Page:Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions.djvu/234

went to Surat in 1738, and put himself under the tutor-ship of the learned Parsees. He was, however, surprised to find that, although they knew the value of the characters, they were completely ignorant of the language itself. Yet their sacred books were written in it, and they daily recited the meaningless sounds in their ritual. It was sufficient, they said, that God should understand the prayers they were enjoined to repeat. By an ingenious comparison with the Pehlevi and Persian vocabularies Anquetil at length arrived at a probable translation; and after his return to Paris he published a French version of the Zend-Avesta (1771).^[1] His work was very unduly depreciated by Sir W. Jones, the leading English Orientalist, but it attracted a larger degree of esteem on the Continent, and a German edition by Kleuker appeared at Riga, in 1777, which enjoyed a fair amount of popularity.^[2] Both the language and the subject-matter of the Zend-Avesta began to receive the attention of scholars, and those especially who were interested in cuneiform recognised their importance. Tychsen, for example, wrote on the religion of Zoroaster,^[3] and Eask on the relation of the language to Sanscrit;^[4] and the same conjunction of studies was preserved in later times by Burnouf, Westergaard, Oppert and Spiegel. Down to the time of Burnouf, however, the knowledge of Zend continued to be very imperfect, and Grotefend was constantly impeded in his attempt to elucidate the language of the cuneiform inscriptions by reference to the very defective work of Anquetil. Burnouf was appointed to the chair of Sanscrit in the College de France in 1832, and the

1. Menant (I.), Les Langues perdues, Perse, p. 21.
2. Zoroasters lebendiges Wort, S. F. Kleuker, Riga, 1777.
3. Tychsen, De Religionum Zoroastricarum apud veteres gentcs Vestigiis. See Heeren, i. 237.
4. Rask, op. cit. I826.