280 Rev. Dr. Watt on the different Kinds of Cuneiform Writing 
of b, while the remaining articulations of the two words are very nearly identical. 
But the modern Persian term is read ‘bwzurg,’ which affords, indeed, but feeble 
light for our direction, as we cannot be certain that the word was always so 
uttered; yet, even on this ground, the transcription of its ancient prototype 
should, I submit, be vocalized ‘wwzurk,’ rather than ‘wazark,’ as it has been 
by Lassen, or ‘wazarka,’ as by Rawlinson, with no more than imaginary or 
conventional grounds for either pronunciation. 
10. The tablets of the Behistun inscription deciphered by Major Rawlinson, 
namely, those insculped in the first kind of cuneiform character, powerfully sustain 
the view I have elsewhere given of the comparative merit of the histories respect- 
ing Persia in remote ages, that have issued from the pens of ancient and modern 
authors. In the first place,—what, indeed, might be expected a priori to be 
shown of accounts orally transmitted, which do not appear to have been committed 
to writing till about 1500 years after the reign of the first Persian Darius,—they 
expose in the clearest manner the utterly fictitious character of the portions of the 
histories of Persia, composed by natives of the country, that are supposed to relate 
to the times in which that monarch lived. ‘They, in fact, do not support, by 
even the slightest shade of resemblance, any of the names but one (‘ Gushtasp,’ 
which seems to be a corruption of their ‘ Whishtaspa’),* or any whatever of the 
events mentioned in the portions referred to of those compositions. In the second 
place, the tablets in question establish a high degree of accuracy for the historic 
work of Herodotus. ‘The contents of the two records embrace in common a vast 
number of names agreeing, in the great majority of instances, as closely as the 
difference between native and foreign pronunciation would permit; and likewise 
include descriptions of several incidents that tally with each other wonderfully, 
considering the different situations of their respective authors, who, cireumstanced 
as they were, could not be expected always to take entirely the same view of 
even the very same transactions. Among the items in which the compared 
* While the /”hisjitaspa of the Behistun inscription corresponds in nothing but name with 
the Gushtasp of modern Persian historians, he at the same time agrees in several other respects 
with the Hystaspes of Herodotus : as, for instance, each of them was son of Arsames (Arshama) ; 
each was father of Darius (Dariwush); and, while the former is placed in the very peculiar situa- 
tion of a general acting under the orders of his own son, the latter is found, in complete accord- 
ance therewith, young enough to be governor of Persia at the time of that son’s accession to the 
imperial throne. 
