No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2011
THE translations which I have given in the preceding chapter of the elaborate inscriptions of Behistun, will enable the reader to follow me with comparative ease through the present portion of the inquiry; for in the several detached legends which occur in other parts of the Persian empire, and of which I now proceed to give amended copies and translations, I shall neither have occasion to explain many new words, nor even to point out any essential varieties of grammar or construction. I cannot pretend, at the same time, that these brief and disconnected legends which have hitherto, as the only available materials of analysis, exclusively occupied the attention of the learned in Europe, will be found to possess nearly the same interest as the great inscription of Behistun. In the place of varied and historical recital, we must be content for the most part to peruse a certain formula of invocation to Ormazd, and a certain empty parade of royal titles, recurring with a most wearisome and disappointing uniformity. Geographical names, it is true, will occasionally be found to relieve the monotonous phraseology, and there are a few incidental expressions scattered among the records, which throw a faint light upon the faith and usages of the early Persians; but as a general principle, we may consider the value of these inscriptions to be confined to the aid which they afford in identifying the respective works of the early mbnarchs of the house of Achælmenes.
page 269 note * The evidence which these legends afford, that it was customary with the early Persian kings to invoke the protection of Ormazd and the other gods, for the edifices of their construction, is illustrated by the practice which prevails in Persia to the present day, of chaunting a prayer over every brick as it is laid in the walls of a building; at present, the chaunt of the bricklayers is supposed to render the edifice secure against “the evil eye.” Among the Chaldeans, probably, the sacred charm impressed upon the bricks was intended to scare away the evil spirits who infested the dwellings of mankind.
page 270 note * In this and the following instances, the letter and page between parentheses refer to the Treatise on Cuneiform Inscriptions, by Professor Lassen, published in the sixth volume of the Zeitschrift.—ED.
page 270 note † See column 2, line 65, where however by inadvertence the word is written Babirush.
page 271 note * Niebuhr, who gives a very accurate and detailed description of all the buildings at Persepolis, supposes the palace of Xerxes, marked I in his plan of the ruins, to be the most ancient edifice in the Platform. (See vol. II., p. 116.) The inferiority of execution, however, from which he inferred superior antiquity, was in reality owing to a decline of the arts.
page 271 note † Le Brun has also given a very imperfect copy of this inscription, Plate 132. The reading which St. Martin assigned to it after Niebuhr's copy, may be seen in Klaproth's Aperçu, &c. p. 66; and Lassen's interpretation is given at page 9 of his often-quoted Memoir.
page 272 note * I may remark in this place, that although I personally inspected the ruins of Persepolis in 1834, I am unable, at present, to consult the notes which I made on the occasion, and am obliged therefore to refer for all local details to the observations of other travellers.
page 272 note † It is worthy of remark also, that the Median and Babylonian translations employ the epithet after dahyaunám, which is usually represented by paruwazanánám, but which in this particular tablet is wanting in the Persian original. The Median copy, indeed, reproduces letter by letter the Persian vispazana, which, as I shall subsequently show, replaces the ordinary puruwazana in the inscription at Nakhsh-i-Rustam, and thus connects those epithets determinately together. With the usual laxity however of Median orthography, the Persian vispazana is corrupted at the latter place to vissadana.
page 273 note * Professor Lassen has examined these two inscriptions in detail, in both his Memoirs, dated respectively 1836 and 1844, and M. Burnouf derived from the same source many of the names and words with which he illustrated his Essay on the Inscriptions of Hamadan, published at Paris, 1836. I may add in this place, that the Median and Babylonian tablets, which are appended to these two inscriptions, and which have been published by Niebuhr, p. 31, K and L, are translations neither of one nor the other; they do not appear to contain matter of much interest, but they are nevertheless independent records.
page 273 note † I have finally decided on distinguishing between the simple and reduplicate forms, assigning the former to 
and the latter to 
M. Burnouf has elaborately examined the relation which the Zend 
respectively bears to these two Sanskrit roots, and his remarks throughout are equally applicable to the Cuneiform 
See Comment, sur le Yaçna, Note 217, from page 356 to 365.
page 274 note * It is curious that there should be no distinction between the masc. and fem. gender in the nom., either of the immediate demonstrative tyam, “this,” or the remote demonstrative hauwa, “that;” yet such is undoubtedly the case. The Pali, also, employs iyam for the Sans, masculine 
page 275 note * In both of the passages where of this word occurs the second letter is doubtful, and Lassen accordingly has adopted Westergaard's restoration of 
but the vowel 
must necessarily follow 
and Niebuhr's copy of the inscription is certainly in favour of this reading.
page 275 note † Observe that I follow the Sanskrit orthography in writing hainá instead of hiná, the short a which is unexpressed in the inscriptions intervening, as I consider, between the 
and 
page 276 note * In my remarks on the alphabet, I have compared the Cuneiform yára with the Sanskrit 
but I am now satisfied that the true correspondent is 
the root, however, in both cases being the same.
page 276 note † In Sanskrit, however, we should have 
or 
page 277 note * I remark in Wilkins', Grammar, page 655, s. 1319,Google Scholar the expression 
“may Siva preserve (you),” where the accus. appears to be used with the imperative in the place of the nom.; but I can hardly believe this construction to be authentic, and I am unwilling therefore to apply the rule to the present passage. It is remarkable at the same time, that the verb ániya should precede not only the object imám dahyáum, but the various nouns which I suppose to represent the agents, a most unusual form of construction in the language of the inscriptions.
page 278 note * The orthographical transposition in this word is precisely the same which occurs in jadiya, “strike,” for the Sanskrit 
but it is not easy to ascertain why the letters 
should be employed after the root. Perhaps jadiyámiya may be the 1st pers. sing. of the potential for 
page 280 note * I reserve for the Geographical Section, a consideration whether the Cuneiform Sparda can possibly refer to Lacedæmon, or whether it may not rather indicate the regions of Asia Minor inhabited by the Dorian colonists, who were known to the Persians under the name of the chief city of their race.
page 280 note † See Inscription of Behistun, col. 1, line 18, and Inscription of Nakhsh-i-Bustam, line 16.
page 280 note ‡ The only objection to this explanation is, that in noticing the term adárya, (Behistun, col. 1, line 26,) I have supposed the root 
to form its middle aorist according to the ninth mode of Wilkins, which is peculiar to verbs of the tenth conjugation. We may suppose, however, the verb in question to be of different classes as in Sanskrit, adárya being the 1st pers. middle aorist of the tenth conjugation, and adarshiya the same form, when the root is conjugated according to the first or sixth class.
page 281 note * I shall subsequently show that aná, in both passages stands for asmát, the ablative and instrum. being the same in the language of the inscriptions.
page 282 note * See the note to col. 4, line 39, of the Behistun Inscription, page 245.
page 284 note * Compare hya shiyátim adá martiyahyá,” which occurs in the often repeated address to Ormazd.
page 284 note † Compare the Sanskrit 
“unbroken.”
page 284 note ‡ For an elaborate examination of the etymology of Ahura, see Yaçna, , &c, p. 77–82.Google Scholar
page 284 note § In my translation given above, I have rendered aurá by “existence,“ but “imperishability” would perhaps more nearly express the sense.
page 285 note * These copies were respectively made by Mr. Stewart, an Englishman, and by M. Vidal, the dragoman of the French Consulate, at Aleppo; and they were found by M. Burnouf among the papers of the unfortunate Schultz, who was murdered in Persia in 1829.
page 286 note * M. Burnouf, indeed, would translate the Zend 
“by Creator.” (See Yaçna, , &c, p. 363);Google Scholar but the term 
is in use in Persian to the present day, and invariably signifies, “a giver,” or “renderer of justice.”
page 287 note * The Median equivalent of aivam is unquestionably a particle, for it is not subject to inflexion.
page 287 note † Khsháyathiya is derived from 
“to rule with unlimited power;” while framátára for framántára contains the element 
“a scripture,“ or “work of sacred authority.”
page 288 note * The Median equivalent is, in fact, the same word which answers to iyam, ima, &c, with the inflexion of the genitive case.
page note 288 † Compare the Sanskrit 
page note 288 ‡ See line 12 of the Inscription at Nakhsh-i-Rustam, where we have duriápiya, a barbarous orthography for dur(a)yápiya.
page note 289 * See Photii Biblioth. Rothomag, 1653, p. 114.Google Scholar
page 289 note † Rich observes in “Babylon and Persepolis,” p. 256: “On the third tomb from the point are two long tables of Cuneiform Inscriptions in the upper compartment, and on each side of the priest and altar, and two on the lower, one on each side of the door … The two tables on the top contain, I conclude, the original Zend, and the other two which are rather larger, the two translations or copies in the second and third species.” Westergaard, on the contrary, in a letter written on the spot, observes, “There are three inscriptions in the upper compartment, one on the side wall, and two on the front wall, all these being to the left of the priest. On the right there is nothing. Lower down there is on the left of the door a long inscription, and on the right side the two translations in the Median and Assyrian languages.” The three inscriptions in the upper compartment were, I imagine, subsequently found by Westergaard to compose a single tablet. I may add also, that the translations, although in the lower compartment, belong to the upper Persian tablet, to that in fact, which contains the important list of geographical names.
page 290 note * SirOuseley, William (Travels, vol. II., p. 296,)Google Scholar has collected all the various notices of the old travellers regarding these tombs. Dr. Fryer, prudent and quaint, was satisfied “to stare on them from beneath, they being fit only for atlasses or winged folk to look into, there being no passage into them.” (See Fryer's, Travels, p. 253.)Google ScholarHoeck, has also a good account of the tombs, collected from a very wide range of authorities, in his Vet. Med. at Pen. Monum., p. 25.Google Scholar
page 291 note * Lassen believes the letter 
to have been effaced at the commencement of line 8.
page 292 note * See lines 44 and 46.
page 293 note * See De Sacy's, examination of the name of minucheher 
in his Antiq. de la Perse, p. 93.Google Scholar Burnouf does not explain the Zend 
in any passage of the Yaçna, but it is perhaps allied to 
“the body.”
page 293 note † In the Babylonian copy, the name of Ariya is too much obliterated to be of any use.
page 293 note ‡ For the Airyaman of the Zend Avesta, see Yaçna, , Notes et Eclair, p. cvi.Google Scholar
page 296 note * All the names of the Scythian tribes beyond the sea, appear to me to be altered or displaced in the Babylonian copy. As far as the name of Gadára the series follows the same order, and the various titles may be determinately identified; but I find it extremely difficult to decypher the remaining names, according either to their Fenian or Median orthography.
page 296 note † See Inscription, No. 14, line 23.
page 297 note * Lassen would read this name Humawargá, and apply it to the 
The Median orthography appears to be Uhmado.
page 298 note * I take this opportunity of observing, that I have lately received from a friend at Teheran, a transcript of Mr. Westergaard's copy of the Babylonian tablet at Nakhsh-i-Rustam, in which I find, from line 11 to line 19, the entire series of geographical names given in the Babylonian character. Unfortunately the writing is much mutilated, and I doubt if the Persian titles are not in many instances translated rather than reproduced; but still the aid afforded by this extension of material, in improving my acquaintance with the Babylonian alphabet, is of the utmost importance, and I can now predict the explanation of the Assyrian tablets as an almost certain consequence. It may assist the labours of other students if I add, that geographical names in the Babylonian character, are always preceded by the sign 
while the names of men are distinguished by the simple 
For further remarks on the Babylonian names, see the preceding note in page 296.
page 302 note * It would be quite allowable to believe in the existence of a particle chi, which has produced the pronouns chish and chiya in the language of the inscriptions, and many similar derivatives both in Zend and Sanskrit, but the cause of the introduction of the 
in the Cuneiform chiydkarma, must still remain exceedingly obscure. Lassen reads the word chiyakaram, and supposes it to be the 1st pers. sing. of the reduplicate aorist, being equivalent, in fact, to the Sans. aohikaram, and if this were correct, we might translate the phrase,— “If thou shall preserve that which I have done, according to my wishes,” &c, &c, a form of expression perfectly regular, but I cannot admit the substitution of chiya for achi, nor can the Median correspondent possibly represent an active verb. I shall examine the word further in the vocabulary.
page 304 note * The theme, at the same time, must be supposed to follow the first, instead of the second declension.
page 304 note † It is remarkable, however, that the Median text employs different words for gáthwá and gáthum.
page 305 note * I do not find 
used as a pronoun in Burnouf's; Yaçna, but it occurs in Anquetil's Vocabulary, (Avesta, Zend, tom. II., p. 473,)Google Scholar with the signification of “ce,” and I think, also, I recognize it in several passages of the Vendidád; adataiya and awataiya may be supposed to stand for adastaiya and awastaiya.
page 305 note † See line 32, col. 1, at Behistun, where the best translation, perhaps, is, “When Cambyses had slain Bardius, it was believed by the state that Bardius was still alive.”
page 306 note * Dur(a)ya or duriya, is literally “supporter,” but it appears, nevertheless, to be used in the sense of “ruler,” or “leader.”
page 308 note * It may be as well to mention, that the Median correspondent of patiyajatá presents nothing in common with jadiya, jatá, or other derivatives from 
“to strike.” The word will be fully examined in the vocabulary.
page 309 note * I state this on the authority of the Median translation.
page 312 note * From Mr. Westergaard's MS. communicated to myself.
page 313 note * I am indebted for my knowledge of this inscription to Lassen's Memoir, p. 79. It appears to have been first published by DrGrotefend, G. F., in the Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Babylonischen Keilschrift, 1840, p. 34.Google Scholar
page 313 note † For notices of this canal, see Grotefend's, Memoir, in the Mines de l'Orient, vol. VI, No. 3, p. 252,Google Scholar where extracts are given from the work of Dénon, and from Roziere's paper on the subject in the Descript. de l'Egypte, tom. I. III., p. 269. See also Talboys', Heeren, vol. II., p. 320.Google Scholar
page 314 note * See Ouseley's, Travels, vol. II., p. 249—, and p. 256.Google Scholar
page 314 note † See de Chardin, Voyages, tom. IX., p. 107;Google ScholarKæmpfer's Amœn. Ex., p. 347;Google ScholarOuseley's, Travels, vol. II., Pl. 41, Fig. 21. Grotefend translated this inscription in the edition of Heeren, published in 1815; but his reading was expunged from the subsequent edition of 1824. Le Brun has also a very imperfect copy of the legend, Pl. 134.Google Scholar
page 314 ‡ See his Memoir in the Zeitschrift, &c, p. 72.
page 315 note * Among the many words thus adopted into the Median dialect, I may mention framátára, vispazana, paruzana, dahyáush, shiyátish, tacharam, &c, &e.
page 315 note † See the Inscription of Xerxes, at Van, line 20/21, where the accusative stanam is united to the neuter pronoun ima.
page 315 note ‡ It was in consequence of my not having paid sufficient attention to the distinction between the masc. and fem, genitives of this class, that I was formerly inclined to translate the present legend, “Executed in honour of Artystone, the wife of King Darius.” Ardastána cannot, however, I now think, possibly represent a feminine genitive.
page 316 note * I suppose the root to have been originally written with the palatal 
instances of this letter interchanging with the 
being far from uncommon.
page 316 note† Burnouf derives 
from 
and compares the latter root with the Sans. 
Zend 
See Yaçna, , p 299;Google Scholar but if the Cuneiform thaga be authentic, we may rather, I think, refer 
and 
to 
(for 
) and connect this root with the Sans. 
(for 
). Perhaps, also, the Persian 
sang, “a stone,” and 
sangín, “heavy,” may be from the same root.
page 317 note * It has sometimes occurred to me, as the title 
is alone employed in the later inscriptions of Xerxes, that these legends, where the epithet is coupled with the name of Darius, may refer to Darius Nothus; but the hypothesis is hardly tenable, for, although where Herodotus and Pliny speak of the Egyptian Canal, they may possibly be understood to attribute the work to the latter king, Strabo, on the contrary, expressly names Darius I. as the monarch who engaged in the undertaking, and subsequently abandoned it for fear of inundating Egypt. See Larcher's, Herodotus, tom. II., p. 489, Note 502; and the notes to the passage in Strabo, in the famous edition of the French Academy, tom, V., p. 379.Google Scholar
page 317 note † I may observe in this place, that vith, “a house,” is one of the many Cuneiform terms, by which we are enabled to connect the Arian with the Semitic language. It is evidently an intermediate form between 
and 
on the one side, and 
&., on the other
page 318 note * Since writing the above, I have observed, that not only the Median, but the Babylonian translation also, employs the same word to express the Persian vithiyá, which in other passages answers to hadish. Now, it appears to me extremely improbable, that the three languages should have each possessed a word with the doable meaning of the English “house.” The Persian vitha, and its Median correspondent, were certainly used both to denote “a domicile,” and “a family;” but I can hardly extend the same double application to the Babylonian term, and I believe, therefore, after all, that we must suppose the vithiyá of the window inscription, to refer to the particular “building” or “palace” of Darius, which contains the sculpture in question. The declension of the noun vith or vitha at the same time, presents considerable difficulty, and I shall re-examine this point accordingly, hereafter. At present, I will only give as a variant translation, “Executed by Ardastá, the architect for the palace (or in the palace) of King Darius.”
page 319 note * For M. Burnouf's examination of this inscription, see Mem. sur deux Inscriptions Cunéiformes, &c, p. 121.Google Scholar The reading of 
in M. Burnout's copy, at the close of line 13, is erroneous. Upon the rock we have the usual orthography of khsháyathiya.
page 321 note * Ctesias, whose description of this work is preserved by Diodorus, (Lib. II., c. 1,) pretends that it was still called “the road of Semiramis,” in the time of Artaxerxes Mnemon. The route of Isidore also, conducting from KoγKoβáp, (Kangdwar, a name equivalent to Kang-diz) to' Aΰoβrava, necessarily followed the same track, his 
or “toll-house,” (probably 
“taking toll,”) being at Valáthgird, and the ruins of his palace of'Aδρaπáv, being, as I think, still visible at the delightful village of Artamán, near the western foot of the mountain. On the western ascent of Orontes, the artificial road is very clearly marked, and on the summit of the mountain the pavement is still in tolerable preservation, but in the defile of the Ganj Nameh, the greater part of the work has been destroyed by the force of the torrent. Hoeck, on the authority of Olivier, (tom. III., p. 30,) speaks of, “rudera viarum stratarum montem Elwind trajectarum,” in allusion, no doubt, to these ruins. See Vet. Med. et Pers. Mon. p. 165.
page 321 note † SirOuseley, William (Travels, vol. II., p. 245,) has well observed, that as the portals are not upon the alignment of the Hall of Columns, but at a right angle to that building, which must nevertheless have always been the most important and splendid edifice on the Platform, it may be presumed that in executing the several works there was some deviation from the original design. As the portals were certainly constructed by Xerxes, I consider then their misplacement to be a further argument in favour of attributing the Hall of Columns to Darius.Google Scholar
page 321 note 1 The Pehlevi Kang, as I have observed in another place, is the Sans. 
“heaven;“ and the name of Kangdiz, (or Dizhukht 
which has the same meaning,) was applied to Babylon, as well as to a fabulous Paradise in the far East.
page 322 note * This is the building which Niebuhr considered to be the most ancient on the Platform of Persepolis; he has described it minutely in his travels. See tom. II., p. 118.
page 322 note † Le Brun has some very incorrect fragments of this inscription in Plate 133. For the remarks of Grotefend on this legend, see Talboys', Heeren, vol. II., p. 344.Google Scholar Rich's notes on the different places where the inscription occurs are copious and satisfactory, (see Bab. and Persepol., Pl. XIX,) but his text required to be amended in several passages by Westergaard, who favoured me with his manuscript notes taken on the spot. The variants in the Median and Babylonian transcripts are some of them extremely valuable.
page 323 note * In the division of the text into lines, I follow the legend over the king's head in the east portal; on the folds of the king's robe, the inscription is written in one single line.
page 323 note † Rich, , in his heading to Pl XVI, and at p. 251,Google Scholar distinctly mentions that there was a duplicate of the inscription No. 2, which he copied from the pilaster at the north-west corner of this building, on the pilaster immediately facing it, which may be seen in Niebnhr's view of the ruins, Plate XIX; but Westergaard, in his manuscript notes, does not even allude to the duplicate on the north-east pilaster, and I conclude, therefore, that he must have found the legend entirely destroyed. I am not aware that any traveller before Westergaard examined the copies on the staircases; they have at any rate never been published, and yet the Median translation on the western, and the Babylonian on the eastern staircase, which two copies are alone perfect, afford some very valuable variants. Porter, , (vol. I., p. 679,) alludes to these inscriptions on the staircases, but seems to have thought them too much mutilated to be worth copying.Google Scholar
page 325 note * It is worthy of observation also, that there is a new phrase in the Babylonian copy intervening between the first and second clauses of the third paragraph; see Rich's text, Pl. XVIII., No. 2, c, line 8. The Median transcript agrees exactly with the Persian original.
page 325 note † The Babylonian correspondent of hadish also replaces vithiyá in the window inscription of the palace of Darius, but vitham, in line 53 of the great inscription at Nakhsh-i-Rustam, where the word certainly signifies “a family,” and not “a building,” appears to have a different Babylonian equivalent. The Hebrew 
beth, however admitted of the same double application as the Cuneiform vith.
page 325 note ‡ Lassen cites the Sanskrit 
as an example of a neuter noun in is. As the Cuneiform 
however, is unquestionably a neuter termination in awashchiya and aniyash-chiya, it might perhaps be allowable to suppose that a theme in i in the language of the 
formed its neuter nom. and acc. in ish.
page 326 note * I find a memorandum to this effect in my manuscript notes, but I know not from whence I drew my information. Rich appears to notice the circumstance; Bab. and Fersep. p. 253.Google Scholar
page 326 note † Grotefend seems to have had this inscription in view in making the following remark:— ”Xerxes made considerable additions to the buildings, without however completely finishing them; for in the portions constructed by that prince, we still meet with stones bearing no inscription; see Talboys', Heeren, vol. II., p. 345–6.”Google Scholar
page 326 note ‡ Niebuhr's copy commences at the sixth line, Porter's at the tenth line. Kæmpfer and Le Brun also, published copies of this inscription; but so carelessly executed, as to be of no value whatever.
page 328 note * The only question is whether the expression refers to a distinction between the sculpture on the staircase, (and possibly the superstructure on the terrace,) and other edifices constructed by Xerxes on the platform; or whether idá may be understood to apply to Persepolis, and apataram to other parts or cities of the empire. I am inclined to adopt the former explanation, from a phrase of nearly similar import in the inscription on the portal.
page 328 note † Grotefend has the following remark:— “Gemelli Carreri, who visited Persepolis about the end of the seventeenth century, alone pretends to have transcribed two lines. (Voyage, , tom. II., Fig. 1., p. 246.)Google Scholar * * * * * Tavernier, (Paris, 1663,)Google Scholar had already given the same characters and in the very same order.” See Talboys', Heeren, vol. II., p. 346.Google ScholarPorter, , (vol. I., p. 649,)Google Scholar mentions among the desiderata of Persepolis, “twelve small tablets, which are seen over the colossal animals on the two great portals immediately after ascending the platform staircase.” Sir William Ouseley, also, noticed that the four copies with their translations were precisely identical. See Travels, &c, vol. II., p. 249.Google Scholar
page 330 note * Observe, that in this inscription, in lines 15 and 18, the final 
in utá is elided before the suffix maiya, an orthographical change which is perfectly regular, and which also occurs in the tablets of the palace of Xerxes, Inscription No. 13, line 18. (See p. 324.) In every other passage however where utá is united to a suffix, the terminal elongation is preserved.
page 330 note † See Behistun Inscription, col. 2, line 75 and 89, and coL 4, line 62.
page 331 note * For an examination of the Zend 
see Burnouf' s Yaçna, p. 207.
page 331 note † See col. 4, line 46.
page 332 note * Xenophon. Cyrop. lib. II. c. I., has the expression 
and the same form occurs in Ælian. Var. Hist. lib. I., c. 31. Justin also, lib. I., c. 5, employs the phrase “in Persis,” and throughout the fragments of Ctesias, 
the province, is clearly distinguished from 
the city or palace. SirOuseley, William has particularly remarked on this distinction.— Travels, &c, vol. II., p. 338.Google Scholar
page 332 note † I am not at all sure that the Persian 
may not have originally signified “an edifice,” rather than “a door.” The palace at Persepolis at any rate, in which were deposited the sacred leaves of the Zend Avesta, is always named by the early Persians 
and I would rather suppose this title to refer generally to the tablets scattered through the ruins, than to the mere “lettered portal,” at the entrance.
page 333 note * Tyapatiya is for tyaspatiya, as vìthápatiya is for vĩtháspatiya.
page 336 note * That the original Persian orthography was napishtah rather than nawishtah, is proved by the title of 
Dar napisht, (or as the Arabs write it, 
dar nabisht,) applied to the palace of Persepolis. I know not, however, the Sanskrit etymology of this verb.
page 336 note† The Babylonian transcript of this inscription is perfect; the following is the translation of the concluding lines:— “May Ormazd protect me, with all the Gods: and the kingdom also, and that which I have done.”—ED.
page 337 note * See Babylon and Persepolis, p. 250. The inscription in both places is accompanied with the usual Median and Babylonian translations, and Mr. Westergaard has kindly favoured me with the corrections for those transcripts which it is necessary to introduce into the text of Rich.
page 338 note * See note in page 317.
page 339 note * See Grotefend's remarks in Talboys', Heeren, vol. II., (p. 230 and 340.)Google Scholar Champollion's reading is given in his Précis du Système Hiéroglyphique, p. 179, sqq.; and a copy also of the legend may be seen in fig. 2 of the 3rd Plate appended to vol. III. of Talboys' Heeren, where Grotefend quotes the work of Count Caylus, tom. V., Pl. 30.
page 340 note * I allude particularly to the edifice marked L in Niebuhr's plan of the ruins, which is in the best preservation of any building on the platform, but in which nevertheless no inscription has yet been discovered.
page 340 note † In the hill at the back of the ruins are two complete sepulchres; another unfinished tomb is found at a short distance to the south, and there are four at Nakhsh-i-Rustam. Ctesias expressly mentions the interment at this place of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and his son Xerxes the Second. It was intended also, we learn from Ælian, (Var. Hist., lib. vi., c. 8,) that the body of Artaxerxes Ochus should have been deposited in the same spot, and indeed we may infer from a passage in Arrian, that the 
of Persepolis formed a general place of sepulture for the Achæmenian kings; 
(Lib.iii, c. 22.) It would be hazardous, however, to attempt to identify the respective monuments.
page 340 note ‡ See his notice of this tablet, Bab. and Persep., p. 251.
page 341 note * Rich's copy numbers twenty-five lines, while Westergaard's extends to thirty-five.
page 341 note † A partial and not very accurate copy of Rich's Inscription, Pl. XXIII., No. 6, was first published by Grotefend, in the Neue Beiträge, &c, p. 13. Lassen, subsequently undertook its full examination in his Magazine, (Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes,) vol. III., No.XVI., p.442, published in 1840;Google Scholar but the errors of Rich's copy were in some instances insuperable obstacles to analysis. Lassen's improved reading after Westergaard's duplicate is given in his last Memoir in the Zeitschrift, p. 159.
page 344 note * See his Memoir in the Zeitschrift, &c, p. 165.
page 346 note * Lassen appears to have followed the employment of the particles in the Sanskrit 
which signifies “use,” “advantage,” as well as “protection,” or “assistance.”
page 347 note * Rich, observes, p. 251, (Bab. and Persepol.) that “the platform (H) facing the north, apparently also had three inscriptions, but only the centre one is left;” and again in his heading to Pl. XXIII., No. 6, where he gives the Persian text, “the corresponding tablets of this inscription (C and E) have entirely disappeared.”Google Scholar
page 348 note * The name is thus figured in Hieroglyphics:'
page 348 note † See Ezra, c. iv., v. 7; in Nehemiah, c. ii., v. 1, the orthography is 
page 348 note ‡ I do not at present undertake the examination of the incongruous inscription of Tarkou, as I have unfortunately mislaid the plate attached to M. Burnouf's Memoir, in which the copy of Witsen is reproduced, and as some doubt attaches to the authenticity of that traveller's text; I shall recur however to this singular legend on a future occasion.
page 349 note * See Burnouf's Mém. sur deux Insc. Cun., p. 2.