interpretation of the language itself, it is of still higher importance for the purposes of comparative philology.

Assyrian, it is now recognized, is of the greatest value for Semitic philology. And the time has come when it is possible to give a grammar of the language which may bear some comparison with those of Hebrew or Ethiopic. Of course our acquaintance with the new study is constantly growing; but it is growing rather upon the side of the lexicon than of the grammar. In spite of the prejudice which naturally existed in the minds of Semitic scholars against an upstart science which threatened to dwarf the old objects of study, and the results of which were at once startling and revolutionary, while the decipherers were not always distinguished by scholarship or caution, the method of interpretation has at last won its way to general acknowledgment, so that even Ewald and Renan venture to use the statements of professed Assyriologues. Indeed, rational scepticism is no longer possible for any one who will take the trouble seriously to investigate the subject. The history of the decipherment need not be told over again. No scholar now questions the decipherment of the Persian inscriptions; and when this had once been accomplished, the translation of the Assyrian transcripts with their numerous proper names, and with the aid of the immense stores of comparison which the discoveries at Nineveh and elsewhere afforded, could only be a matter of time. The language dis

closed was found to be Semitic in grammar and vocabulary, and the sporadic phenomena which at first offended Semitic scholars have turned out either to be errors on the part of the decipherers, or to admit of sufficient explanation. The contents of the inscriptions, again, have thoroughly verified the method of interpretation. Not only are they consistent, but the names and facts are such as are required by historical criticism. The greatest stumbling-block in the way of the sceptics has proved to be one of the most striking verifications of the method. It was urged that the existence of polyphones-that is, characters with more than one value→ was sufficient to condemn the whole theory. Polyphones, however, actually exist in Japanese for the same reason that they existed in Assyrian; and we find that the Assyrians, in their use of polyphones, observed certain general laws, so that the transliteration of a word (unless it be a native proper name), is very rarely doubtful. Still these polyphones were felt by the Assyrians themselves to be the weak point in their system of writing, and Assur-bani-pal accordingly caused syllabaries to be drawn up in which the several

1 See Léon de Rosny, "Archives Paléographiques," 2me Livraison, pp. 90-100. This is referred to by Mahaffy, "Prolegomena to Ancient History," p. 207, whose Fourth Essay on the History of Cuneiform Decipherment is very good, and suited to the popular understanding. The want of acquaintance with Assyrian on the part of the author, however, has led to a few mistakes, most of which I have pointed out in the Academy, December 15th, 1871, p. 564.

signs have their different phonetic values attached. Now the various powers which the decipherers assigned to the same character are found assigned to it in the native syllabaries. Thus the character which by itself denotes a lion is variously used as ur, liq, tas; and a syllabary gives us the same sign explained u-ri, li+iq, and ta-as. The syllabaries also explain the origin of these polyphones. The cuneiform characters were primarily hieroglyphics (like the Chinese), and were invented by a Turanian population of Babylonia. These in their several dialects1 assigned various names to the object denoted by the same hieroglyphic, and when the latter came to be used as a phonetic character, the various names became so many phonetic sounds. Every character, however, continued to be employed as an ideograph as well as phonetically; consequently when the Semitic Assyrians adopted the written system of their Turanian predecessors, they translated the Accadian word into their own language, and in some cases employed this (stripped of its grammatical inflexion) as a new phonetic value.

The tablets also give other evidence in favour of our system of interpretation. Some of them contain lists of Assyrian synonymes, and each synonyme is often a wellknown Semitic word. Thus bi-is-ru () is equated with se-ru (N), and al-pu () with su-u-ru ().

1 Berosus ap. Syncelli Chron. p. 28 :—ἐν δὲ τῇ Βαβυλῶνι πολύ πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων γενέσθαι ἀλλοεθνῶν κατοικησάντων τὴν Χαλδαίαν.

A last and conclusive corroboration of the method is afforded by bilingual inscriptions in Phoenician and Assyrian, on private contract-tablets and duck-weights. The maneh of the Phoenician is ma-na in Assyrian; the proper names in the two legends agree, as well as the chief facts of a "sale," and of the chattels sold, which are stated in both.1

The following pages will show to how great an extent I am indebted to Dr. Oppert's Grammar (second edition). He possesses the great merit of having first made Assyrian available to other Semitic students by formulating the general grammatical principles of the language. And this merit will outweigh all the disadvantages of arbitrary conclusions upon insufficient evidence, which have resulted not only in minor errors, but in three radical misconceptions-of an emphatic state, of the want of a Perfect (or Permansive) and

1 Thus tadāni Arb'-il-khirat, "the giving up of A." appears in the Phoenician legend as; pan Mannuci-Arb'-il, “in the presence of M.," as . Harkavy (Révue Israélite, 1870, p. 20) says:"A présent, grâce au zèle indefatigable et à la persévérance du petit corps d'assyriologues, cette défiance et cette réserve diminuent et disparaissent peu à peu. Le vote solennel de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, qui a décerné à notre célèbre correligionnaire M. Oppert le prix de la plus grande découverte dans le domaine de la philologie,— l'explication des légendes bilingues, araméennes et assyriennes, au Musée britannique, par Sir H. Rawlinson,-la trouvaille, a l'isthme de Suez, d'une inscription quadrilingue, malheureusement endommagée, se sont succédé coup sur coup, et ont contribué à attirer aux études cunéiformes la confiance de tous, sauf naturellement de ceux qui ferment les yeux à la lumière."

Passives, and in a confusion between the Present Kal and the Pael-which make his book a dangerous one for beginners. I have entered into the arena of controversy wherever I have thought it needful; but this, I hope, does not prevent me from bearing testimony to Dr. Oppert's scholarship, research, and acuteness. His grammar lacks completeness, it is true, as well as accuracy; but this is due to the progressive nature of Assyriology; and the same plea is needed for my own pages. The most defective portion of his work is the chapter on syntax, and this might have been remedied.

To Dr. Hincks my obligations are even greater. It will be seen that in most of the points of dispute between him and Dr. Oppert, independent investigation has made me follow the Irish scholar. The student of Assyrian may well deplore his loss.

I have also made considerable use of Mr. Norris's "Assyrian Dictionary" (the third volume of which is about to appear),1 and of Mr. G. Smith's "Annals of Assur-bani-pal." Such books are greatly wanted to lighten the labour and facilitate the research of other students. I can only regret that Mr. Norris has not yet got beyond his second volume, and that Mr. Smith's promised "Annals of Sennacherib and Essarhaddon," upon the same plan as his former work, are still un

1 The volume has been published since the above was written. It brings the list of nouns as far as the end of N. The next volume will begin the verbs.