The simultaneous publication of the two essays by Burnouf and Lassen roused considerable interest among those devoted to the obscure problems of cuneiform decipherment. Grotefend, whose attention for the previous twenty years had been chiefly diverted to other pursuits, returned once more to the subject in which he had previously achieved such great success, and in the year following he published ‘Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Persepolitanischen Keilschrift.’ We have already seen that his mind had by that time lost much of its elasticity, and he displayed more tenacity in defending his old errors than aptitude in recognising the truth of the new discoveries. To some of these, however, he is forced to give a qualified assent.[470] He may indeed claim the merit of having now for the first time fixed the true value of one more character. It may be recollected that the two signs 38 (𐏁) and 40 (𐎽) had been long considered to express the same sound. Grotefend first attributed to both the value of _sch_; but in consequence of the Murgab inscription he afterwards considered that the last (40) must denote _sr_. This opinion was not, however, generally accepted. St. Martin preferred _ch_ for both, and Lassen _s_. Burnouf, however, suggested _ch_ for the first and _l_ for the other. But Grotefend was now disposed to drop the _s_ from the last letter (𐎽) and to read _r_, or some slight modification of that sound, corresponding to the pronunciation adopted on the other side of the Tigris for the letter which is rendered an _l_ on this side. Accordingly in his translation of the Murgab inscription he writes simply _Kurusch_ and elsewhere _Kurhush_. In his revised alphabet it appears as _rh_.[471] Grotefend has also the merit in this tract of being the first to indicate that (𐏂), the _t_ of Lassen, might sometimes have the sound of _thr_, as in ‘puthra,’ and possibly in ‘Artakhshathra.’ In his alphabet, however, he drops the sound of _r_ and makes the value _th_.[472]