the 'Ecritures cuneiformes,' an 'Expose des Travaux qui out prepare la Lecture des Inscriptions,' which is still a useful apology for the science.[1] For, notwith- standing all the magnificent results already obtained, the science was still in need of an apologist.[2] In 1852, Professor Wilson, the President of the Royal Asiatic Society, went so far as to regard the Assyrian Inscriptions as still 'merely dumb memorials of antiquity'[3] Very great discrepancies were indeed yet to be found in translations of the same passages by different scholars, and the true meaning of a large number of words continued to be warmly disputed. It was found, in fact, that M. Stern of Götingen still maintained that the language was entirely alphabetical; that there were no ideographs; and he read every syllable of one inscription differently from De Saulcy, except the proper names.[4] Mr. Fox Talbot attributed the prevailing incredulity 'to the fact that each cuneiform group represents not always the same syllables, but sometimes one and sometimes another': in other words, to the existence of polyphones. Hence it was inferred that the system adopted 'cannot be true, and the interpretations based upon it must be fallacious.'[5] He proposed, therefore, to submit the whole matter to a practical test. lie accordingly translated the inscription of Tiglath Peleser, recently found at Kaleh Sherghat, and forwarded it in a sealed envelope to the President of the Asiatic Society. Three other scholars — Rawlinson, Hincks, and Oppert — were then invited to make independent versions of the same
inscription, and to comnumicate them under cover to
