276 Rev. Dr. Wau on the different Kinds of Cuneiform Writing 
judges of the grammatical structure of their own language, they have shown 
themselves, in numerous instances, extremely ignorant of the pronunciation of 
foreign names; as has been very generally admitted, ever since it came to be 
known that the Hebrew points form no part of the writing of the original Scrip- 
tures. The word referred to in Strabo’s text is Aapinxys,* which is manifestly 
an erroneous representation of the name under discussion, but which, notwith- 
standing, we have every reason to think was so written by him; and his evidence 
on this point serves to show how grossly the Persians corrupted the denomination 
of one of the most celebrated of their sovereigns, even within less than five cen- 
turies after his death ;—a fact which I may here, by the way, observe, powerfully 
corroborates the proof I have elsewhere advanced, that, for some part at least of 
that interval, they must have lost the benefit of alphabetic writing. Of the use 
of the cuneiform y to denote e, we have an example in the name of Xerxes 
(group, No. 2),f read by Rawlinson ‘ K’hshayarsha,’ but which the pronuncia- 
tion of the word by Herodotus warrants me, I submit, in transcribing ‘ Khshear- 
sha.’ Had the mater lectionis in this.group stood for 7, instead of e, the name 
bonem ray Azgscotyy. Nam Hebrzis Darius vocatur Y77, Dariaves.” In assigning this reason 
for his opinion, the critic tacitly made three assumptions,—that the Persians in the age of Strabo 
had a correct knowledge of the manner in which the name of Darius was pronounced by their 
forefathers about five centuries before,—that the designation of that name in the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures was written from the first as full as it now is, wy 77,—and that the Masoretic pointing of 
it so written is correct. But as, according to those suppositions, both parties were right, their 
representations of the matter must agree with each other, and the modern pronunciation of the 
name by the Jews gives that used for it by the Persians of the first century. Unfortunately for 
this conclusion, every one of the assumptions on which it rests is erroneous. The first of them 
is disproved by the evidence of Herodotus. The refutation of theother two would take up too 
much room here, and will be given more appropriately in the next volume of my Work. 
* The passage of Strabo containing the above word (in which the author incidentally notices 
and illustrates the changes that had occurred in proper names, and particularly in foreign ones, 
according to the views which prevailed on the subject in his day in the places visited by him) 
runs as follows: Aé 0: ray dvomatay peramractic, nai macdhiote Tay Baphaginay, worAui? xabaimwee Tov 
Aaeinnny Acaesion txctreray, trav D¢ DaeLigw Ilaguccdrw, Aragyarhy d¢ thy Adc eav.—Strabo, lib. xvi. sub 
Jinem. On this passage it is to be observed that, although there is some difference between the 
MSS. as to the other names, there is none whatever with regard to Awgimxny. 
+ The group above referred to, written in equivalent Roman capitals, in like manner as that 
denoting the name of Darius, would stand thus: KhShYARShA, 
