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.

[177] Fergusson, p. 107, _note_; p. 165, _note_; p. 176; Flandin 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.