Part 8
Pietro della Valle, Le Brun, Niebuhr, Ker Porter, Rich, and Ouseley, have given us descriptions of the ancient remains in Persia and Assyria, particularly those at Persepolis, Pasargadae, and Babylon. These consist of views of the monuments and sculptures, together with copies of the inscriptions in the cuneiform, or arrow-head character. The object of the edifices, the subject of the sculptures, and the meaning of the inscriptions, were wholly matters of conjecture; and it seemed a hopeless task to arrive at any conclusions in relation to them, until some key should be discovered, by the means of which the language should be made known, and the numerous inscriptions decyphered. No bilingual tablet, such as the Rosetta stone of Egypt, had been discovered; and, although it appeared that many of the inscriptions were recorded in three different languages, no means seemed to exist by which philologists could obtain a clue to their meaning. With this dark prospect in view, the task of decyphering the arrow-headed characters was attempted by M. Grotefend, one of the most sagacious and distinguished philologists of Europe. The particulars of the attempt and its results, we shall briefly state.
At Persepolis it is known are extensive ruins, chiefly belonging to a large edifice, with every indication that this edifice was originally a royal palace. History and tradition supported this belief; and the general character of the sculptures and architecture, together with the inscriptions, would carry its origin back to a period some centuries before the Christian era. It was doubtless the work of one of the great monarchs of Persia; of Cyrus, Cambyses, Xerxes, Darius, or some other with whom history is familiar.[68] On some of the monuments at Persepolis, are inscriptions in the Pehlvi character, parts of which have been decyphered by M. de Sacy. In one of these, the titles and name of a king are often repeated; these titles M. Grotefend thought might be repeated in the same manner in the arrow-head characters.[69]
Over the doorways and in other parts of this edifice, are portraits, evidently of kings, as there is always enough in the dress and insignia of a monarch to enable one to detect him on any ancient monument. Over these portraits are inscriptions; these it was natural to suppose related to the person represented, and if so, contained the name of the king and his titles. Such would be the conclusion of any one who reflected on the subject, and such was the belief of M. Grotefend and other philologists. In these inscriptions one group of characters was repeated more frequently than any other, and all agreed that the decyphering of this group would furnish a key to the whole. On this group of characters then our Savans set to work.
According to the analogy of the Pehlvi inscriptions, decyphered by De Sacy, it was believed that the inscriptions then under consideration, mentioned the name of a king son of another king, that is the names of father and son. M. Grotefend first examined the bas-reliefs at Persepolis, to ascertain the particular age of the Persian kings to which they belonged, in order that he might discover the names applicable to the inscription. A reference to the Greek historians convinced him that he must look for the kings of the dynasty of the Achaemenides, and he accordingly applied their names to the characters of the inscriptions. "These names could obviously not be Cyrus and Cambyses, because the names occurring in the inscriptions do not begin with the same letter; Cyrus and Artaxerxes were equally inapplicable, the first being too short and the latter too long; there only remained therefore the names of Darius and Xerxes;" and these latter agreed so exactly with the characters, that Mr. Grotefend did not hesitate to select them. The next step was to ascertain what these names were in the old Persian language, as they come to us through the Greek, and would of course differ somewhat from the original. The ancient Zend, as preserved in the Zendavesta, furnished the only medium through which the desired information could be obtained.[70] He next ascertained that Xerxes was called _Kshershe_ or _Ksharsha_; and Darius, _Dareush_. A farther examination gave him the name of _Kshe_ or _Ksheio_ for 'king.'[71] The places or groups of characters corresponding with these names, were then analyzed and the value of each character ascertained. These were then applied to other portions of the inscriptions, and led to the translation of two short ones, as well as to the formation of a considerable portion of the alphabet.
Such was the result of Professor Grotefend's labors up to the year 1833. His first discovery was made and announced as early as 1802, but an account of his system of interpretation did not appear until 1815, in the appendix to the third German edition of Heeren's Researches. This was afterwards enlarged in the translation of Heeren published at Oxford in 1833, when it was first made known to English readers. In 1837 he published a treatise containing an account of all the Persepolitan inscriptions in his possession, and another in 1840 on those of Babylon.
The brilliant success which attended Grotefend's earlier efforts, soon attracted the attention of other philologists to the subject. M. Saint Martin read a memoir before the Asiatic Society of Paris in 1822, but did not make any additions to our previous knowledge. Professor Rask next took it up, and discovered the value of two additional characters. M. Burnouf followed in 1836, with an elaborate memoir, in which he disclosed some important discoveries.[72] Professor Lassen, in his Memoir published in 1836, and in a series of papers continued up to the present day,[73] has identified at least twelve characters, which had been mistaken by all his predecessors, and which, says Maj. Rawlinson, "may entitle him almost to contest with Professor Grotefend the palm of alphabetical discovery."
In 1835, Major Rawlinson, then residing in Persia, turned his attention to the subject, and decyphered some of the proper names on the tablets at Hamadan. In the following year he applied himself to the great inscription at Behistun, the largest and most remarkable that is known in Persia, and succeeded in making out several lines of its contents.
The result of Major Rawlinson's first attempt at decyphering the Behistun inscription, was the identification of several proper names, and consequently the values of additional characters towards the completion of the alphabet.[74] But more was wanted than the alphabet, which only enabled the student to make out proper names, but not to advance beyond; and it was the lack of this knowledge which prevented the sagacious and indefatigable Grotefend from carrying out to any great extent, the discoveries which he had so well begun.
The language of the inscriptions must next be studied; and as the Zend had been the medium through which the first links in the chain of interpretation had been obtained, it was naturally resorted to for aid to farther progress. The Zendavesta, with the researches of Anquetil du Perron, and the commentary at the Yacna by M. Burnouf, wherein the language of the Zendavesta is critically analyzed, and its grammatical structure developed, furnished the necessary materials. To the latter work, and the luminous critique of M. Burnouf, Major Rawlinson owes the success of his translations; as he acknowledges that by it he "obtained a general knowledge of the grammatical structure of the language of the inscriptions."
But the Zend was not of itself sufficient to make out all the words and expressions in the Behistun and other inscriptions. Other languages contemporary with that of the inscription and of the Zend must be sought for, to elucidate many points which it left obscure.[75] The Sanscrit was the only one laying claim to a great antiquity, whose grammatical structure was sufficiently developed to render it useful in this enquiry. A knowledge of this language had previously been acquired by Major Rawlinson, and he was therefore fully prepared for the arduous task he had undertaken. Neither of these, it must be observed, was the language of the inscriptions, which it is believed had ceased to be a living form of speech, at the period when the Sanscrit and Zend were in current use.
It is unnecessary to note in detail the difficulties and great labor attending the decyphering of the Behistun tablets, on which Major Rawlinson was occupied from time to time during a space of ten years. His discoveries were announced in London, in a memoir read before the Royal Asiatic Society in 1839, but were not published in extenso until 1846.
Briefly to sum up the results of his labors, it will suffice to state that they present "a correct grammatical translation of nearly four hundred lines of cuneiform writing, a memorial of the time of Darius Hystaspes, the greater part of which is in so perfect a state as to afford ample and certain grounds for a minute orthographical and etymological analysis, and the purport of which to the historian, must be of fully equal interest with the peculiarities of the language to the philologist." In a few cases it may be found necessary to alter or modify some of the significations assigned; but there is no doubt but that the general meaning of every paragraph is accurately determined, and that the learned Orientalist has thus been enabled "to exhibit a correct historical outline, possessing the weight of royal and contemporaneous recital, of many great events which preceded the rise and marked the career of one of the most celebrated of the early sovereigns of Persia."
Such is the history of this great discovery, which has placed the name of Major Rawlinson among the most distinguished Oriental scholars of the age. He will rank among the laborers in cuneiform writing, where Champollion does among the decypherers of Egyptian hieroglyphics; for though, like Champollion, he did not make the first discoveries in his branch of Palaeography, he is certainly entitled to the honor of reducing it to a system, by ascertaining the true powers of a large portion of the alphabet, and by elucidating its grammatical peculiarities, so that future investigators will find little difficulty in translating any inscription in the particular class of characters in question.
The cuneiform (wedge-shaped) or arrow-headed character is a system of writing peculiar to the countries between the Euphrates and the Persian frontier on the East. Various combinations of a figure shaped like a wedge, together with one produced by the union of two wedges, constitute the system of writing employed by the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and the Achaemenian kings of Persia. The character seems to have been as extensively employed in this portion of the world, as the Roman letters now are in Europe. Particular arrangements or combinations of these characters apparently belonged to different nations, speaking different languages. When and where this system of writing originated is not known. Professor Westergaard[76] thinks that "Babylon was its cradle, whence it spread in two branches, eastward to Susiana, and northward to the Assyrian empire, from whence it passed into Media, and lastly into ancient Persia, where it was much improved and brought to its greatest perfection."
Major Rawlinson makes of the arrow-headed writing three great classes or divisions, the _Babylonian_, _Median_ and _Persian_. The first of these he thinks is unquestionably the oldest. "It is found upon the bricks excavated from the foundations of all the buildings in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Chaldea, that possess the highest and most authentic claims to antiquity;" and he thinks it "not extravagant therefore to assign its invention to the primitive race which settled in the plain of Shinar."[77] In the recent excavations made by M. Botta and Mr. Layard, on or near the site of ancient Nineveh, numerous inscriptions in this form of the arrow-head character were found. It also occurs in detached inscriptions from the Mediterranean to the Persian mountains.
A comparison of the various inscriptions in the Babylonian class of writing has led Major Rawlinson to believe that it embraces five distinct varieties, which he calls the Primitive Babylonian, the Achaemenian Babylonian, the Medo-Assyrian, the Assyrian, and the Elymaean.[78] The peculiarities of these several varieties, with the countries in which they are found, are pointed out in the second chapter of our author's learned Memoir on cuneiform writing. The Median and Persian classes are peculiar to the trilingual tablets of Persia, and are better known than the first class or Babylonian.
Mr. Westergaard[79] divides the cuneiform writing into five classes: the _Assyrian_; the _Old Babylonian_; and the three kinds on the trilingual tablets of Persia, which embrace the _Median_ and _Persian_ varieties, and the one called by Rawlinson the _Achaemenian Babylonian_.
The history we have already given of the progress made in decyphering these characters applies exclusively to one of the varieties on the tablets of Persia. The inscriptions on these monuments are almost invariably repeated in three sets of characters, and doubtless in three different languages. The characters of what appears in each case to be the primary or original inscription, of which the others are translations, are of the simplest construction, and consequently were the first to attract the attention of decypherers, and to yield to their efforts. The language in which they are written has been found to exhibit close affinities both to the Sanscrit and to the Zend, and is now termed by philologists the Old Persian. The system of writing is alphabetic, that is to say, each character represents a single articulate sound; whereas that of the other two species is at least in a great measure syllabic, which renders the task of decyphering them much more difficult.
For our knowledge of the second variety of characters on the Persian trilingual tablets, we are indebted to the labors and sagacity of Professor Westergaard.[80] These characters had remained entirely undecyphered until the first kind had been completely made out. It was evident that the inscriptions in the second kind of character were but a translation of those in the first; and with this supposition, this learned Orientalist began the task of decyphering, by identifying the proper names Darius, Hystaspes, Cyrus, Xerxes, Persians, Ionians, &c., which frequently occur in the inscriptions decyphered by Major Rawlinson. Having obtained these, he next analyzed each and ascertained the phonetic values of the several characters of which they are composed. By this means, he was enabled to construct an alphabet. He next examined the introductory words and the titles of the sovereigns, and finally the entire inscriptions, all of which he has most satisfactorily made out, and with them has reconstructed the language in which they are written. In his learned and elaborate article detailing the process of this discovery, Professor Westergaard gives a systematic classification of the characters, one hundred in number, of which seventy-four are syllabic, twenty-four alphabetic, and two signs of division between words. The character of the language, which for convenience sake he terms Median, he does not pretend to decide, though he considers that it belongs to the Scythian rather than to the Japhetic class of languages; in which opinion Major Rawlinson coincides. The Oriental Journal alluded to in the second note to p. 90, contains several learned papers by Professors Westergaard and Lassen, on the arrow-headed inscriptions.
In the third sort of Persepolitan characters, termed the Achaemenian Babylonian, some advances have been made by Major Rawlinson. The contents of the other portions of these tablets being known, he pursued the course adopted by Professor Westergaard, namely that of identifying the groups of characters corresponding with the proper names in the other inscriptions. He has thus been enabled to ascertain the phonetic values of a large number of characters which must in time lead to a knowledge of the rest of the alphabet. A beginning in this direction was also made by Professor Grotefend, who in his Memoirs of 1837 and 1840, singles out and places in juxtaposition the names of Cyrus, Hystaspes, Darius and Xerxes, in the first and third species of Persepolitan writing. There is every reason to hope that the labors of the three accomplished Oriental scholars, Rawlinson, Lassen, and Westergaard, which have been so far crowned with success, will add to their fame by making out the characters and language of this species of writing also. A high degree of interest is attached to it, not only on account of the information it embodies, but in regard to the nation to which it is assignable.
It will be recollected, that besides these three sorts of Persepolitan writing, there are two other distinct classes of arrow-head characters, called Babylonian and Assyrian. Little or nothing has yet been accomplished towards decyphering them; which is owing to the fact that they are of a very complicated nature, and that they have hitherto been found alone, that is to say not accompanied by a version in any other language or character. A Parisian savant, M.J. Loewenstern, who has applied himself to the study of the Assyrian tablets, published in 1845 an Essay on the monument recently discovered by M. Botta at Khorsabad near Mosul, in which he thinks he has made out the groups which stand for the words _great king_, and also several alphabetical characters. Further investigations can alone determine whether or not his conclusions are correct.
It will be necessary to state some of the historical facts brought to light by the labors of Major Rawlinson, to which we have alluded. The great tablet at Behistun relates exclusively to Darius. "To this monarch," says Major Rawlinson, "insatiable in his thirst of conquest, magnificent in his tastes, and possessed of an unlimited power, we are indebted for all that is most valuable in the palaeography of Persia. Imbued, as it appears, with an ardent passion for monumental fame, he was not content to inscribe the palaces of his foundation at Persepolis with a legend commemorative of their erection, or with prayers invoking the guardianship of Ormuzd and his angels, but he lavished an elaborate workmanship on historic and geographic records in various quarters of his empire, which evince considerable political forethought, an earnest regard for truth, and an ambition to transmit the glories of his reign to future generations, to guide their conduct and invite their emulation. At Persepolis, the high place of Persian power, he aspired to elevate the moral feelings of his countrymen, and to secure their future dominancy in Asia, by displaying to them their superiority over the feudatory provinces of the empire,[81] while upon the sacred rock of Baghistan, he addressed himself in the style of an historian, to collect the genealogical traditions of his race, to describe the extent and power of his kingdom, and to relate, with a perspicuous brevity worthy of imitation, the leading incidents of his reign. His grave relation of the means by which, under the care and favor of a beneficent Providence, the crown of Persia first fell into his hands, and of the manner in which he subsequently established his authority, by the successive overthrow of the rebels who opposed him, contrasts strongly but most favorably with the usual emptiness of Oriental hyperbole."
The following are some of the translations from the great inscription at Behistun, which embraces upwards of four hundred lines in the arrow-headed characters. In Major Rawlinson's Memoir, are given fac-similes of the original inscriptions, a transcription of the same in Roman letters with an interlineal translation in Latin, and a translation in English. Accompanying these, is a critical commentary on each line, together with notes, rendering the whole as clear as possible.
"I am Darius, the great king, the king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of (the dependent) provinces, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenian.
"Says Darius the King:--My father was Hystaspes; of Hystaspes, the father was Arsames; of Arsames, the father was Ariyaramnes; of Ariyaramnes, the father was Teispes; of Teispes, the father was Achaemenes.
"Says Darius the King:--On that account, we have been called Achaemenians: from antiquity we have been unsubdued; from antiquity those of our race have been kings.
"Says Darius the King:--There are eight of my race who have been kings before me, I am the ninth; for a very long time we have been kings.
"Says Darius the King:--By the grace of Ormuzd, I am king; Ormuzd has granted me the empire.
"Says Darius the King:--These are the countries which have fallen into my hands--by the grace of Ormuzd, I have become king of them--Persia, Susiana, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt; those which are of the sea, Sparta and Ionia; Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Zarangea, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, the Sacae, the Sattagydes, Arachosia, and the Mecians; the total amount being twenty-one countries.
"Says Darius the King:--These are the countries which have come to me; by the grace of Ormuzd, they have become subject to me--they have brought tribute to me. That which has been said unto them by me, both by night and by day, it has been performed by them.
"Says Darius the King:--Ormuzd has granted me the empire. Ormuzd has brought help to me until I have gained this empire. By the grace of Ormuzd, I hold this empire.
"Says Darius the King:-- ... He who was named Cambyses, the son of Cyrus of our race, he was here king before me. There was of that Cambyses a brother named Bartius; he was of the same father and mother as Cambyses. Cambyses slew this Bartius. When Cambyses slew that Bartius, the troubles of the state ceased which Bartius had excited. Then Cambyses proceeded to Egypt. When Cambyses had gone to Egypt, the state became heretical; then the lie became abounding in the land, both in Persia and in Media, and in the other provinces."
He then goes on to speak of the rebellions in his dominions after the death of Cambyses, of the Magian who declared himself king, and that no one dared to resist him. He continues:
"every one was standing obediently around the Magian, until I arrived. Then I abode in the worship of Ormuzd; Ormuzd brought help to me. On the 10th day of the month Bagayadish, I slew the Magian and the chief men who were his followers. By the grace of Ormuzd, I became king; Ormuzd granted me the sceptre."
He then says, he "established his race on the throne, as in the days of old," prohibited the sacrificial worship introduced by the Magian, and restored the old families to office,--all of which was accomplished by the aid of Ormuzd. The people of Susiana and Babylon then became rebellious. He slew the leader of the former.
"Says Darius the King:--Then I proceeded to Babylon against that Natitabirus, who was called Nabokhadrosser (Nebuchadnezzar). The forces of Natitabirus held the Tigris; there they had come and they had boats. Then I placed a detachment on rafts. I brought the enemy into difficulty; I assaulted the enemy's position. Ormuzd brought help to me; by the grace of Ormuzd, I succeeded in passing the Tigris. Then I entirely defeated the army of that Natitabirus. On the 27th day of the month of Atriyata, then it was that we thus fought."