Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:08:04.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chapter I. Preliminary Remarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE scientific world of England, which has taken the lead in so many other branches of palæographie study, has been content to leave the investigation of the Cuneiform Inscriptions almost entirely to Continental scholars; and, which is still more unusual in the history of Eastern archæology, the origin and progress of this investigation, and the results that have been obtained from it, appear to be but imperfectly known amongst us. Individuals doubtless of all countries, whether Englishmen or foreigners, engaged in the study of Oriental antiquities, have followed with a curious eye the successive discoveries that have been made; but general attention, or, at any rate, an attention commensurate with the value of the discoveries, has not been hitherto in England directed to the subject; and if I were to take up the inquiry, therefore, at the point where Professor Lassen has left it, interpretations which would satisfy the criticism of France or Germany might be received in London with extreme suspicion. This circumstance has suggested the propriety of adopting a more extended and elaborate form of introduction to a Memoir on the Cuneiform Inscriptions, than the present advanced stage of the inquiry can be considered rigidly to demand. In a study, indeed, of which the value depends entirely on the authenticity, and of which the authenticity can alone be verified by the constant and consentient results of a cautious and severe analysis, it is obviously better to err on the side of prolixity than of omission. A defective or imperfect link will destroy the integrity of the whole chain of evidence, while accumulative proofs, although they may encumber and perhaps disfigure the argument, will at the same time but contribute to its strength.

Type
Memoir
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 10 , July 1847 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1847

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 2 note 1 The extract which commences at this place is copied verbatim from the M. S. of 1839, but the marginal notes are entirely new.

page 3 note 1 The present marginal notes will be found in a measure to supply this deficiency.

page 3 note 2 See the alphabetical table heading Chapter III. I have now added to it such improvements and alterations as have been adopted on the Continent since the above was written.

page 3 note 3 Professor Grotefend's first discovery was announced in the Literary Gazette of Göttingen in the year 1802, but the memoir upon the subject, which was at the same time read before the Royal Society of that place, was never published. In 1805, there appeared a farther exposition of his views which, however, rather tended to discredit than to verify his original discovery (see Klaproth's, Aperçu de l'Origine des diverses Ecritures, p. 62.)Google Scholar Several papers were published by the Professor in the 4th, 5th, and 6th volumes of the Mines de l'Orient (1814'16), but they regarded the Babylonian rather than the Persian writing. The first complete account of his system of interpretation was given in the Appendix to the third edition of Heeren's Ideen über die Politik, den Verkehr, und den Handel der vornehnsten Völker der Alten Welt; Göttingen, 1815; an account which was enlarged and illustrated in the fourth edition of that excellent work, published in 1825. See Heeren's, Researches, published by Talboys, in 1833, vol. II., p. 313.Google Scholar The Baron de Sacy reviewed Professor Grotefend's labours in a letter to Mr. Millin, which was published in the Magasin Encyclopédique, annnée VIII., tom. V., p. 438. An account of Dr. Grotefend's discoveries was communicated to the Bombay Literary Society, in 1818, and was published in the 2nd volume of their Transactions.

page 4 note 1 Saint Martin appears to have first turned his attention to the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Persia in 1821 or 1822. A memoir was read by him on the subject before the Asiatic Society of Paris in the course of the latter year, and an extract of this paper was published at Paris in February, 1823. See Journal Asiatique, tom. II., p. 59.Google Scholar The entire dissertation appeared, I believe, subsequently in the Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc., II. Series, tom. XII., 2e partie, pag. 113. His matured opinions, however, which he considered à l'abri de la Critique, (see Burnouf's, Memoire sur deux Inscriptions Cuneiformes, p. 2)Google Scholar, are only to be found in Klaproth's Aperçu de l'Origine des diverges Ecritures, a volume of which fifty copies were alone printed, and which appeared in Paris in the summer of 1832, almost at the exact period of Saint Martin's early and lamented death. See Klaproth's, Aperçu, p. 65, 66, 67.Google Scholar

page 4 note 2 For the discoveries of Professor Rask, see Ueber das Alter und die Echtheit der Zend-Sprache und des Zend-Avesta, etc., übersetzt von F. H. von der Hagen. p. 28. Berlin, 1826.Google Scholar

page 4 note 3 M. Burnouf's elaborate Memoir was published in June, 1836. It is entitled Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions Cunéiformes, trouvés près d'Hamadán. The comparative table in Chapter III. will show the merit of his alphabet.

page 4 note 4 Professor Lassen's work on the Inscriptions, entitled Die Alt-Persischen Keil-Inschriften von Persepolis, was published at Bonn, in May, 1836. It may be considered, therefore, to have appeared simultaneously with the Memoir of Burnouf.

page 5 note 1 This is incorrect. Professor Grotefend founded his system of interpretation on an analysis of two short inscriptions at Persepolis, very accurately copied by Niebuhr. (Vol. II., Tab. 24, B. and G.) The process by which the Professor arrived at the identification of the character is very elaborately described in his amended paper, published in 1825. See Heeren's, Researches, English translation, vol. II., p. 332–346.Google Scholar The inscriptions of Hamadán, though frequently copied, were, I believe, first published in M. Burnouf's Memoir of 1836. They consist exclusively of the introductory autographic formulary which is usually followed at Persepolis by a prayer invoking the protection of Ormazd and his angels. This formulary will be found eleven times repeated, with unimportant variations, in the Zusammenstellung der Inschriften, appended to the memoir published last year by Professor Lassen, in his Magazine, entitled Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes; Bonn.

page 6 note 1 The names identified by Professor Grotefend in the Persepolitan Inscriptions were the same as those which I decyphered at Hamadán, and the process by which he arrived at their identification was nearly similar to that which is here detailed.

page 6 note 2 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. I follow the text of 1839, and have no doubt that at that period I could have explained the manner in which I had identified these eighteen characters before I met with the alphabets of Grotefend and Siant Martin.

page 6 note 3 It was the German edition of 1815 which I then consulted. The amended paper of Professor Grotefend, which appeared in the edition of 1825, contains little or nothing of alphabetical modification, but it is worthy of remark that of the six translations which are found in the earlier essay, two alone are admitted into the later. It may be presumed, accordingly, that during the period which intervened between the two editions, the Professor had been led to mistrust, in a great measure, the applicability of his method of translation. His alphabet exhibits a correct identification of eight letters out of the thirty to which he assigned equivalents. Saint Martin endeavoured to construct an alphabet of thirty-nine characters, twelve of these he considered doubtful, ten he identified correctly, of seventeen his reading was erroneous.

page 7 note 3 This must be understood to include the entire first column; the opening paragraph of the second; ten paragraphs of the third column, and four of the detached inscriptions. I was then of opinion that the mutilation and inaccessibility of the sculpture rendered further transcription impossible, but I have since succeeded in recovering the whole of the record with the exception of a few paragraphs at the foot of the tablet.

page 7 note 2 I have no copy at hand to which I can refer in order to test the alphabetical accuracy of this specimen of my early labours; it was unquestionably faulty, but the names were at any rate correctly identified, and the construction of the original was preserved throughout. Professor Lassen has given a reprint of these paragraphs in the Roman character, in his recent Memoir, p. 164, and has been misled in several passages by the conjectural restorations as well as by the inaccuracies of the original. The identifications of the five following essential characters were certainly at this period original to my own researches: and

page 8 note 1 In this letter I believe I suggested, amongst others, the following identifications in preference to the values assigned by M. Burnouf; and and I also gave an indication of the power of in the orthography of the name of Nabochodrossor and of in that of Cambyses. The most important aid which I derived from the alphabet of M. Burnouf was the determination of the character as the representation of k. I remained for a long time in doubt regarding the value of the following characters, and and in the powers which I assigned to the two latter, I am even now at issue with all my predecessors.

page 8 note 2 The two first parts of this elaborate work were published in 1833–35. It may be considered indispensable to all inquiries, which have for their object the elucidation of Persian antiquities, but at the same time the want of an Index greatly impairs its utility as a mere manual of reference. When the talented author can command sufficient leisure to enable him to complete his undertaking, he will, no doubt, supply the desiderated Index, which as far as Zend vocables are concerned, will answer all the purposes of a grammar and dictionary.

page 9 note 1 This inscription occurs on the southern wall of the great platform at Persepolis. It was copied and published by Niebuhr, (see Voyage en Arabie, &c, tom. II., pl. 31. inscr. I.), and by Ker Porter, (Travels in Georgia, &c, vol. I., pl. LV. a); and the geographical names which it contains were elaborately examined by M. Burnouf and Professor Lassen, in their respective Memoirs of 1836. The copy, however, which was made by Mr. Westrargaard in 1843, and which was published with an amended translation by Professor Lassen in his Magazine of last year (see Zeitschrift, , &e, p. 175), is infinitely more correct than either of the other transcripts.Google Scholar

page 9 note 2 During this period, I obtained through continued labour, the following, identifications of value; and I have since learnt that Professor Lassen, M. Jacquet, and Dr. Beer of Leipsic, had some time previously made the same discoveries, but their, respective works were in 1838 entirely unknown to me. At the same time, I must admit that I was not altogether satisfied with the powers that I had assigned, and that with regard to that most useful character I remained entirely in error until the following year.

page 10 note 1 From this alphabet I first learnt the power of the letter which from its frequent occurrence at the end of a word I had previously mistaken for an aspirate, answering to the Sanskrit visarga. I believe, however, that the Bonn Professor derived his knowledge of this character from Dr. Beer, who published an elaborate review of the different systems of interpretation adopted by Professor Grotefend, M. Burnouf, and Professor Lassen, in 1838. Another advantage which I derived from the letter in question was the confirmation of my conjectural reading of and as dh and t'h. The only characters of which I objected to the values assigned by the Professor, were the following; and In the letter of which I am speaking, the power of the character was left undetermined. Having since had an opportunity of comparing this alphabet of 1839, with that published by Professor Lassen three years previously in his Alt-Persischen Keil-Inschriften, I find that the former contained new readings of the five following characters, and but I am not informed to what precise extent the Professor was indebted for these improvements to his own researches. M. Jacquet and Dr. Beer had both published in the interim, and had suggested, I believe, several of the alterations adopted by Professor Lassen, but it is very possible that the discoveries were made independently at Paris, at Leipsic, and at Bonn.

I may as well observe in this place, that the Persepolitan is always figured at Behistun as and that I make use accordingly on all occasions of the latter type, unless I am quoting a Persepolitan alphabet.

page 11 note 1 I obtained this copy from M. Eugene Boré, who visited Ván in the latter end of the year 1838. His transcript is more perfect than that which was found among Schultz's papers, and which was published in the Journal Asiatique, III e. Series, tom. IX. No. 52Google Scholar, but it is still defective in the last two lines, which are said to be entirely concealed by shrubs and grass growing out of the face of the rock. My translation of this inscription, in ch. 5, may be compared with that which is given in Lassen's, last Memoir, page 147–151.Google Scholar

page 11 note 2 Dr. Müller's Memoir was published in the April Number of the Journal Asiatique for 1839. I am unable to refer at present to M. Jacquet's papers which were published serially in the same periodical, and I cannot give therefore the date of their appearance. M. Jacquet died however in 1837.

page 11 note 3 By translation, I do not mean the deciphering of names, but the correct rendering of the different members of a sentence according to their etymologies and their respective grammatical relations. In the one respect the labours of Grotefend and Saint Martin were valuable; in the other, they were beneath criticism.

page 12 note 1 The names which M. Burnouf identified, notwithstanding his violation of their orthography, were the following:—Persia, Media, Babylon, Arabia, Cappadocia, Ionia, Zarangia, Aria, Bactria, and Sogdiana. Of the remainder, he left the greater part untouched, but the few which he did examine were incorrectly rendered. I may mention the Oichardi, Ithaguri, Arrhoei, Gordyeans, Arianians, &c.

page 12 note 2 At this period one of M. Jacquet's Essays had alone fallen into my hands. I have since hastily examined the entire series, but unfortunately I am without the means of consulting them at present, and I retain no very distinct recollection of their contents.

page 12 note 3 In Professor Lassen's first work (1836) there are three names which I consider open to objection—Choana, Arbela, and Gordyene. In 1839, he had amended the first of these titles to Susa, and in his last Memoir (1844) he returns to M. Burnouf's original identification of Arabia, instead of Arbela. At present, the only names in Niebuhr's list of which I question Professor Lassen's reading are his Xudráya and Parutaya, This subject, however, will be discussed in its proper place.

page 13 note 1 I do not think it necessary at present to give this comparative appendix. Any one who is curious on the subject may collate the translations which are given in chap. 5, with those contained in Professor Lassen's last Memoir.

page 13 note 1 Since augmented to considerably above four hundred lines.—Ed.

page 16 note 1 This Journal was entitled “Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.”

page 16 note 2 I now find that two papers only were published by Professor Lassen on the Cuneiform Inscriptions, in the early numbers of his Journal. 1. “On the latest advances in the decypherment of the simple Persepolitan wedge-formed characters.“ (Vol. II. No. XXVI, p. 165.)Google Scholar And 2, “On some new Cuneatic Inscriptions of the simplest form.” (Vol. III. No. XVI. p. 442).Google Scholar

page 16 note 3 Professor Grotefend may, perhaps, date his original alphabet from 1802. I fix on 1815 as the period of the publication of the third edition of Heeren's Ideen, in which the discoveries of the Professor first appeared “in extenso.”

page 17 note 1 Dr. E. F. F. Beer published in 1838, a review of the discoveries of Grotefend, Burnouf, and Lassen, in the Allgemein. Hall. Literat. Zeitung, I. § 38; and this article was, I believe, the first which appeared in Germany suggesting the true powers of the letters and M. Jacquet, however, is said to have previously and independently made the same discoveries at Paris; and as he died in 1837, the publication of his papers in the Journal Asiatique, unless they were posthumous, must have anticipated the Leipsic announcement. Dr. Beer's review I have never seen, and M. Jacquet's papers I perused so long ago, and in such a cursory manner, that I entertain a very imperfect recollection of them.

page 17 note 1 The former of these letters is met with only in the particle anuwa, answering to the Sanscrit , and the latter, which occurs in two proper names, appears to be borrowed from the Median alphabet.

page 18 note 1 Professor Lassen's article is entitled “Die Alt-Persischen Keilinschriften nach N. L. Westergaard's Mittheilungen, Von. Chr. Lassen.” It forms the first number of the sixth volume of the Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, and extends to 188 pages. Professor Lassen had the kindness to transmit to me, through Mr. Renouard, Foreign Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society of London, a copy of his excellent Memoir, on July 18th, 1844, but owing to the difficulty of communicating between Bonn and Baghdad, the pamphlet only reached me in August, 1845.