Félix Nève (Bruxelles, 1855), p. 10.
[477] _Mémoire_, par Nève, p. 74.
[478] Rawlinson, _J. R. A. S._ x. 41, _note_.
[479] _Mémoire_, par Nève, p. 101.
[480] April, May, June, and October, 1838, _Journal Asiatique_, 3ᵉ série,
vols. v. and vi.
[481] _Mémoire_, p. 77. See _Journal Asiatique_, v. 561, 566, vi. 404,
424, _note_, and _passim_.
[482] _Journal Asiatique_, v. 591, vi. 403.
[483] _Journal Asiatique_, v. 571 (_cf._ 562), vi. 414, 421.
[484] _Ib._ v. 562, _note_.
[485] _Ib._ v. 592, vi. 419. _Zeitschrift für die Kunde &c._ ii. 171.
[486] Spiegel, p. 140. See _Zeitschrift_, ii. 165.
[487] Spiegel, p. 140.
[488] See his contributions in vols. i. ii. and iii. _Urkunden in
Babylonischer Keilschrift_.
[489] _Zeitschrift_, ii, 165.
[490] _Zeitschrift_, ii, 169.
[491] _Ib._ p. 172.
[492] _Ib._ p. 173.
[493] _Mémoire_, par Nève, p. 81.
[494] _J. R. A. S._ x. 5.
[495] Canon Rawlinson explains the process thus: ‘Applying to the letters
of these names the phonetic values previously obtained from the trio
Hystaspes, Darius, Xerxes, twenty-one out of the twenty-eight letters
were found exactly to suit their place. The remainder were new forms and
furnished the alphabet with four new letters, _m_, _n_, _h_, and _ch_.’
(_Memoir of Sir Henry Rawlinson_, p. 320.) Rawlinson himself, however,
confessed in 1846: ‘I am neither able, nor is it of any consequence after
the lapse of so many years, to describe the means by which I ascertained
the power of each particular letter, or to discriminate the respective
dates of the discoveries.’ (_J. R. A. S._ x. 6, _note_.)
[496] _J. R. A. S._ x. 7.
[497] See above, pp. 179, 201.
[498] _Memoir_ by Canon Rawlinson, pp. 311-17.
[499] _Babylon and Persepolis_, preface, p. vii. _Cf._ Vaux, _Nineveh and
Persepolis_, p. 426.
[500] _J. R. A. S._ x. 8-10.
[501] _Ib._ x. 10.
[502] _J. R. A. S._ x. 8, _note_. _Cf._ Behistun, Col. I. line 28.
[503] Lassen, _Ueber die Keilinschriften_, 1845 (henceforth referred to
as ‘Second Memoir’), p. 49. Rawlinson in _J. R. A. S._ x. 8, 17, 130.
[504] _J. R. A. S._ x. 8, 17. See above, p. 238.
[505] Spiegel, p. 152.
[506] The German periodicals of 1839 recognised Rawlinson as discoverer
of the _tr_. _Dublin University Magazine_ (1847), p. 21.
[507] _J. R. A. S._ x. 9, 12-13.
[508] His paper is noticed in the _Athenæum_, Jan. 1840. _J. R. A. S._
vol. viii. Report, 1845: _Athenæum_, Nov. 8, 1884.
[509] _J. R. A. S._ x. 18.
[510] _Beiträge_, p. 16.
[511] Rich, _Babylon and Persepolis_, 1839. See above, p. 99.
[512] These inscriptions were reviewed by Lassen in the _Zeitschrift_
(1840, iii, 442) when he attempted the translation of the Artaxerxes
Inscription.
[513] See above, p. 226.
[514] So late as 1839, he could not bring himself to give up ‘Ochus’ in
the Murgab inscription, although he felt greatly shaken by the arguments
of Jacquet in support of ‘Kurus.’ He ended by leaving 25 𐎤 unaltered,
but changed 40 (𐎽) from _s_ into _gh_ (_Zeitschrift_, ii. 169-71).
His acceptance of the correct value, _r_, appears in 1844: and the
approximate value of _q_ for 25 (𐎤) _k_, making ‘Qurus’ for ‘Kurus.’
[515] _Beiträge zur Erklärung &c._ (Karlsruhe, 1845), ap. Spiegel, p. 142.
[516] _Zeitschrift für die Kunde &c._ ii. 172.
[517] _Journal Asiatique_, vi. 416.
[518] Lassen, Second Memoir, p. 5.
[519] See Alphabet in Burnouf.
[520] Second Memoir, p. 76.
[521] _Ib._ p. 166. This was not discovered when Lassen wrote in 1839. He
then thought the new letter had the value of _x_ (_Zeitschrift_, ii. 175).
[522] Lassen, First Memoir, p. 14. In 1852 we are told that English
scholars were still disposed to distrust ‘the authenticity of the
Zendavesta as translated by Anquetil,’ and it is curious to learn that
the Achaemenian inscriptions were appealed to, to prove ‘that there was
in use in Persia in the time of Darius a language very much the same as
Zend.’ _J. R. A. S._ xiii. (1852) 200.
[523] Lassen, First Memoir, p. 3.
[524] _Ib._ p. 11. Cf. _Beiträge_ (1837), p. 24.
[525] Lassen, Second Memoir, p. 253. Burnouf seemed to think that the Old
Persian descended directly from the Zend. Jacquet, _Journal Asiatique_,
v. 371.
[526] Lassen, Second Memoir, p. 6.
[527] _Dublin University Magazine_, Jan. 1847, p. 21.
[528] Rawlinson in _J. R. A. S._ x. 313.
[529] Second Memoir, pp. 80, 145.
[530] See above, p. 7.
[531] Holtzmann, _Beiträge zur Erklärung_, Carlsruhe, 1845.
[532] I Inscription, line 19 (Second Memoir, p. 176); Eᵇ Inscription,
line 24 (_ib._ p. 173).
[533] Second Memoir, pp. 65, 68; Holtzmann, p. 62.
[534] Holtzmann, p. 78.
[535] By Spiegel, p. 142, who erroneously says he valued it as _j_.
[536] Lassen, Second Memoir, p. 28; Holtzmann, p. 74.
[537] First Memoir, p. 152; Second Memoir, p. 52.
[538] Lassen, Second Memoir, pp. 53, 64; Holtzmann, p. 120.
[539] I Inscription, lines 20-4; Second Memoir, p. 176; Holtzmann, p. 63;
Spiegel, p. 51.
[540] Inscription H, line 11; Second Memoir, p. 27; Holtzmann, p. 65;
Rawlinson, _J. R. A. S._ x. 274; Spiegel, p. 49.
[541] Holtzmann, p. 117; Second Memoir, p. 116; Rawlinson, _J. R. A. S._
x. 308.
[542] _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy_ (1848), vol. xxi. pt. ii.
[543] _J. R. A. S._ ix. 387.
[544] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ loc. cit. p. 131.
[545] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ loc. cit. pp. 242, 244, 253.
[546] In _Journal of Sacred Literature_, 1855; _J. R. A. S._ (1866), vol.
ii.
[547] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ loc. cit. p. 243.
[548] _Ib._ p. 233; _J. R. A. S._ x. lxx.
[549] _Athenæum_, December 19, 1846.
[550] It took forty-four days to communicate between Bagdad and London.
If, therefore, Hincks’s paper had been forwarded earlier, say on June 12,
it would have been in Major Rawlinson’s hands on July 26; but we have
positive assurance on Mr. Norris’s authority that this was not the case.
See the _Athenæum_, loc. cit.
[551] See above, pp. 229, 244; Holtzmann, pp. 60, 78.
[552] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ loc. cit. pp. 117-18.
[553] _Ib._ p. 124; _cf._ Spiegel, E Inscription, line 18, p. 60.
[554] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ loc. cit. p. 116. For Hincks’s Alphabet see
_Trans. R. I. Acad._ loc. cit. p. 131 and App. A.
[555] _Athenæum_, Nov 8, 1884.
[556] _J. R. A. S._ x. 16. Hincks received Part I. in time for his
papers, read on Nov. 30 and Dec. 14, 1846. _Trans. R. I. Acad._ vol. xxi.
part ii. p. 233.
[557] Report, June 1847, _J. R. A. S._ x. p. vii.
[558] _Ib._ p. xvi.
[559] _J. R. A. S._ x. 18.
[560] _Ib._ x. 2.
[561] Lassen’s first letter to Rawlinson is dated August 19, 1838. See
_Memoir_ by Canon Rawlinson, p. 316.
[562] _J. R. A. S._ x. 8, 9, 10, _notes_.
[563] _J. R. A. S._ x. 10, _note_.
[564] See _ib._ p. 8, _note_.
[565] Spiegel, p. 154.
[566] Rawlinson wrote, early in 1846: ‘The cause of the affinity of
the vowel i for the characters _j_, _t_, _m_ and _v_ can neither be
explained, nor can we perceive any uniform effect which the coalition
produces upon the phonetic power of the consonant. I can only illustrate
the formation of the different groups by adverting to the law which
still prevails in the Tartarian dialects, requiring the juxtaposition of
certain vowels with consonants in order to render the latter articulable;
and by observing that, as a similar rule appears to hold good in the
so-called Median alphabet, which has every indication of a Scythic
origin, it is not improbable that the Persian writing may have been
indebted to that source for so remarkable a deviation from the true
principles of Arian orthography.’ _J. R. A. S._ x. 65.
[567] _J. R. A. S._ x. 176.
[568] _J. R. A. S._ x. 185.
[569] Holtzmann, _Beiträge_, p. 152.
[570] _J. R. A. S._ x. 177.
[571] _Ib._ x. 175.
[572] _Athenæum_, December 19, 1846, p. 1302. Cf. _ib._ November 22, 1884.
[573] _J. R. A. S._ x. 195, _note_.
[574] _Ib._ x. 56, 60, 65, 69.
[575] _Ib._ xi. 15, 20, 47, 72. _Cf._ Spiegel, pp. 180, 204, 208, 210.
[576] _Ib._ xi. 27, 176. _Cf._ Spiegel, p. 209, 222.
[577] _J. R. A. S._ x. 83.
[578] _Ib._ p. 40.
[579] _Ib._ p. 50.
[580] _J. R. A. S._ xi. 51.
[581] _Die Persischen Keilinschriften_, Leipzig, 1847.
[582] In the Persepolitan texts there are not more than four hundred
words; the Behistun comprises ten times as many as all the rest put
together. Darmesteter, quoted by Perrot, _History of Art in Persia_, p.
33, _note_.
[583] _J. R. A. S._ x. p. xlvi.
[584] Spiegel, p. 23.
[585] _J. R. A. S._ x. p. lvii.
[586] Benfey, _Die Persischen Keilinschriften_ (Leipzig, 1847), p. 9.
[587] _Records of the Past_, O.S. i. 112. Spiegel, pp. 7, 86.
[588] _Records_, loc. cit. p. 112.
[589] _J. R. A. S._ x. 206.
[590] Spiegel, p. 89. Spiegel translates (1881): ‘Die Plätze der
Anbetung, welche Gaumâta der Mager zerstört hatte, bewahrte ich dem
Volke, die Weideplätze (?), die Heerden, die Wohnungen je nach Clanen,
was Gaumâta der Mager ihnen weggenommen hatte’ (p. 9). Weissbach (1898):
‘Die Tempel, welche Gaumâta, der Mager, zerstört hatte, stellte ich
wieder her, für das Volk die Hilfsmittel, die Herden und das Wohnen in
den Häusern (?) welche Gaumâta, der Mager, geraubt hatte’ (p. 15).
[591] _Records_, O.S. i. 128.
[592] _Ib._ ix, 68, 69. _Cf._ Spiegel, pp. 41, 109; Menant, _Les
Achéménides_, p. 122; Weissbach, _Altpersischen Keilinschriften_. p. 31.
[593] _Records_, O.S. ix. 77; Rawlinson, _J. R. A. S._ x. 311; Spiegel,
p. 121. M. Benfey attempted to restore this inscription, but in 1852
Oppert declared that the labour was a simple loss of time. It is perhaps
to be regretted that he did not adhere to his first impression. _Journal
Asiatique_, xix. 172 (March 1852).
[594] Vol. xii. p. xix, xv. p. 432; Spiegel, p. 59; Oppert, _Rec._ O.S.
ix. 78.
[595] Spiegel, pp. 59, 122.
[596] _Die Grabschrift des Darius_, Zürich, 1847.
[597] Vapereau, _Dictionnaire des Contemporains_.
[598] Published at Berlin, 1847.
[599] _J. R. A. S._ xii. 403.
[600] _Memoir_ by Canon Rawlinson, p. 165.
[601] _Memoir_ by Canon Rawlinson, p. 324.
[602] _Ib._ p. 33.
[603] _Mémoire sur les Inscriptions des Achéménides_, Paris, 1852, 8vo.
_Journ. Asiatique_ (4ᵉ série), vols. xvii.-xix.
[604] _Journal Asiatique_, xviii. 560.
[605] _Rec._ O.S. i. 107.
[606] _Ib._ ix. 67.
[607] _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_, von Fr. Spiegel, second
edition, Leipzig, 1881.
[608] _Les Achéménides et les Inscriptions de la Perse_, par Joachim
Menant, Paris, 1872.
[609] _Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften_, von F. H. Weissbach und W.
Bang, Leipzig, 1893. _Die Achämenideninschriften zweiter Art_, von F. H.
Weisbach, Leipzig, 1890.
[610] _Die Achäm. Ins. des Babylonischen Textes_, von Dr. Carl Bezold,
Leipzig, 1882.
[611] This opinion is attributed to Niebuhr by M. Oppert (_Expédition en
Mésopotamie_, 1859, ii. 2); in the passage referred to Niebuhr merely
says there are three alphabets, but says nothing about their being in the
same language (Niebuhr, ii. 113).
[612] Heeren, _Historical Researches_ (Eng. ed.), ii. 324. Durow, _Die
Assyrische Keilschriften erläutert_ (Wiesbaden, 1820), p. 38.
[613] _Beiträge_, 1837, p. 24.
[614] Heeren, _ib._ pp. 329-30.
[615] _Beiträge_, 1837, p. 39.
[616] Copenhagen, 1844.
[617] Bonn, 1845. Westergaard wrote a later essay on the same subject in
Danish, which we have not been able to consult (Kjöbenhavn, 1856).
[618] Copenhagen edition, pp. 330, 338.
[619] _Ib._ pp. 340, 364. The E inscription from the seventeenth line may
be seen at page 347. _Cf._ with Weisbach, _Die Inschriften Zweiter Art_,
p. 82.
[620] _Cf._ Copenhagen edition, p. 419; Bonn ed. p. 113.
[621] Copenhagen edition, p. 323. _Cf._ this with the declination of the
same word by De Saulcy (_Journal Asiatique_, 1849, xiv. 179), where the
accusative singular is ‘Keiounay,’ and the genitive plural ‘Keiouyna’ or
‘Keioulara’!
[622] _Beiträge_, 1837, p. 42.
[623] No. 24 of Weisbach.
[624] Nos. 9, 10, 18, 65. Appendix C.
[625] No. 12 in Weisbach’s list: the others are 63 and 65 in the same
list.
[626] Copenhagen edition, p. 278. This statement is softened in the
Bonn edition (p. 6), where he merely says that neither of the two
determinatives he had recognised preceded these words. _Cf. ib._ p. 124.
[627] He thought possibly the vowels might be limited to the long and
short sounds of _a_, _i_ and _u_, and in that case he was disposed to
change his _e_ into _i_, which would have been correct (p. 118).
[628] Bonn edition, pp. 118-119. See Appendix C.
[629] Burnouf, _Mémoire sur Deux Inscriptions_ (1836), p. 2.
[630] Westergaard (Bonn edition), pp. 4, 123. _Cf._ Copenhagen edition,
272.
[631] _J. R. A. S._ x. 228.
[632] _Ib._ xv. 115.
[633] _J. R. A. S._ x. 20, _note_.
[634] Westergaard was also struck by the similarity of the Georgian
plural affix ‘bi.’ Copenhagen edition, pp. 300, 305.
[635] _J. R. A. S._ x. 37.
[636] _Ib._ vol. ix. Report, 1846, and Report, May 1848.
[637] In his last paper he made several corrections in the values of the
letters (_Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 241) which Menant has not taken into
account in his Table. _Les Ecritures cunéiformes_ (second ed. 1864), p.
138.
[638] _J. R. A. S._ vol. ix. Report, 1846, p. xvii.
[639] _Transactions_, ib. pp. 125-28.
[640] _Transactions_, ib. p. 129. _J. R. A. S._ xii. 483.
[641] _Journal Asiatique_ (4ᵉ série), vols. xiv. xv. August 1849, May
1850.
[642] De Saulcy was distinguished for his success in reading the Egyptian
demotic character, which Mohl regarded as the greatest achievement since
Champollion (_Rapports Annuels à la Société Asiatique_, 1844, p. 36).
[643] Weisbach, _op. cit._ p. 47.
[644] _Le Peuple et la Langue des Mèdes_ (1879), p. 41.
[645] _Journal Asiatique_, xiv. 103, xv. 527.
[646] Weisbach, _op. cit._ p. 47. Oppert, Nos. 52, 77, 88.
[647] _Journal Asiatique_, xiv. 212: ‘Que certains signes de l’écriture
médique avaient une assez grande ressemblance avec les signes Persans
de même valeur, mais que la plupart d’entre eux étaient identiques avec
des signes de l’écriture Assyrienne.’ Hincks had already pointed out,
in 1845, that there were many characters common to both (_Trans. R. I.
Acad._ xxi. 131); and in June 1849 he added that a ‘very large proportion
of the Median characters can be identified with Assyrio-Babylonian
characters, having nearly the same phonetic values’ (xxii. 4).
Westergaard thought the writing originated in Babylon, ‘whence it spread
in two branches, eastward to Susiana and northward to the Assyrian
Empire, from whence it passed to Media, and last to ancient Persis’ (p.
273, Copenhagen edition). He thought the Median bore most resemblance to
Assyrian writing, and Persian to Babylonian writing (_ib._ p. 272; _cf._
Bonn edition, p. 4).
[648] Copenhagen ed. p. 271.
[649] Weisbach, p. 7; Mohl, _Vingt-sept ans d’Etudes_, i. 419;
_Athenæum_, July 6 and September 7, 1850. _Cf._ above, p. 194.
[650] Holtzman’s essays appeared in the _Zeitschrift D.M.G._ between 1851
and 1854. They are reported by Weisbach and Mohl, _loc. cit._
[651] _Journal Asiatique_ (4ᵉ série), xvii. 541. Cf. _Les Mèdes_, p. 2.
[652] Norris, No. 97; Weisbach, No. 108.
[653] _J. R. A. S._ xv. 5.
[654]
_m_ Norris, No. 58 Weisbach, No. 57
_r_ ” ” 78 ” ” 61
_s_ ” ” 90 ” ” 45
_s_ ” ” 94 ” Determinative
_t_ ” ” 38 ” No. 50
_t_ ” ” 43 ” ” 42 _at_
[655] He attributes this observation to Holtzmann, who wrote in 1851; but
Hincks’s opinion was published three years previously in the _Trans. R.
I. Acad._ 1848. Norris had heard of De Saulcy, but did not read him; see
_J. R. A. S._ xv. 153, _note_.
[656] We have counted 47, _ib._ pp. 7-46.
[657] See also Nos. 67, 74 (Norris’s list).
[658] For example, Nos. 17, 35, 58.
[659] Oppert takes the credit of this to himself: ‘Depuis 1851, j’avais
entrevu l’origine touranienne de l’écriture cunéiforme’ (_Les Mèdes_, p.
5), but he acknowledges that Norris had suggested it.
[660] M. Oppert claims to have suggested in 1847 that Median belongs to
the ‘Finno-ouralienne’ race (_Expédition_, p. 82). He has not given any
reference, and we know of no writing of his of that date except the tract
already reviewed: and this opinion does not appear to be stated there.
[661] Cf. _J. R. A. S._ xv. 63; _cf._ Weisbach, p. 49.
[662] _Cf._ Westergaard, Bonn edition, p. 113; _Journal Asiatique_, xv.
426.
[663] Cf. _J. R. A. S._ xv. 149; _Les Mèdes_, p. 197; Weisbach, p. 77.
[664] Mohl, _op. cit._ vol. ii. Report, June 1855; Weisbach, p. 7.
[665] _Expédition scientifique en Mésopotamie_ (1851-4), par Jules
Oppert, vol. ii. Paris, 1859.
[666] M. Oppert cannot always be taken seriously where his own claims are
concerned. Writing in 1859, he says of the Median: ‘Tous nos devanciers,
y compris M. Norris, l’ont prise pour une écriture distincte de celle
des Assyriens’ (p. 71). Leaving out of account Norris’s identification
of 47 of the characters, De Saulcy had pronounced them to be ‘identical’
in 1848. Oppert now compares 97 Median signs and 8 ideograms with both
Babylonian and Assyrian groups.
[667] ‘Deux caractères n’expriment jamais le même son,’ p. 35. ‘Les mêmes
sons syllabiques sont toujours attachés au même signe,’ p. 77.
[668] Bonomy, _Nineveh and its Palaces_ (1889), p. 479; _J. R. A. S._
xii. 482.
[669] _J. R. A. S._ (1855), xv. 97; _Memoir_ by Canon Rawlinson, p. 174.
[670] Layard (Sir H.), _Early Adventures_ (1894), pp. 168, 220. _Cf._
Professor Sayce in _Trans. Soc. Bib. Arch._ iii, 472.
[671] _J. R. A. S._ x. 28; _ib._ xii. 483.
[672] ‘Development of Cuneiform Syllabary’ (1887), _J. R. A. S._ vol.
xix. They appeared to Mr. Vaux in 1851 ‘to contain a considerable
number of new characters, for which no conjectural equivalent can be
found either in the Babylonian or the Assyrian alphabet’ (_Nineveh and
Persepolis_, p. 431).
[673] _Trans. S. B. A._ vol. iii. (1874), p. 479; _Records of the Past_,
O.S. vol. vii. (1876), p. 81.
[674] _Trans. S. B. A._ loc. cit. p. 472.
[675] The word ‘Assyrian’ is often used as interchangeable with
‘Babylonian,’ especially by French writers. Professor Sayce, although he
here lapses into this habit, is careful to explain that ‘the form of the
character proves that the syllabary was derived from Babylonian, and not
from Assyrian as the Armenian.’ _Trans. S. B. A._ (1874), iii, 471.
[676] Menant, _Les Ecritures_, p. 137.
[677] Weisbach, _Die Achaemenideninschriften Zweiter Art_, pp. 25-27.
[678] _Trans. S. B. A._ vol. iii, article by Prof. Sayce ‘On the
Cuneiform Inscriptions of Elam and Media,’ p. 465.
[679] _Cf._ Oppert, _Les Mèdes_, p. 41; Weisbach, p. 33. With regard to
the other two, he now omits No. 21, to which he had formerly assigned
‘kam’—the ‘zis’ of Weisbach (No. 25). The other, 71ᵇ, he changes from
‘tu’ to ‘kin,’ the ‘en’ of Weisbach (No. 109).
[680] These are: 16, ‘ni’ to ‘ne’; 34, ‘ta’ to ‘te’; 75, ‘ha’ to ‘a’; 77,
‘nu’ to ‘ni.’
[681] 16ᵃ, ‘çi’; 39ᶜ, ‘mak’; 60ᵃ, ‘tin.’
[682]
No. 5 appears as Nos. 9 and 56.
No. 28 ” Nos. 18 ” 69.
No. 25 ” Nos. 29 ” 76.
No. 16ᵃ ” Nos. 60 ” 94.
No. 26 ” Nos. 80 ” 81.
No. 68 ” Nos. 91 ” 101.
[683] These are:
Oppert No. 35, ‘mu’ = Weisbach No. 5.
” No. 66, ‘iz’ = ” No. 33.
” No. 107, ‘race’ = ” No. 82.
” No. 49, ‘la’ Not in Weisbach.
” No. 109, ‘paz’ (animal) Not in Weisbach.
[684] Namely, No. 21, which Weisbach values as ‘zis’ No. 25. No. 20
Oppert includes among his signs, but cannot find its value. In Norris it
is ‘kwe.’ In the list given in Sayce’s article it is ‘khub.’ Weisbach
gives ‘kup (?)’ No. 29.
[685] Weisbach fails to find a value for 71ᵃ, to which Oppert gives ‘nu’
(No. 41).
[686] No. 35 Oppert ‘git,’ Weisbach ‘am’; 39ᶠ Oppert ‘mun,’ Weisbach
‘tum’; 71ᵇ Oppert ‘kin’; Weisbach ‘en’; 76 Oppert _o_, Weisbach _u_.
[687] Weisbach, _op. cit._ p. 33.
[688] Oppert, _op. cit._ p. 30.
[689] Oppert, pp. 77, 81-4. Weisbach, pp. 51, 53.
[690] Oppert, p. 62. Weisbach, p. 50.
[691] Oppert, p. 196. Weisbach, p. 77.
[692] Oppert, p. 215. Weisbach, p. 79.
[693] Norris in _J. R. A. S._ xv. 145; Oppert, _Records of the Past_,
vii. 109. Cf. _Les Mèdes_, p. 155; Weisbach, p. 77. See also the
surprising expansion into ‘the future life,’ Col. IV. par. 7 (_Les
Mèdes_, p. 149), which, however, he softens in the English version to
‘May I die as a Mazdean’ (_Records_, loc. cit. p. 106). _Cf._ Weisbach,
p. 73. par. 46, line 99.
[694] ‘Nous ne connaissons pas un seul nom propre de Mède qui ne soit
Aryan—ceux de Déjocès et d’Ecbatane sont du perse le plus pur.’—1852,
_Les Mèdes_, p. 2.
[695] Sayce seems to be the only noteworthy exception. See _Early
Israel_, p. 242.
[696] _Le Peuple des Mèdes_, Bruxelles, 1883.
[697] _Trans. S. B. A._ iii. 468.
[698] Hommel (Dr. Fritz), _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (Berlin,
1885), p. 101.
[699] Gobineau, _Lectures des Textes cunéiformes_. He afterwards wrote
_Traités des Ecritures cunéiformes_, 2 vols. 1864. Mohl, _op. cit._
Report 1859, ii, 257.
[700] Major Conder also, _J. R. A. S._ (1892), xxiv. 734. He thinks
Akkadian is also nearest to Turkish, though Akkadian words survive
unchanged to the present day in Finnic-Hungarian and Ugric (_ib._).
[701] _Op. cit._ p. 46.
[702] Weisbach, _op. cit._ pp. 13, 45. He has since given in his adhesion
to the orthodox view. See _Zur Lösung der Sumerischen Frage_ (Leipzig,
1897), pp. 16, 36.
[703] _Trans. S. B. A._ iii. 466.
[704] Rawlinson was the first to show that the Alarodians of Herodotus
(iii. 94, vii. 79) were probably the Uradhians or people of Ararat of the
Assyrian texts. See Sayce on Van, _J. R. A. S._ 1882, vol. xiv.
[705] The knowledge of Kassite is limited to about fifty words found
in a lexicon list (Hommel, p. 47, _note_ 3). Delitzsch denies their
relationship to Susian.
[706] Of Hittite it could still be said in 1893, ‘So far we know nothing
whatever about the Hittite language’ (_J. R. A. S._ 1893, p. 404). _Cf._
Conder’s notes in the same volume, p. 823.
[707] Mr. Sayce succeeded in deciphering the Vannic in 1893 and 1894 (_J.
R. A. S._ 1894, p. 699).
[708] Conder on Lycian, _J. R. A. S._ 1891, p. 614.
[709] _Beiträge_, 1840, p. 60.
[710] Rich, _Babylon and Persepolis_, p. 185, _note_.
[711] The third system is seen in Rich, Pl. IX. No. 4. _Cf._ Rawlinson,
_J. R. A. S._ x. 24.
[712] _Beiträge_, 1840, p. 7.
[713] See Table, _ib._ p. 65.
[714] See Hincks, _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 242.
[715] _Beiträge_, p. 33. See Table, p. 72.
[716] Ker Porter, Pl. 78, vol. ii. East India House Inscription, Col.
III. lines 15-65. Ap. Menant, _Ecritures_, p. 144.
[717] Nov. 1846; _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 243-5.
[718] In _Koordistan_, ii. 130, he gives a facsimile of writing from
Nimrud. See also _Babylon and Persepolis_, Pl. IX. No. 5. Rawlinson, _J.
R. A. S._ x. 27.
[719] _Journal Asiatique_, ix. 257.
[720] Menant, _Ecritures_, p. 170.
[721] In July 1849, 88 plates were out, but not the descriptive text. The
work was finally in five volumes folio, and contained 220 inscriptions.
The inscriptions were sold separately for 60 francs.
[722] See the drawing of it in Menant, _Ecritures_, p. 168. It is
published by Layard, Pl. 53-6, and translated by Rawlinson, 1850, and by
Hincks, 1854.
[723] Hincks, _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi, 253.
[724] _Neue Beiträge_ (1837), p. 41.
[725] Menant, _Les Langues perdues: Assyrie_ (Paris, 1886), p. 135.
[726] _Essai de Déchiffrement_ (1845), p. 11. Cf. _Exposé des Eléments
constitutifs_ (1847), p. 11.
[727] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ 1846, xxi. 131.
[728] _Exposé_, p. 14, _note_.
[729] _Journal Asiatique_ (4ᵉ série, 1847-8), vols. ix-xi, _Mémoire sur
l’Ecriture Assyrienne_, Paris, 1848.
[730] _Journal Asiatique_, 1848, xi. 248 ff.
[731] _Ib._ 1847, ix. 376.
[732] _Ib._ xi. 249.
[733] Hommel, _Geschichte_, p. 95, _note_.
[734] _J. R. A. S._ 1847, x. 28.
[735] _J. R. A. S._ x. 22 ff. Rawlinson’s classification of the writing
is as follows (1847):
{ Bricks and cylinders
{ (Lapidary)
{ Babylonian proper { East India House
{ { Inscription
{1. Babylonian { {
{ { { Cursive
{ {
{ { Third Persepolitan { Practically the same as
{ { Column { the Cursive Babylonian
Cuneiform {
Signs { { Lapidary
{ { Assyrian proper {
{2. Assyrian { { Cursive
{ {
{ { Van
{
{3. Elymaean (found by Layard at Malamir)
[736] _J. R. A. S._ xii. 407. Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_ (1849),
ii. 171.
[737] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 131.
[738] Westergaard, Copenhagen edition, p. 271.
[739] Bertin in _Trans. S. B. A._ 1885, vol. viii. _Cf._ his article on
the Syllabary in _J. R. A. S._ 1887, vol. xix.
[740] Sayce, _Hibbert Lectures_, 1887, p. 13.
[741] _Athenæum_, Sept. 20, 1884.
[742] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 131.
[743] _Journal Asiatique_, ix. 377, xi. 266-71.
[744] _J. R. A. S._ 1848, ix. 414.
[745] The Armenian inscription Schulz, No. 8, was the one De Saulcy
attempted (Mohl, _Vingt-sept ans d’histoire_, i. 350). Nos. 9, 10, and 11
are the trilingual of Xerxes.
[746] _J. R. A. S._ 1850, x. 410.
[747] Boscawen, _The Bible and the Monuments_, p. 18; Pinches, _S. B.
A._, 1882, vol. vii. ‘On Assyrian Grammar.’ _Cf._ Sayce, _The Science of
Language_ (3rd ed. 1890), ii. 168.
[748] _Beiträge_, 1887, pp. 24, 37, 39; 1840, p. 65, Plate. _Cf._ above,
pp. 184, 299.
[749] See these stated by Löwenstern, _Essai de Déchiffrement_, 1845, p.
12.
[750] Löwenstern, _op. cit._ p. 13.
[751] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 131.
[752] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ p. 249-52.
[753] _Exposé_, p. 44.
[754] _Ib._ p. 38; Menant, _Ecritures_, p. 224.
[755] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 247; Menant, p. 216; _Journal Asiatique_,
x. 146.
[756] _Journal Asiatique_, xi. 272.
[757] Sept. 14 and Nov. 27.
[758] Hommel, _Geschichte_, p. 95.
[759] ‘On the Khorsabad Inscription,’ _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxii. 71.
[760] _J. R. A. S._ xii. 410-16.
[761] _Ib._ p. 414. Prof. Haupt in _J. R. A. S._ 1878, x. 244-6.
[762] King (L. W.), _First Steps in Assyrian_, 1898, Introduction, p.
xvii. See Sayce, _J. R. A. S._ 1877, ix. 23. Cf. _Science of Language_,
ii. 167.
[763] _Trans. S. B. A._ 1882, vol. vii. ‘On Assyrian Grammar.’
[764] _The Bible and the Monuments_, p. 30.
[765] Menant, _Ecritures_, p. 224.
[766] Mohl, _op. cit._ i. 419.
[767] Evans (George), _Essay on Assyriology_, p. 1.
[768] Evetts, _New Lights_, p. 123.
[769] Menant, _Ecritures_, p. 245; _Langues Sémitiques_, 1863, p. 63.
[770] _J. R. A. S._ vol. i. N. S. Report, May 1865, p. x.
[771] _Beiträge_, 1837, Pl. I.; _cf._ Menant, _Manuel de la Langue
Assyrienne_, 1880, p. 282. _Beiträge_, Pl. III.; Menant, p. 278.
[772] _Beiträge_, 1840, Plate, p. 65.
[773] _Ib._ p. 65.
[774] _Ib._ 1837, Pl. IV.
[775] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 242.
[776] _Beiträge_, 1840, pp. 56-7, and Plate. _Cf._ Menant, _Manuel_, p.
305.
[777] _Journal Asiatique_, ix. 377.
[778] _Cf._ Grotefend, _Beiträge_, 1840, p. 65. Löwenstern’s _r_ is only
the first portion of Grotefend’s sign.
[779] ‘Lettre de Longpérier,’ Sept. 1847, in _Revue Archéologique_, 1848,
p. 503.
[780] Postscript, written June 1846, to paper ‘On the First and Second
Kinds of Persepolitan Writing,’ _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 131.
[781] ‘On the Three Kinds of Persepolitan Writing,’ read Nov. and Dec.
1846: _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxi. 242.
[782] _Transactions_, ib. p. 249.
[783] _J. R. A. S._ ix. 432.
[784] ‘Lettre a Löwenstern,’ Sept. 1847, in _Revue Archéologique_, 1848.
[785] _Journal Asiatique_, 1848, xi. 247.
[786] _J. R. A. S._ 1847, x. 24.
[787] _Exposé_, p. 10, _note_.
[788] Hommel, _Geschichte_, p. 98.
[789] Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_, ii. 173.
[790] _J. R. A. S._ x. 29.
[791] _Exposé_, p. 44.
[792] _Ib._ p. 73.
[793] _Exposé_, p. 58.
[794] _Ib._ pp. 56, 73.
[795] See No. 21 of Hincks, where it is unnoticed. Cf. _Exposé_, p. 28.
[796] _Exposé_, pp. 27, 85-6. Cf. _Transactions_, xxi. 247.
[797] He instances the word for ‘earth,’ p. 86.
[798] ‘Lettre à Löwenstern,’ _loc. cit._ p. 506.
[799] Rawlinson thus describes Botta’s labours. He has been employed in
‘constructing a complete table of variants, the frequent repetition of
the same word with orthographical variations furnishing him with a key to
the equivalent signs: and by these means he has succeeded, he informs me,
in reducing the Assyrian alphabet to some manageable compass.’—_J. R. A.
S._ 1846, x. 29.
[800] _Journal Asiatique_, 1848, March, xi. 245.
[801] _Journal Asiatique_, ix. 378; ‘Lettre à Letronne,’ _Revue
Archéologique_, 1848, p. 466.
[802] Cf. _Rev. Archéol._ 1848, p. 504.
[803] _Rev. Archéol._ ib. p. 503. See Oppert, _Expédition_, p. 123.
[804] _J. R. A. S._ Dec. 1847, ix. 439.
[805] _Athenæum_, Aug. 23, 1851.
[806] _J. R. A. S._ 1848, vol. ix.
[807] ‘On the Khorsabad Inscription,’ _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxii. 12.
[808] _Transactions_, xxi. 241, 247.
[809] _Ib._ xxii. 328; _Athenæum_, Sept. 21, 1850, p. 1000.
[810] ‘It will appear,’ he says later on, ‘that I consider the syllabary
to be of Indo-European origin.’ In 1852 he adds: ‘The characters all
represent syllables, and were originally intended to represent a
non-Semitic language.’ _Transactions_, xxii. 57; _ib._ p. 295.
[811] _Transactions_, xxii. 25. In this case, however, it is so. Hincks
afterwards instanced _an_, which, followed by _ac_, he reads, not ‘anac,’
but ‘nabu.’ _Athenæum_, Sept. 21, 1850.
[812] He explained this matter with great clearness in 1850, when he
showed that the sign for _an_ is used (1) as a simple phonograph in some
words, as in ‘zarangu’; (2) elsewhere it occurs alone as an independent
ideograph for ‘god,’ and forms the plural ‘gods’ by the mere addition of
the plural sign. (3) Again, it is found before the proper names of gods,
as before Aurmuzd. Here the name is phonetically complete without it,
and it is therefore simply a non-phonetic determinative. (4) Elsewhere
it forms part of a compound ideograph, and may entirely change its
phonetic value; and (5) it may be used ideographically for ‘god’ in
Semitic proper names, where its value is not _an_ but _ilu_, or sometimes
_Assur_.—_Transactions_, ib. pp. 27-30; _Athenæum_, _ib._
[813] He admits in Sept. 1850 that he had not yet seen Longpérier’s paper
(_Athenæum_, Sept. 21, 1850).
[814] He explained, however, that his short a corresponds to the Greek
epsilon (_Transactions_, p. 10). In his list the consonants followed
by _ā_ are really those followed by _a_, and those followed by _a_
correspond to the consonants followed by _i_. His view of the four vowels
dates from the paper on Van, Dec. 1847 (_J. R. A. S._ 1848, vol. ix.).
[815] _Athenæum_, Aug. 24, 1850, p. 908.
[816] _Essai de Déchiffrement_, p. 11; cf. _Journal Asiatique_, 1848, xi.
246.
[817] Thus Löwenstern, writing in 1847, before the third column was
taken, says: ‘Rawlinson a, durant nombre d’années, interdit au public
savant la vue des trésors dont il s’était réservé de faire un usage si
utile à sa gloire.’—_Exposé_, p. 10.
[818] _J. R. A. S._ xii. 404.
[819] Mr. King has given a list of 329 signs (_First Steps in Assyrian_,
p. cxxxii.). Conder reckons about 550 in all (‘On Hittite Writing,’ _J.
R. A. S._ 1893, p. 829).
[820] Menant, in 1864, reports 6,000 words, _Ecritures_, p. 256.
[821] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxii. 70.
[822] He refers to the British Museum series recently edited by Layard
and Birch.
[823] _J. R. A. S._ xii. 430 ff. The greater part, if not the whole of
the Obelisk inscription was translated before the publication of Layard’s
book in 1849. Layard, _Nineveh and its Remains_ (1849), ii. 192, _note_.
[824] Cf. _J. R. A. S._ xii. 482-3; _Records of the Past_, N.S. 1890,
iv. 39-40. The translator is Father Scheil, who has not thought it worth
while to mention the name of his great predecessor. From what he says the
reader might suppose the inscription was first translated by Oppert (p.
37).
[825] He thought the dynasty of Nimrud flourished B.C. 1300-1200, and the
later dynasty of Khorsabad from B.C. 1100-1000. _J. R. A. S._ xii. 471.
[826] ‘The cuneiform text accompanied by a transcript in Roman characters
and an interlineary Latin translation was printed’ before May; see
Report, May 1851, _J. R. A. S._ xiii. p. vi. The complete volume appeared
in January 1852 (_ib._ p. 199). Rawlinson returned to Bagdad in the
autumn of 1851 (_Memoir_, p. 171).
[827] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxii. 56.
[828] The report of his lecture, given in the _Athenæum_, leaves no
doubt on this point. It says: ‘Major Rawlinson could not admit that the
phonetic system was entirely syllabic, as had been sometimes stated.
There was no doubt an extensive syllabarium, and the literal characters,
moreover, required a vowel-sound either to precede or follow the
consonant: _but such vowel sound was rarely uniform_. He preferred,
therefore, distinguishing the literal signs as sonant and complemental,
_and leaving the vowels to be supplied according to the requirements of
the language_’ (_Athenæum_, March 2, 1850). And in August of the same
year he vindicated the use of _bona fide_ letters, in opposition to
Hincks, who maintained that ‘the characters had all definite syllabic
values’ (_Athenæum_, Aug. 24, 1850).
[829] For example, he describes the signs for _ut_ and _ti_ as _t_; for
_bu_ and _bil_ as _b_; for _la_ and _li_ as _l_; _su_ as _s_, and _ku_ as
_k_ (_J. R. A. S._ xii. 405, 406, 424, 433). Hincks already knew that the
signs indicated _ti_, _bu_, _la_, _li_ and _ku_.
[830] Cf. _J. R. A. S._ xii. 413, xiv. p. xi.
[831] Hincks, _Trans. R. I. Acad._ 1852, xxii. 306, _note_. _Cf._
Rawlinson, _J. R. A. S._ xii. 406.
[832] _J. R. A. S._ xiv. 4.
[833] Dr. Hommel has, however, come to a somewhat different conclusion,
_Geschichte_, p. 99.
[834] Menant estimates ‘the necessary simple syllables’ at eighty-two,
though this number is slightly modified in practice (_Manuel_, p. 6).
[835] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxii. 70.
[836] See those marked H 1849 or 1850 in ‘Assyrio-Babylonian Phonetic
Characters’ (_Trans. R. I. Acad._ 1852, xxii. 293, ff).
[837] _J. R. A. S._ xiv. 3.
[838] For Rawlinson see _J. R. A. S._ vol. xiv. Plate 1; for De
Saulcy, _Journal Asiatique_, 1854, iii. 95; for Bezold, _Die
Achämenideninschriften_, p. 24.
[839] The sign for ‘king’ was written ‘melik,’ after the Hebrew, till it
was seen that the Assyrians pronounced it ‘sarru’ (Menant, _Manuel_, p.
265). In Rawlinson’s analysis he points out that one of the terms for
‘king’ was certainly ‘sarru,’ as in the Window inscription of Darius at
Persepolis and also at Khorsabad. ‘This discovery,’ he adds, ‘of course
tends to discredit the reading of “melik,” and to suggest the uniform
adoption of “sarru”’ (_J. R. A. S._ xiv. p. iii, _note_). The discovery
was made by Longpérier in 1847, and he gives the Hebrew equivalent
(_Revue Archéologique_, 1848, Longpérier to Löwenstern, Sept. 1847, p.
503). Oppert assigns the credit to De Saulcy (_Journal Asiatique_, 1857,
ix. 142), who mentions it in 1849. Hincks seems to have been the first to
suggest ‘melik’ or ‘malek’ (1849). ‘On Khorsabad,’ _Trans. R. I. Acad._
xxii. 39.
[840] Singularly enough, Hincks had just independently deciphered in
the Obelisk inscription the names of Menahem and Jehu the son of Omri.
Prof. Wilson, Jan. 1852, _J. R. A. S._ xiii. 198. See also George Smith,
_Assyrian Discoveries_, 1883, p. 10. Hincks did not at first recognise
Rawlinson’s identification of Samaria (see _Athenæum_, Sept. 13, 1851).
[841] _J. R. A. S._ 1851, xiv. p. iii.
[842] _Athenæum_, Aug. 23, 1851, p. 902.
[843] _Trans. R. I. Acad._ xxii. 293-363.
[844] _Revue Orientale_, 1852, ii. 162.
[845] These figures may be arranged thus:
100 signs valued by Hincks up to 1850. } In these Hincks and
77 signs taken from Rawlinson. } Rawlinson agree.
49 signs, decipherer not mentioned; values disputed.
118 signs newly valued.
---
344 discussed in present paper.
[846] See Menant, _Manuel_, p. 10.
[847] Although the British Museum contains a multitude of tracts by De
Saulcy on numismatics and other subjects, those on Assyrian do not appear
to be among the number, and we have advertised for them in Paris without
result.
[848] _Les Langues perdues: Assyrie_, p. 139. De Saulcy’s early
contributions were letters to Burnouf, June 20 and 30, 1847.
[849] _Revue Orientale_, 1852, ii. 165.
[850] Menant, _op. cit._ pp. 141-5.
[851] _Revue Orientale_, loc. cit. p. 167.
[852] Mohl, _op. cit._ Report, Aug. 1848.
[853] Menant, _op. cit._ p. 149.
[854] _Memoir_ by Canon Rawlinson, p. 159.
[855] Menant, p. 151.
[856] _Ib._ p. 146. For an even more enthusiastic appreciation of his
services see p. 148.
[857] _Sur les Inscriptions de Ninive_ (Paris, 1850); _Revue Orientale_,
1852, ii. 168. _Cf._ Menant, _Les Ecritures_, p. 225; _Langues perdues_,
p. 150.
[858] _Athenæum_, Jan. 26, 1850, p. 105.
[859] _Journal Asiatique_, 1854, iii. 93.
[860] _Revue Orientale_, loc. cit.
[861] _Langues perdues_, p. 146.