Page:Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions.djvu/300

Rh find that Hiucks had only four incorrect values, as opposed to the six of Lassen. These were:

26 z for th;

32 zh(i) for j(i);

33 kh(u) for m(u);

39 p(r) for f(α).

Two of these were already correctly given by Lassen (Nos. 26 and 39). On the other hand, Hincks corrected three out of Lassen's six wrong values:

16 ch instead of Lassen's ḱ;

19 d{i) instead of Lassen's ḱh (due to Holtzmann);

28 j instead of Lassen's ź.

It may be observed also that Hincks has correctly indicated all of what he termed the secondarv consonants and distinguished between those followed by i and those followed u. The others not so distinguished are the primary consonants preceding α inherent or expressed.

When Hincks read his paper in June, Rawlinson's Memoir on the Behistun Inscription had been already received by the Asiatic Society and was in the printer's hands. It was no easy task at that time to carry it through the press. Cuneiform type had to be cast, and the expense and trouble it caused were very great. The work was, however, looked forward to with the greatest interest. After the appearance of Professor Lassen's essay, in 1844, all the cuneiform inscriptions of the Persian column then known had, as we have said, with one notable exception, been translated. There remained the great inscription at Behistun, which it was known Major Rawlinson had copied and was at work upon. We have already narrated the succession of untoward circumstances that had delayed its publication