________________
LECTURE III.
121
ments are being deciphered in a truly scientific spirit has never been a matter of doubt to me, since the first publication of the Babylonian version of the Behistún inscriptions. Nor have I been in the least surprised at the frequent changes in the reading of certain names, and in the rendering of certain sentences. Though unable to follow the bold investigators of these Semitic documents, it was not difficult for any one acquainted with the history of the decipherment of the Persian Cunciform inscriptions, to understand why there should be at first so much uncertainty in reading an alphabet like that of the Semitic Cuneiform texts. With regard to the Sumerian decipherments, I have no right to say even so much as this, but here too I feel we ought to learn to wait, and not discourage those laborious explorers who try to translate a language of which as yet no more is really known than that it is neither Semitic nor Aryan. All I can say is, that if their endeavours are ever crowned with complete success, their achievement will be more wonderful than the decipherment of all other inscriptions.
Taking this view of the matter, I have, whenever I had to treat of the religion of the Semitic races, simply abstained from touching on Babylonian or Assyrian, still more on Accadian and Sumerian ground. I preferred leaving a gap to filling it with materials which, from the nature of the case, were as yet so pliant and so brittle. I greatly admire the courage of other students of ancient religion, and particularly of Professor Tiele, who in his Comparative History of Ancient Religions' has made such excellent use of the same materials. But I cannot disregard the warning
