somewhere among the ruins. Accordingly, with such assistance as he could obtain from Grotefend's alphabet, he examined the various inscriptions in Niebuhr and Le Bruyn, till at length he discovered what he sought in the I inscription of the former.[1] It was natural to suppose that the nations would be arranged in geographical order and follow somewhat the same succession as in Herodotus. The names given by the Greek historian, some of which are also found in the Zend-Avesta, would afford a clue to their pronunciation in the cuneiform language, and he might hope with this assistance to carry on the work so successfully begun
by Grotefend. It was in consequence of the discovery of the names of the three kings in the B and G inscriptions that Grotefend had been able to fix the values of some of the signs; and it was natural to suppose that the list now brought to light, which contained twenty-four proper names, would yield results of proportionately greater importance. Indeed Lassen believed that he had by this means found the values of almost all the signs that still remained doubtful or unknown. Many other scholars had already indulged the same delusion. St. Martin boasted that his system was "ἀ Tαhri de lα critique"[2] Burnouf felt convinced that after his own labours 'there could be no further doubt except with reference to the letters that rarely occur.'[3] Lassen was certainly more successful than any of his predecessors, Grotefend alone excepted. He can lay an indisputable claim to having correctly deciphered six additional signs; and this rmmber may be raised to eight if, as is not improbable, he independently discovered the 'k and z of Burnouf; and to ten, if we allow two other letters to pass, the w (𐎺, No. 10)
