through his subsequent correspondence with Burnouf. Jacquet died in July 1838, and Rawlinson’s correspondence with Burnouf and Lassen did not begin till the summer of that year.[561] From that period Rawlinson himself accounts for all the letters in question. Writing after Jacquet’s death, he tells us in a letter to Burnouf that he had just found the value of 16 (𐎨) _ch_. Two other values, 26 (𐎰) _th_ and 41 (𐏃) _h_, he fixed still later in the winter 1838-9; another, 27 (𐎹) _y_, he acknowledges he received from Lassen.[562] The sign 10 (𐎺) he also fixed in 1838-9; but he gave it the same value as Lassen had done in 1836, viz. _w_. In Germany _w_ was no doubt equivalent to its correct value _v_, but scarcely so to an English-speaking man, especially as he distinguishes it from his _v_ (𐎻) No. 15. The other letter, 40 (𐎽) _r_, was known correctly to Grotefend in 1837. With reference, therefore, to the six letters attributed to Jacquet, it is seen that none of them were due to the influence of Rawlinson, either through his Memoir or subsequently by correspondence. One letter (_r_) was fixed before Rawlinson was known. Three others were first announced after Jacquet was dead (16, 26, 41). One was wrong (10), and the other (27) he acknowledged to have borrowed from Lassen. It is impossible, therefore, to admit the pretension put forward by Rawlinson, that he could ‘fairly claim the paternity, either directly or indirectly, of at least ten characters’ on the ground that ‘it was impossible to say by whom each individual letter became identified.’ On the contrary, the history of the identification is plain enough, and there is no difficulty in assigning the proportion of merit due to each discoverer. It was not till after the essays of Jacquet that Rawlinson bore any share in the general progress of the study; and then not more than four characters remained to be correctly identified. We have already seen with what conspicuous success Rawlinson had found the true values of two of these, so far back as 1838. One still gave Lassen a great deal of trouble, and he had variously valued it as _k_ (1836), _ich_ (1839), _k’h_ (1844). In his letter to Rawlinson he preferred to leave it undetermined (1839).[563] Rawlinson suggested that it had the sound of _t_ before _i_, which is so nearly correct and so great an improvement upon all previous attempts that it might almost be conceded to him as an approximate value if he had announced it earlier. He acknowledges that he remained long in doubt concerning it, and there is no evidence, as in the case of the other two letters, that he suggested the emendation to Burnouf.[564] Before his alphabet appeared, in 1846, the true value had been already fixed by Holtzmann in 1845 as _d_ before _i_.