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
With the publication of Rawlinson’s Memoir, in 1846-7, the decipherment
of the Persian inscriptions may be considered accomplished. In 1850,
he could write that there ‘are probably not more than twenty words in
the whole range of the Persian cuneiform records upon the meaning,
grammatical condition or etymology of which any doubt or difference of
opinion can at present be said to exist.’[599] The value of his own
contribution to the general result received the fullest recognition.
Professor Max Müller declared to Canon Rawlinson that, ‘thanks mainly
to your brother, we have now as complete a knowledge of the grammar,
construction and general character of the ancient Persian language as
we have of Latin.’[600] He was greeted as the Champollion of the new
decipherment, a position he has retained to a large extent in Germany and
France. So late as 1895, M. Oppert found occasion to remark that, ‘after
Rawlinson it was only possible for other scholars to obtain gleanings
in the field of Persian cuneiform interpretation.’[601] In his own
country, however, he seems to have suffered for a time from the singular
affectation that was so long in fashion, of looking to Germany alone for
all the springs of knowledge. As a matter of fact, in this department at
least, few Germans, with the exception of Grotefend, made any important
contribution. Rask, Lassen, Westergaard, were all Scandinavians, and
it is certain that for many years Rawlinson continued to be the source
whence Continental writers drew most largely; and the neglect into
which he fell at home occasioned the surprise of at least one eminent
Frenchman. ‘Young English and Germans,’ says M. Oppert, ‘pretend not
to know him. An Englishman once told me he had never read a line of
Rawlinson. I replied: “I supposed just so; if you had read him, your
papers would be less imperfect than they are.”’[602] This testimony to
the great services of Sir Henry Rawlinson is given by the scholar who for
many years occupied by far the most prominent position among Continental
writers upon cuneiform subjects, and who has himself contributed largely
to the progress of the study.
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