Page:Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions.djvu/230

This page needs to be proofread.
THE PERSIAN COLUMN
201

as ill luck would have it, he changed the wrong letter: the sign he altered into m is in fact the n in the word 'Achaemenian.[1] With this our notice of St. Martin's Memoir may fitly close. It is indeed a singular production for a scholar of repute. He begins by assuring his readers that the contents of the Persepolitan inscriptions were still entirely unknown; he censures the method adopted by Grotefend that had yielded him the names of three of the Achaemenian kings; for himself, he leads us to suppose that he is about to announce an entirely different and more scientific method. He then proceeds, without a word of warning and in simple confidence in our ignorance, to follow precisely the method he has just denounced, and he affects astonishment that it should lead him to precisely the same result. He can make no progress beyond the three names already known. In the case of the Murgab inscription he yentures to take a step upon his own account and immediately blunders into error. His alphabet is remarkable for its inferiority to the one he

desires to supersede. It has at most ten correct values to Grotefend's thirteen or fourteen.[2] Eight cuneiform letters are abandoned altogether in simulated despair. Nine are changed without being improved, and ten of the most important sounds in human language are left without expression. We do not condemn him for being inferior to his master: many pupils suffer from that disability; but we censure him for denying his obligation and for affecting an originality he did not possess. One service indeed he rendered. If he made no new discoveries in cuneiform, he at least has the merit of discovering Grotefend's discovery to France.

  1. Rask (E.), Ueber das Alter der Zend-Sprache (Berlin, 1826), p. 28; Klabroth,p. 67.
  2. See above, p. 179.