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
In the autumn of 1846, when Rawlinson’s ‘Memoir’ was passing through
the press, Dr. Frederick Hitzig published a tract on the Persian Text
of the Tomb Inscription of Darius; but his translation shows little
advance beyond the point reached by Lassen.[596] The edition of the
Persian inscriptions by Theodore Benfey made its appearance early in
1847. His transliteration suffers from having been made before the
method of writing explained by Hincks and Rawlinson in the previous
year had become generally known. We have already sufficiently noticed
Benfey’s translations, which show considerable improvement on those of
Lassen, but fall far short of the comparative excellence obtained by
Rawlinson. In the course of the summer, another writer appeared whose
name has been already mentioned and who was destined to occupy a very
important place in the future history of Cuneiform Research. M. Oppert
was born in Hamburg in 1825, and studied successively at Heidelberg, Bonn
and Berlin. At Bonn he was a pupil of Lassen, and to this circumstance
probably we owe his early interest in cuneiform and the publication of
a tract on the subject at the age of twenty-two. The promising youth
was precluded by his Jewish faith from holding a professorship in
Germany, and consequently he went to Paris in 1847. His later writings
have all appeared in the French language, and for this reason he is
generally included among the number of French scholars, of whom, till
quite recent years, he was by far the ablest representative.[597] So
far as we are aware, the pamphlet on the ‘Lautsystem des Altpersischen’
was his first effort in this department of knowledge.[598] In it he
explains the principle that regulates the employment of the consonants
in substantially the same manner as Hincks and Rawlinson had done in the
previous year. He had evidently arrived at his conclusion independently,
and it is remarkable that he was not better informed of the progress
that had recently been made. It might be supposed that the attention of
everyone interested in the subject would be directed to the appearance
of Rawlinson’s ‘Memoir,’ which was then eagerly expected. It was in fact
published before May 1847, and Oppert’s tract was not sent to press till
July.
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