The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptionsBooth, Arthur John
History
The discovery and decipherment of the trilingual cuneiform inscriptions
Booth, Arthur John
Achaemenian inscriptions; Cuneiform inscriptions
is nearly perfect, except at the bottom, where several lines are wholly
lost. The fourth column is worse than the second; ‘a fissure transects
the tablet longitudinally,’ and in the lower half ‘the rock is more or
less broken by the trickling of the water.’ But when we come to the
fifth, we find ‘a state of such deplorable mutilation that it would be
waste of time and ingenuity to undertake an analysis of the text, or
to attempt anything like a connected and intelligible translation.’ In
the face of these difficulties he was obliged to have recourse to very
elaborate and ingenious restorations. At the end of the second column,
for instance, he found the Susian copy perfect, and this enabled him
to ‘restore’ the Persian text. It is one of the first instances of a
long translation from the Susian, and his version of it turned out
afterwards to be correct.[584] In the numerous repetitions that occur so
frequently, he found a safe guide in other passages of the inscriptions.
Sometimes, however, he had to work on much less solid foundation, as when
he sought help from other sentences that were only ‘of nearly similar
construction’; or when his restoration was ‘generally borne out by the
context’; or merely by considerations of ‘grammatical propriety.’ In
such cases he could never arrive at more than a high probability. He had
frequently to measure the length of a blank and then tax his memory to
supply one or more words with the required number of letters that would
fit into the vacant place and at the same time make sense. Sometimes,
as in the fourth column, the sense was so obscure that he feared his
‘restorations will be considered rather bold than felicitous.’[585]
Occasionally his courage failed him altogether, and he was obliged to
confess that ‘I cannot restore the [passage] even conjecturally.’ It
is remarkable how uniformly successful his ‘conjectural restorations’
were found to be. He imposed the most admirable restraint upon the
intuitive faculty with which he was so eminently gifted; and his
emendations exhibit a patience and sobriety that many scholars engaged
in similar work might advantageously study. When he had surmounted the
imperfections of the text so far as possible, he set himself to the task
of translation, and achieved the most notable success in this department
of literature. When we consider that he had to unravel the intricacies of
long sentences, determine the grammatical relations of multitudes of new
words and fix their meaning by a patient comparison with Zend or Sanscrit
analogies, the unfailing divination he displays is absolutely marvellous.
A careful comparison of this first translation with that now accepted as
correct will show comparatively few alterations, although the labours of
many scholars have since been devoted to a rigorous study of the same
text. The main body of the translation remains the same, word for word,
down to the minutest particulars. Some doubtful passages, concerning
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account