The Zend word for ‘king,’ ‘khsheio,’ corresponds almost exactly to the form thus reached,[306] and it enabled him to add _i_ conjecturally to his alphabet (𐎰). No explanation of the third letter in ‘Xerxes’ had yet presented itself; but it nearly resembled the fourth and seventh in the word for ‘king,’ and the fourth in the signs for ‘Darius’; and Grotefend presumed—erroneously, as it turned out—that they were the same. He observed that in Zend the aspirate is sometimes left out, and he thought the Zend _kh_ _sh_ _e_ _i_ _o_ might very well be supposed occasionally to take an _h_. He accordingly conjectured that this was the value of the unknown letter, and he read _kh_ _sh_ _e_ h _i_ _o_ h for ‘king,’ _kh_ _sh_ h _e_ _r_ _sh_ _e_ for ‘Xerxes,’ and _D_ _a_ _r_ _h_ _e_ _u_ _sh_ for ‘Darius.’ It was not, therefore, till this point had been reached that he completed ‘Darius’ by the addition of _h_. He was led to decide for _e_ as the value of the fifth letter, 𐎺, by the pronunciation of the name of Darius in Hebrew.[307] The form for Xerxes must have seemed at first sight rather disconcerting; but by the time the Appendix was republished, in 1824, Grotefend was able to announce that his conjecture was fully confirmed by Champollion, who spelt out the hieroglyphics for Xerxes on the Vase of Caylus to read _Kh_ _sh_ _h_ _a_ _r_ _sh_ _a_. The result of his labours on the three proper names was that he arrived at the values of thirteen cuneiform signs: _G_ _o_ _sh_ _t_ _a_ _s_ _p_ from Goshtasp or Hystaspes; _D_ _r_ _e_ _u_ from Darius, and _kh_ and _h_ from Xerxes. Of these thirteen letters, nine turned out ultimately to be correct; but the _a_ had been previously recognised by Tychsen and by Münter: so that Grotefend now added eight correct values to the cuneiform alphabet, viz. _sh_ _t_ _s_ _p_—_d_ _r_ _u_—_kh_. He did not, however, rest satisfied with this achievement. He sought to transliterate and translate the remainder of the two inscriptions, but in this his fortune failed him. He does not explain in his own Memoir the method he pursued, but de Sacy has given us an insight into the process which no doubt rests on good authority.[308] We may suppose that he kept the Pehlevi inscription before him and continued to be guided by its analogy. He accordingly expected to find that the word after ‘king’ would express some honorary epithet corresponding to ‘magnus’ in the example before him. It was in fact composed of four letters of which he already knew the first and third, _e_ — _r_ —. The nearest word in Zend to suit his purpose was _e_ _gh_ _r_ _e_, ‘strong.’ He therefore considered himself entitled to add a _gh_ and another _e_ to his list—both wrong.