[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.
[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.
[390] Ouseley (Sir W.), vol. ii. Pl. 46; Burnouf, Mémoire, pp. 9, 17.
[391] Niebuhr, vol. ii. Pl. 31, p. 123.
[393] Burnouf, Mémoire, p. 29.
[394] Ib. p. 25.
| 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) |
[397] Mémoire, p. 38.
[398] The true transliteration is ‘vazraka,’ and its meaning ‘great.’ See Spiegel, p. 46.
| 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) | } | Correct values |
| 25 | 𐎤 | k | q | k(a) | } | |
| 22 | 𐎬 | th | dh | t(u) | } | |
| 26 | 𐎰 | i | y | th | } | |
| 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); 𐎢u = 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.