Progress was at first considerably retarded by a misapprehension of the relation between the Old Persian of the inscriptions and the language of the Zend-Avesta. Grotefend for a long time thought the two were absolutely identical, an opinion which, however, he subsequently modified.[524] Both Burnouf and Lassen, especially the latter, were at first inclined to suppose too close a resemblance between them. We have already pointed out some of the errors that resulted, especially with regard to the long and short vowels and the diphthongs. But this error was speedily corrected, and Lassen afterwards showed that the relation they bore to each other was that of descent from a common parent; and although Old Persian is historically more modern, it continued to retain some of the primitive forms which Zend had changed. While he recognised that they were two distinct dialects, he admitted that they closely resembled each other, and hence the great assistance he derived from the Zend in the interpretation of the inscriptions.[525] After Zend, he found that Sanscrit afforded him the greatest help. Indeed he was surprised to observe how often it agreed with the Old Persian, and it was particularly useful with respect to the grammatical forms.[526] It is the natural affectation of the minute scholar to exaggerate the importance of an accurate knowledge of grammatical construction, and to disparage or ridicule even great results that may have been attained in defiance of strict rule. It became the fashion to underrate the very considerable achievements of Lassen as a translator, because it was afterwards found that he fell into several errors which later knowledge has cleared away. Major Rawlinson was unfortunately peculiarly liable to depreciate the work of his competitors, and it is therefore with no surprise that we find him dwell with more emphasis upon their failures than upon their success. But it is certainly remarkable that Hincks, the Irish cuneiform scholar, should have been betrayed into a judgment that must now be regarded as singularly unfair and censorious. Writing in 1847, he gave expression to the opinion that ‘Lassen seems to have been completely destitute of the peculiar talent of a decipherer, and his attempts at translation were consequently as bad as could be made ... the number and grossness of many of his mistakes are such as to create astonishment.’[527] It is quite true that Lassen sometimes mistook verbs for adjectives, and that in some places he had to warn the reader that his translation was purely conjectural. But his services should be estimated by the state of knowledge at the time he wrote. It must be remembered that when he began these studies, in 1836, all that was known were a few proper names, and every attempt to pass beyond had hitherto led to ridiculous misrepresentations of the true meaning of the texts. When, in 1844, he completed his translation of the whole series of