in the triple Inscriptions of the Persians, §c. 311 
admitted of being read in such an endless variety of ways, would, for all practical 
purposes, be just as nugatory as if it were utterly unmeaning and illegible. 
On the other hand, Major Rawlinson has directed his attention more imme- 
diately to the third kind of cuneiform writing of the Persians, which he does not, 
as fully as Dr. Hincks, identify with the Babylonian kind, though still consider- 
ing it as having a close affinity thereto; and he enumerates in his Memoir 
(page 29) a list of twenty-seven names, which, he imagines, he has succeeded in 
deciphering in this character. He does not, indeed, give any example by which 
we might test the soundness of his method of analyzing this writing: but by 
conferring on it the distinctive title of the ‘ Achemenian Babylonian,’ he makes 
it a species of the Babylonian class; and by describing an imperfection of the latter 
writing in a general way, and, consequently, in a manner that shows it to belong 
equally to the former, he thus’enables us to arrive at some idea of his mode of deal- 
ing with the subordinate branch. The imperfection pointed out by him is in effect 
of the same nature, though he has not accounted for it in the same way, as the 
one which I have, in the foregoing observations, brought home to the system of 
Dr. Hincks, and which, in truth, appears to be essentially connected with every 
application of the phonetic theory to this, or the Babylonian kind of cuneiform 
writing. Major Rawlinson, however, does not seem to have been aware of its 
extent or its consequences; as may be inferred from his words upon the subject, 
which are as follows. “I attribute the great diversity which is observable in 
the internal orthography of names and words to one or all of the four followmg 
causes. Firstly, each consonant possessed two forms representing it as a mute 
and as a sonant, so that in expressing a dissyllable, in which such a consonant 
was medial, it was optional to employ either the one or the other, or both of these 
forms together. Secondly, the vowel sounds were inherent in the sonant conso- 
nants (and, perhaps, also at the commencement of the mutes), yet, for greater 
perspicuity, it was allowable to represent the vowels at will by definite signs. 
Thirdly, redundant consonants were frequently introduced, for no other purpose, 
as I conjecture, but that of euphony. Fourthly, the phonetic organization was so 
minute and elaborate that, although each form was designed to represent a dis- 
tinct and specific sound, yet, in the orthography of names (and particularly of 
foreign names), the artist was perpetually liable to confound the characters.”* 
* Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. x. part 1. p. 30. 
