His essay on Cuneiform Decipherment was among the works he left incomplete. It was in the form of a review of Lassen’s recent Memoir, and three papers on the subject appeared during his lifetime in the ‘Journal Asiatique,’ and a fourth was published shortly after his death.[480] It can scarcely be said that he has gone beyond the introduction. The first essays are occupied chiefly with an account of what had been already accomplished in the field of cuneiform research, and with a review of the ethnological points raised by Lassen’s treatment of the provinces of Darius. It is only incidentally that he touches upon the language of the inscriptions, and he reserves the discussion of the alphabet to a future paper. Unfortunately, his premature death prevented him from accomplishing his task, and strange to say not a single note could be found among his papers that might be used for the purpose. This is the more remarkable from the frequent references he makes to that portion of his work in which he proposes to explain the points of difference with Lassen, and to the various passages from the inscriptions that he intended to bring forward in support of his views.[481] On other subjects he was in the habit of making the most elaborate notes, and it is scarcely possible to suppose that in a matter of this kind he charged his memory with an accumulation of detached words and phrases collected from the numerous inscriptions then available. The essays indicate some of the corrections he proposed, but for the reason mentioned we are left very much to conjecture the foundation upon which they were based. We see, however, that his correction of 27 (𐎹) from _h_ into _y_ was suggested by the words read by Lassen ‘Arbah’ and ‘Huna,’ which he recognised should be more properly read ‘Araba_y_a’ and ‘_Y_una’ (Ionians).[482] Similar etymological considerations led him to the correction of the 𐏃 _a_ into _h_. This letter occurs at the beginning of the words Lassen reads ‘aryᵃwᵃ,’ ‘arᵃqᵃtis,’ and ‘Aidhus,’ where Jacquet points out that the corresponding Zend forms require an aspirate.[483] 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_.[484] 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.[485]