'arᵃqᵃtis,' and 'Aidhus,' where Jacquet points out that the corresponding Zend forms require an aspirate.[1] In these essays we have only found two other corrections suggested. The first is 10 (𐎺), the e of Grotefend, which Lassen nearly approached in w, but to which Jacquet rightly gives the value of v.[2]The other is 26 (𐎰), the i of Grotefend and z of Lassen, which Jacquet changes into th in consideration of its occurrence in Assyria (Athuria) and Sattagydes—which he reads 'Thrataghadus' and also (as Lassen adds) in Mithra.[3]
If Jacquet's contributions to the study of cuneiform had been limited to the essays in the 'Journal Asiatique,' they would have been comparatively unimportant. But
he was also in correspondence with Lassen on the subject, and he not only communicated to him the result of his investigations, but also the reasons upon which they were based.[4] In 1837, Lassen took part in the foundation of a journal devoted to Oriental subjects—the 'Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.'[5]Grotefend became a contributor from the commencement,[6] and Lassen reported the progress of cuneiform research as occasion required. His first essay on the subject appeared in 1839,[7] and contained a criticism of the recent writings of Beer and Jacquet; with, as regards the latter writer, some important information derived from his correspondence. From this source we learn that Jacquet recognised the correctness of the value of
- ↑ Journal Asiatique, v. 571 (cf. 562), vi. 414, 421.
- ↑ Ib. v. 562, note.
- ↑ Ib. V. 592, vi. 419. Zeitaschrift fữr die Kunde &c. ii. 171.
- ↑ Spiegel, p. 140. See Zeitschrift ii. 165.
- ↑ Spiegel, p. 140.
- ↑ See his contributions in vols. i. ii. and iii. Urkunden in Babylonischer Keilschrift.
- ↑ Zeitschrift, ii. 165
