in the triple Inscriptions of the Persians, &c. 305 
one, manifestly erroneous, is drawn by a man of ability, it certainly tends to ren- 
der suspicious the assumption on which it is made to rest. Considered in this 
light, the following extract from Major Rawlinson’s Memoir is not to be over- 
looked in the present discussion. “The Babylonian is, unquestionably, the most 
ancient of the three great classes of cuneiform writing. It is well known that 
legends in this character are stamped upon the bricks which are excavated from 
the foundations of all the buildings in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Chaldea, that 
possess the highest and most authentic claims to antiquity; and it is hardly extra- 
vagant, therefore, to assign its invention to the primitive race which settled in the 
plains of Shinar. It embraces, however, so many varieties, and it is spread over 
such a vast extent of country, that Orientalists have been long divided in opinion, 
as to whether its multitudinous branches can be considered as belonging to one 
type of alphabet and language. Those who have studied the subject with most 
care (and I would particularly instance M. Botta, the discoverer of the Nineveh 
marbles) have arrived at the conviction that all the inscriptions in the compli- 
cated cuneiform character, which are severally found upon rocks, upon bricks, 
upon slabs, and upon cylinders, from the Persian mountains to the shores of the 
Mediterranean, do in reality belong to one single alphabetical system ; and they 
further believe the variations, which are perceptible in the different modes of 
writing, to be analogous in a general measure to the varieties of hand and text 
which characterize the graphic and glyphic arts of the present day. I hesitate, 
certainly, with the superficial acquaintance which I possess at present with the 
subject, to place my opinion in opposition to theirs; and yet I can hardly sub- 
scribe in all its amplitude to this general and complete amalgamation. I perceive, 
in fact, as I think, modifications of a constant and peculiar character, which, per- 
haps, are hardly sufficient to establish a distinction of phonetic organization be- 
tween the Babylonian and Assyrian writing, but which may be held, nevertheless, 
to constitute varieties of alphabetical formation; and the inscriptions of Elymais, 
also, from their manifest dissimilarity to either one system or the other, are enti- 
tled, I consider, to an independent rank. I proceed, therefore, with some diffi- 
dence, to exhibit a classification of the complicated cuneiform writing according 
to the opinions which I have formed from a tolerably extensive examination of 
the inscriptions, premising, at the same time, that I see no sufficient grounds at 
present to prevent us from attaching all the languages which the various alpha- 
VOL. XXI. 2Q 
