If Jacquet’s contributions to the study of cuneiform had been limited to the essays in the ‘Journal Asiatique,’ they would have been comparatively unimportant. But he was also in correspondence with Lassen on the subject, and he not only communicated to him the result of his investigations, but also the reasons upon which they were based.[486] In 1837, Lassen took part in the foundation of a journal devoted to Oriental subjects—the ‘Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes.’[487] Grotefend became a contributor from the commencement,[488] and Lassen reported the progress of cuneiform research as occasion required. His first essay on the subject appeared in 1839,[489] and contained a criticism of the recent writings of Beer and Jacquet; with, as regards the latter writer, some important information derived from his correspondence. From this source we learn that Jacquet recognised the correctness of the value of _r_, already assigned to 𐎽 by Grotefend; and completed it by determining it to be the _r_ before _u_.[490] He was led to this conclusion not only by the occurrence of the letter in ‘Kurus,’ but also in ‘paru,’ which compares with the Zend for ‘many’—‘the king of many lands.’ He showed also that 16 (𐎨), the _o_ of Grotefend and _i_ of Lassen, is really _ch_;[491] and finally 28 (𐎩), the _ng_ of Grotefend and _n_ of Lassen, he finds to be _z_: which, if not correct, is a considerable improvement. He was led to this conclusion by an ingenious conjecture. The letter is found in the province Lassen transliterated _u_ _w_ _n_, and which, from his theory of the diphthong, he read _q’n_ and supposed to denote Chaona. The word occurs first in the list, and Jacquet inferred that it must refer to the capital province, Susa. He did not altogether reject Lassen’s _q_, but by changing the _n_ into _z_, he got near to what he sought, either in ‘uwᵃzᵃ’ or ‘qᵃzᵃ’ for Susa.[492] To sum up: Beer and Jacquet both independently found the correct values for 27 (𐎹) _y_ and 41 (𐏃) _h_; Jacquet added the correct value of 10 (𐎺) _v_, of 16 (𐎨) _ch_ or _c_ of 26 (𐎰) _th_; and he completed the value of 40 (𐎽) _r_ before _u_. Beer may thus be credited with having contributed two letters (27 and 41), Jacquet with six (10, 16, 26, 27, 40 and 41). He also suggested that the name of the first province in the I inscription referred to Susa and not to Chaonia, and that Babirus—not Babisus—was the correct reading for Babylon.[493]