The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptionsBooth, Arthur John
History
The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions
Booth, Arthur John
Achaemenian inscriptions; Cuneiform inscriptions
Immediately after the appearance of his tract, it was assailed by Witte,
a professor of his own university, who seized that occasion to revive the
old view of Dr. Hyde that the cuneiform characters were simply designed
as a fantastic ornamentation and had no other signification.[253] On the
appearance of Grotefend’s system, Tychsen had the singular magnanimity
to abandon his own and he became one of the principal exponents of the
theories of the younger scholar.
In the same year (1798) that Tychsen published his ‘Lucubratio,’ a paper
on the same subject was read before the Royal Academy of Copenhagen, by
Dr. Münter. Münter’s father, who was a clergyman and a poet, was born
at Lübeck and died at Copenhagen, where he was pastor of the German
church. His son Frederick was born at Gotha, in 1761, but his youth was
passed at Copenhagen, and many of his works were written in Danish and
subsequently translated into German. Like his father, he entered the
Church, and became a Professor of Theology at Copenhagen, and eventually
rose to be the Bishop of Seeland (1808). He was a very prolific writer,
especially upon theological subjects. His works include a ‘History of
Dogma’ (1801), a ‘History of the Danish Reformation’ (1802), and the
last, which is considered to be the most important, was on the ‘Symbols
and Works of Art of the Early Christians,’ published in Altona, 1824. He
also acquired considerable reputation as a philologist and Orientalist.
His paper on the Cuneiform Inscriptions was published in Danish in 1800,
and translated into German in 1802. It was not till then that it became
accessible to the general reading public, and very soon afterwards M.
de Sacy noticed it in the ‘Magasin Encyclopédique.’[254] Münter had
long been in correspondence with Tychsen on the subject of their common
studies; but the two scholars arrived at widely different results.
While the latter invented a system of interpretation that enabled him
to transliterate the inscriptions with comparative facility, the former
could not admit that the solution of the difficulty rested upon any
satisfactory basis. His own contribution, if much more modest, is not on
that account less valuable.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account