A History of Babylonia and Assyria, Book I: Prolegomena
Robert William Rogers author
THE DECIPHERMENT OF SUMERIAN127 AND OF VANNIC
THE first students who attempted to decipher the ancient Persian inscriptions made much of the difficulty of the cuneiform characters. They were so totally unlike any other form of writing that even while men were busy in the effort to find out their meaning disputes began as to their origin. If the signs had looked like rude pictures of objects, as did Egyptian hieroglyphics, there would have been some clue to their origin, but during the decipherment process no one could discern any such resemblance. When the decipherment of Assyrian began men wondered still more as to the inventors or discoverers of the strangely complicated signs. When Assyrian was finally read it became clear to several investigators almost simultaneously that it belonged to the Semitic family of languages. That discovery intensified the difficulty concerning its method of writing. In 1850 Edward Hincks called attention128 to the fact that, though Assyrian was a Semitic tongue, yet was its script totally unlike that used by any of the related languages. He suggested that the script was related to the Egyptian, and put forth the hypothesis that it was invented by an Indo-European people, who had been in contact with Egyptians and had borrowed something from their method of writing.
Shortly afterward (1853) Rawlinson wrote to the Royal Asiatic Society129 announcing the discovery of a number of inscriptions "in the Scythian language," which he thought were related to the Median texts of the Persepolis inscriptions. He pronounced these new inscriptions to be older than the Persepolis inscriptions, and also older than the dynasty of Nebuchadrezzar, and argued that the Scythians were in possession of the western country before the Semites appeared. He was clearly of the opinion that lie had found inscriptions written in cuneiform characters, but in a non-Semitic language. He seems, in a word, to be moving toward the idea that these Scythians had invented the cuneiform method of writing. This view was propounded in the very next year by Oppert,130 who attempted to show how this assumed Scythian script had passed over into the hands of the Assyrians.
Rawlinson was now busily engaged in the investigation of the new problem, and on December 1, 1855, was able to report substantial progress to the Royal Asiatic Society.131 He had been studying so-called "Scythian" inscriptions as old as the thirteenth century B. C., and he found the same language in the left columns of the Assyrian syllabaries. These syllabaries be explained as consisting of comparative alphabets, grammars, and vocabularies of the Scythian and Assyrian languages. His theory now was that these Babylonian Scythians were known as Accadians. They were the people who had built the cities and founded the civilization of Babylonia. The Semites had merely entered into their labors, and had adopted from them the cuneiform system of writing. The language of the Accadians he thought more closely related to the Mongolian and Manchu type than to any others of the Turanian languages.
Hincks had meantime been studying some small bilingual texts and was prepared to state some of the peculiarities of the newly found Accadian language.132 He observed, in the first place, that verbs were entirely
unchanged in all persons and numbers, while the substantives formed a plural by the addition of or ... He found also postpositions where we should use prepositions, and this was a resemblance to the Turanian languages, though he would not go so far as Rawlinson in saying to which one of them Accadian seemed most nearly related. A year later Hincks133 abandoned the name Accadian, preferring to call it by some such name as Old Chaldean. This was his last contribution to the investigation of the inscriptions and the languages which they expressed. On December 3, 1866, he died, leaving behind an imperishable record of painstaking labor, accurate scholarship, and amazing fertility and resourcefulness of mind. To the new science of Assyriology he had made more contributions of permanent value than perhaps any other among the early decipherers. The death of Hincks left Jules Oppert as the leader in the work of unraveling the tangled threads of the new language.
In 1869 Oppert read a learned paper134 on the origin of the Chaldeans, in which he gave the name Chaldean or Sumerian as the name of the language which Rawlinson had called Accadian. The name Sumerian was judged by many to be more suitable and gradually came into use, though Accadian is even yet used by some scholars, while for a short time the phrase Sumero-Accadian was in vogue.
Up to this time the study of Accadian or Sumerian had been carried on very largely along historical and geographical lines. No single text had been studied, expounded, and translated until 1870, when Professor A. H. Sayce135 devoted to a small inscription of Dungi the most elaborate philological exegesis. The words in Accadian were here compared one by one with words of similar phonetic value in more than a score of languages and dialects, and for the first time Accadian loan words were recognized in Assyrian. This paper marked a distinct advance in the study of Sumerian, at the same time that it indicated the position attained by his predecessors in the new study. Sayce had proved a worthy successor of Hincks in philological insight, and had contributed much to the grammatical study of Sumerian. He was speedily followed in this by Oppert, who contributed more grammatical material in two excellent papers.136
Up to this time none had dared to compile a Sumerian grammar, though material was rapidly accumulating. But in 1873 Lenormant began to issue the second series of his Lemires assyriologigues,137 the first part of which contained a complete and systematic grammar of Sumerian. In the section relating to phonetics Lenormant noted the correspondence between . and . , and identified Sumer ( = Sungiri) with Sennar, Shinar (Gen. x, 10), ..
(Abu .l-farag, Hist. dyn., ed. Pococke, p. 18), .. (Amm. Marc. 25, 6). The second part of this book was wholly given up to paradigms, while the third contained an extensive list of cuneiform signs. The fourth and last part was given over to a long discussion of the name of the language, in which Lenormant learnedly opposed Oppert’s name of Sumerian, and contended for the older name Accadian. The whole book would in itself make a considerable scholarly reputation, and it was followed by another in an astonishing brief space of time. In this138 Lenormant was not directly concerned with the Sumerian language, but in two chapters, entitled .
," he again entered upon the difficult subject. He had now advanced to the view that the Accadian language, as he still insisted upon calling it, must be classified in the Ural-altaic family and considered as the type of a special group. In certain particulars he judged it to have most affinity with the Ugro-finnic, in others with the Turkish languages.
In spite of all that has been achieved by the English and French investigators the subject was still filled with difficulty, and when Eberhard Schrader, later justly called .the father of Assyriology in Germany," wrote his important book on the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions139 he almost avoided it. In this book he must needs refer to the language which appeared in the left column of the syllabaries, but he did not enter into the vexed questions in dispute between Lenormant and Oppert. Two years later, however, in a review140 of Lenormant he definitely took sides with him against Oppert and adopted Accadian instead of Sumerian. In this he was followed by his distinguished pupil, Friedrich Delitzsch,141 who contributed some further explanations of the syllabaries.
When the year 1873 drew to its close scholars had reason to feel that the question which bad puzzled Hincks in 1850 was settled. They were able to say that all scholars were agreed upon two propositions,142 namely, 1. The cuneiform method of writing was not invented by the Semitic Babylonians or Assyrians. 2. It was invented by a people who spoke a language which belonged to the agglutinative forms of human speech. There was indeed still a dispute about the name of the new language whether it should be called Accadian or Sumerian, and there were numerous questions concerning its character, age, literature, and history which might occupy the skill and patience of investigators for a long time, but the main question was settled.
But alas for the danger of overassurance! While Oppert and Lenormant were disputing concerning the name of this ancient language, there lived in Paris an orientalist, Joseph Halevy, who held distinguished rank as a scholar in the difficult field of Semitic epigraphy. Halevy was not known as an Assyriologist at all, but he had followed every detail of the process of deciphering Sumerian, had watched every discussion of its grammatical peculiarities, and had never from the beginning believed in its existence! On July 10, 1874, the Academie des Inscriptions listened to the first of a series of papers on the Sumerian question from him. Other papers followed on July 24 and August 14.143 In these Halevy discussed three questions:144 1. Granting its existence, does the Accadian language belong to the Turanian family? 2. May the existence of a Turanian people in Babylonia be conceded? 3. Do these so-called Accadian texts present a real language distinct from Assyrian, or merely an ideographic system of writing invented by the Assyrians? As Weissbach has pointed out,145 the order of these questions is strange and unmethodical. Halevy should have begun with the third question, and then passed on to the other two. But, whatever may be said of the method, there cannot be two opinions as to the consummate ability of the discussion. Halevy’s mind was stored with learning philological, historical, and ethnological; he was a dialectician superior to Lenormant or Oppert; he had the keenness of a ready debater in searching out the weakest places in the arguments of his opponents and the skill of an expert swordsman in puncturing them. It was a most daring act for a man not yet known as an Assyriologist to oppose single-handed the united forces of scholarship in the department. Halevy had sought to prove no less a thesis than that all scholars from the beginning of the investigation by Hincks and Rawlinson had been deceived. The signs which they had supposed represented the syllables or words of a language spoken in Babylonia in the very beginning of recorded time were to him but the fanciful product of the fertile minds of Assyrian priests. The cuneiform writing was the invention of Semites, long used by Semites, and the Sumerian words so called were only cryptic signs, invented for mystification and especially used in incantations or religious formulae.
When Halevy’s papers were published not a single Assyriologist was convinced by them, and only one anonymous writer146 ventured to accept his conclusions. On the other hand, every Assyriologist of note who had had any share in the previous discussions was soon in the field with papers attacking Halevy’s positions or defending the ground which but a short time before had seemed so sure as to need no defense. In a few months Lenormant147 had written a large volume in opposition, while Schrader was content with an able and much briefer paper. 148 Delitzsch, in a review149 of Lenormant’s book, also ranged himself with them, while Oppert,150 opposing Halevy with all his learning and acuteness, nevertheless continued to argue for his own peculiar tenets against Lenormant, Schrader, and Delitzsch.
The issue was now squarely joined, and earnest and able though the replies to Halevy had undoubtedly been, nevertheless, it must be said in justice that they had not driven him from the field. To Lenormant Halevy151 had replied promptly, and had done much to diminish the effect of that scholar’s attack upon his position. The defenders of the existence of the Sumerian language did not agree among themselves on many points, and wherever they differed Halevy skillfully opposed the one to the other in his argument. In 1876 he read before the Academie des Inscriptions, and afterward published, a paper on the Assyrian origin of the cuneiform writing,152 in which he modified his views somewhat, yet strenuously insisting that the entire system was Semitic. This paper was then reprinted, along with the former publication of 1874, in book form,153 and with this he began to win some adherents to his views, the earliest being W. Deecke154 and Moritz Grunwald.155 That was at least a slight gain, and he was encouraged to press on with fresh arguments.
Meanwhile the lines of those who still believed in the existence of the ancient tongue were closing up. Gradually Oppert’s name, Sumerian, was accepted by scholars, foremost among whom were the pupils of Delitzsch, Fritz Hommel, and Paul Haupt, while Lenormant conceded a point and called it the language of Sumer and Accad.156 In 1879 there appeared a small book157 by Paul Haupt which may truly be said to open a new era in the whole discussion. Haupt was then a young man of extraordinary gifts, and his handling of the Sumerian family laws showed how to treat a bilingual text in a thoroughly scientific manner. There can be no doubt that Haupt had done much to stem the tide which was threatening to set toward Halevy’s position. Nevertheless, in 1880, Stanislas Guyard158 came over to Halevy, and in 1884 Henri Pognon,159 these being the first Assyriologists to embrace his views. Between these two dates De Sarzec160 had been carrying on his excavations at Tello, in southern Babylonia, and had been sending to the Louvre most interesting specimens of his discoveries. In 1884 the first part of his book161 containing copies of the newly found inscriptions appeared. To Sumerian scholars there seemed no doubt whatever that these inscriptions were written in the Sumerian language. Halevy at once began to explain their strangely sounding words as in reality Semitic, and in 1883, at the International Congress of Orientalists in Leiden, presented a most elaborate paper in which he presented his theory in its fullest and most scientific form.162 Halevy was not convinced that his views were incorrect by any of the arguments already advanced, neither did the appearance of the De Sarzec monuments and inscriptions move him. His efforts became more earnest, and Guyard’s support was likewise full of vigor. Nevertheless, the cause was not gaining, but in the larger view really losing. It was significant that the younger school of Assyriologists were strongly supporting the Sumerian view. Jensen, who was later to be known as one of the most eminent Assyriologists of his time, opposed Halevy’s view in his very first work,163 as did also Henrich Zimmern164 whose first paper was of even greater importance. Carl Bezold165 likewise joined with the older school. But encouragement of the very highest kind was even now almost in Halevy’s hands. In some notes added to Zimmern’s first book166 Delitzsch took occasion to speak in warm terms of Halevy’s very important contributions to the subject, and while not yet ranging himself at his side, declared that his view deserved very close examination. Well might the great French orientalist rejoice over such a promised accession. When the first part of Delitzsch’s Assyrian dictionary167 appeared every page contained proof that in his case Halevy’s long and courageous fight had won. Delitzsch had joined the still slender ranks of the anti-Accadians, and when his Assyrian grammar appeared a whole paragraph168 was devoted to a most incisive attack upon the Sumerian theory. The accession of Delitzsch is the high- water mark of Halevy’s theory. The morrow would bring a great change.
Delitzsch’s grammar was received with enthusiasm, as it well deserved to be, but the anti-Sumerian paragraph was severely handled by its critics. In like manner the anti-Sumerian position of the dictionary met with a criticism which indicated that even the great name of Delitzsch was not sufficient to increase confidence in Halevy’s cause. Sayce, in a review no less remarkable for the range of its learning than for its scientific spirit, protested against Delitzsch’s method. Lehmann, in a big book devoted to the inscriptions of a late Assyrian king169 devoted an entire chapter170 to the Sumerian question. In it the whole subject was treated with a freshness and an ability that left little to be desired. Though some minor criticism was passed upon it, none but Halevy dared deny that it marked a step forward in the process of tearing down his elaborate theories.
In the very same year in which Delitzsch’s grammar appeared Bezold made a brilliant discovery in finding upon an Assyrian tablet the Sumerian language mentioned.171 In his announcement of this new fact Bezold writes banteringly, asking Halevy to permit the language to live, as the Assyrians had mentioned it byname. Beneath this humorous phrase there lies, however, a quiet note of recognition that the mention was important, though not conclusive as to the main question. Almost every month after the year 1892 brought some new material to be considered and related to the ever-debated question. The newer discoveries of De Sarzec, the wonderful results of the American expedition to Nippur, the editing of texts found by previous explorers-all these had some link with the Sumerian question. In 1897 Professor Delitzsch, borne down by the weight of fresh evidence, abandoned Halevy’s side and once more allied himself to the Sumeriologists. As he had been a great gain, so was he now even a greater loss. Halevy indeed gained others to his side, but none bore so famous a name. The school which he had founded was waning. Though the debate still continues, it has no longer the same intensity. Year by year the question is less and less, .Was there a Sumerian language--were there Sumerians?" and is more and more, "What was the Sumerian language--who were the Sumerians?" Every year seems to justify Hincks, Rawlinson, and Oppert, the great masters who laid the foundations in this increasingly fruitful field.
The history of the study of cuneiform inscriptions is complicated by the number of different languages which used the wedge-shaped characters. We have already shown that the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis and Behistun were in the Persian, Susian, and Assyrian languages, and we have also set forth at length the long discussion over the question of Sumerian, another language likewise written in the cuneiform characters. The use by four different peoples of wedge-shaped characters may well dispose the mind to accept the statement that still another people wrote their language in similar fashion.
The Armenians have preserved for us among their traditions of Semiramis the statement that she had at one time determined to build a new city in Armenia as the place of summer residence. "When she had seen the beauty of the country, the pureness of the air, the clearness of the fountains of water, and the murmuring of the swift-flowing rivers, she said: ’In such a balmy air, amid such beauty of water and of land, we must build a city and a royal residence that we may spend the one quarter of the year, which is summer, in the comfort of Armenia, and the other three quarters, during the cold weather, in Assyria..172 Even so late as this present century scholars found the name Semiramis full of mystery and attraction, and were anxious to learn more about her great deeds. About the end of June, 1827 Fr. Ed. Schulz departed from Erzeroum determined to suffer any loss in the effort to find the summer city of Semiramis. There is no need to say that he did not find it, but, like many another searcher, found something far more important. As he went along the borders of Lake Van, then almost unknown to Europeans, he turned in at the gates of the fascinating city of Van and began a search through the remains of its former greatness. Beneath the great citadel of Van was found a small chamber approached by a flight of twenty steps. Above these steps he found inscriptions in the cuneiform character carved in the face of the solid rock. When these had been carefully copied he sought elsewhere and was rewarded with the discovery of still others. In other places in the neighborhood he found more, until he had copied no less than forty-two inscriptions. Schulz was murdered, and when his papers were recovered and brought to Paris the inscriptions were splendidly reproduced by lithography, and published in 1840.173 At this time the Persian decipherment had indeed been well begun, as had also Assyrian, but none were able to read the new inscriptions for which Schulz had given his life. They were exceedingly well copied, when the difficulties are considered, but so soon as an attempt was made to decipher them doubts arose as to their accuracy. It was soon found that three of the inscriptions were written by Xerxes, and were in Persian, Susian, and Babylonian, but the remaining thirty-nine were in some unknown language.174 In 1840 an inscription in this same language was found by Captain von Muhlbach near Isoglu, on the Euphrates, two hundred and fifty miles west of Van. The copies by Schulz as well as this new text came before the eyes of Grotefend in due course, and he was quick to discern that they did not belong to Assyrian kings. This negative conclusion was of some importance as a guidepost, but Grotefend was able to go no further. In 1847 Sir A. H. Layard found another inscription of the same kind at Palu,175 on the eastern bank of the Euphrates about one hundred and eighty miles from Van. It was now clear enough that this new language belonged to a people of some importance in the ancient world, whose civilization or dominion extended over a considerable territory.
There was in these facts an urgent call for some man able to decipher and translate the records and construct a grammar of the language in which they were written. Who should attempt this new problem but that marvelous decipherer of strange tongues, Dr. Edward Hincks? And two papers by him were read before the Royal Asiatic Society, December 4, 1847, and March 4, 1848.176
In these papers Hincks determined correctly the meaning of a large number of the characters; found the meaning of such ideographs as "people," "city," and the signification of several words. He further was able to show that the termination of the nominative singular and plural of substantives was "s," while the accusative ended in "n." He had thus perceived that the language was inflectional, and went on to argue erroneously that it was Indo-European, or Aryan, as he called it. He read the names of the kings as Niriduris, Skuina, Kinuas, and Arrasnis, but very shortly corrected them into Milidduris, Ishpuinish, Minuas, and Argistis, in which the error, chiefly in the first name, is very slight. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this work, but we may gain some idea of its value by comparing with it Rawlinson’s note on the subject published two years later. "There are," says Rawlinson,177 "it is well known, a series of inscriptions found at Van and in the vicinity. These inscriptions I name Armenian. They are written in the same alphabet that was used in Assyria, but are composed in a different language--a language, indeed, which, although it has adopted numerous words from the Assyrian, I believe to belong radically to another family, the Scythic. There are six kings of the Armenian line following in a line of direct descent. I read their names as: 1. Alti-bari; 2. Ari-mena; 3. Isbuin; 4. Manua; 5. Artsen; 6. Ariduri (?)." In the reading of these names Rawlinson is distinctly behind Hincks, as he was always less keen in the treatment of philological niceties.
For a long series of years Hincks had no successor in the work of decipherment. But every few years new inscriptions178 were found written in the same language, and each one naturally increased the probability of a successful outcome of the efforts after decipherment.
In 1871 Lenormant179 took up the task where Hincks and Rawlinson had laid it down. His method was scientific, and, like all his work, learned and searching. He first sketched the early history of Armenia, as he had learned its outlines from the Assyrian inscriptions. That was to be the historical basis of his work, and from it he hoped to extract useful geographical material which might help in the securing of names in the Vannic inscriptions. He proposed to call the language Alarodian (Herodotus, iii, 94; vii, 79), and argued that it was non
Aryan, and that its closest modern representative was Georgian. He pointed out that " " was the termination of the first person singular of the verb, and that parubi signified "I carried away."
In the next year Dr. A. D. Mordtmann180 attacked the question and five years later returned to it again. He determined the meaning of twelve new words, and supplied a most valuable analysis of all the inscriptions, but did not succeed in the translation of a single one of them. Nevertheless, he had made a gain.
The next decipherer was Dr. Louis de Robert181 (1876), who deliberately cast away all that had been gained by Hincks, Rawlinson, Lenormant, and Mordtmann, and set out afresh upon a totally wrong road. He tried to show that the inscriptions were written in the language of Assyria. The result was nothing, and the next worker must return to the methods of the old masters.
Meantime new inscriptions were constantly coming to light. Bronze shields with the name of Rusas were found by Sir A. H. Layard, and excavations near Lake Van by Hormuzd Rassam unearthed still more inscribed objects in bronze. Layard also laid a firmer foundation for future work by recopying more accurately all the inscriptions for which Schulz had given his life.182
On the 9th of April, 1880, M. Stanislas Guyard presented to the Societe Asiatique in Paris183 "some observations upon the cuneiform inscriptions of Van." He had noticed at the end of a good many of the inscriptions a phrase in which occurred the word "tablet." He remembered that Assyrian inscriptions frequently ended with an imprecatory formula, heaping curses upon whomsoever should destroy this tablet, and he suggested that here was a formula exactly the same. When he had tested this new clew he found that the words thus secured seemed to fit exceedingly well into other passages, and his guess seemed thereby confirmed.
It is curious that the very same clew as that followed by Guyard had also independently been discovered by Professor A. H. Sayce, who had been working for several years upon these texts. He had fortunately found out a few more words than Guyard and was able to push on farther as well as more rapidly. The words in which he began to explain his method to the Royal Asiatic Society were strong, but every one was justified by the issue. He says: "The ideographs so freely, employed by the Vannic scribes had already showed, me that not only the characters but the style and phraseology of the inscriptions were those of the, Assyrian texts of the time of Asshur-natsir-pal and Shalmaneser II. I believe, therefore, that I have at last solved the problem of the Vannic inscriptions and succeeded in deciphering them, thereb3 compiling both a grammar and vocabulary of the language in which they are written. Owing to the number of the texts, their close adherence to their Assyrian models, and the plentiful use of ideographs, it will be found that the passages and words which still resist translation are but few, and that in some instances their obscurity really results from the untrustworthiness of the copies of them which we possess."184
The long paper which followed these swords began with a survey of the geography, history, and theology of the Vannic people, derived very largely from Assyrian sources, but tested and expanded from the native sources which he had just deciphered. After this followed an account of the method of writing, an outline of the grammar, an analysis, and a translation of the inscriptions. It was a most remarkable piece of work, as surprising because of its learning as because of its proof of a perfect genius for linguistic combination. It reminds the reader continually of Hincks at his best. The effect of its publication was instantaneous. Guyard185 reviewed it at length, offering corrections and additions, yet showing plainly enough that the work was successful. Further contributions to the subject were made by Professor D. H. Miller, of Vienna, who had been studying the texts independently both of Sayce and Guyard. More inscriptions also came to light, and in 1888 Professor Sayce was able to review the whole subject, accepting heartily some of the many emendations of his work which had been proposed, rejecting others, and so putting the cap. stone upon his work. The mystery of the inscriptions at Van was solved. When new texts in the same language should appear men might indeed dispute as to the name of the language whether to call it Vannic or Alarodian or Urartian or Chaldian, but they would at least be able to read it.
So rested the matter of the language of Van until 1892, when Dr. C. F. Lehmann186 began a series of studies in the inscriptions which Sayce had deciphered, seeking to determine more closely a host of historical and
geographical questions which grew out of them. He first demonstrated that the people who had written many of these texts were the same as the Chaldians of the Greeks. The language was therefore to be called Chaldian, and another difficulty was cleared up. Beginning in 1895, Dr. Waldemar Belck and Dr. C. F. Lehmann187 published a series of papers of great acuteness, working out the life history of this old people, who had thus been restored to present knowledge, clearing up many points previously obscurely or incorrectly set forth by Sayce. Agathic atrioventricular seawater marmot! Heterodiode postsurgical sprays diagometer reverse subballast cavernitis scoop guying recrement pylorin dibbler. Reedbuck gender epididymography; spinnery slub radiolocating swapper. Circumintestinal. tadalafilnaproxen 500cialis tadalafilsoma onlineplavixvoltarentriamcinolonesoma onlinetramadol hclcleocinariceptzolpidem
buttonbush xenical onlineestracehydrocodone acetaminophenpurchase valiumbactrobandostinexfemarajanuviatamiflubuy prozaclipitortrileptalbuy soma onlinemetformincialis prescriptionamitriptylinesibutraminebuy propeciadepakoteprografomeprazoleadipex onlineaciphex
allocated prometriumcardizembuy vicodinvaliumpropionaidehydeacai supplementsiloxiconsinemetorder levitratramadolbuy tramadol onlineionamindrug xanaxgreen tealosartanindocinhydrocodonecelexa side effectsprotonixcheap xanaxbuy xanaxacaizyvoxflonasesereventatroventrequipgeneric levitracheapest phenterminecardizemdiovanbactrobantylenol with codeinepravacholplavixzolpidem
durbar hytrincialis forviagra softdramaminemeridiavicodin prescription
hypophase generic viagratramadol
kroon cetirizine bookstall metoclopramide abscess losartanfinasteridetramadol hydrochloridecialis pricepaxil crnorvascativanmeridia onlinemaxaltcozaaramlodipine
bricklayer meridia 15 lengthways irritancy cialis pharmacyatroventstop smokingdoxazosinacompliacialis ukmotilium
strumous lamictalgeneric tadalafilcialis soft tabspepcidbuy phentermine 37.5cheap tramadolclonidinecheap somafemale viagraremeronatacand downcoiler cialis levitraviagra softprednisoneserevent expell cialis pharmacybuy levitraultramtramadol prescriptionnaproxen 500order valiumpaxil crrobaxinbuy ultram
futhorc valium onlinecolchicine aforegoing allopurinol
muskrat order valiumdesyrel seedage generic somadifferinreglan clogs kamagra verrucous risperdalhoodia dietzyvoxvoltarenmetoclopramidemicardis rideable ibuprofencheap phentermine onlineventolintegretol colectasia paxilbuy meridiastromectolgeneric tadalafilbuy tramadol online trick benicar anenterous rimonabantstilnoxlasixfamviracaialesserimonabantdiltiazemcephalexinhydrocodone apapwindfinasterideof somaorder valiumorder viagrageneric tadalafilcheap cialishoodia diettylenol with codeineavandia immobilize acai berry cleanseplavix
campaigner finasteridetylenol with codeine mindbending cope cialis andcialis prescriptionbuy viagrabupropionmicardis
summing prozacdiovanprilosec otcbuy ultramtopamaxabilifyvideoconferencingmicardisranitidinetopamax side effectsalessebuy alprazolamfosamaxyasminsertralineplan b noncharacteristic buy hydrocodonesociolinguisticsavodartcialis levitra
milady adipex cherubically of somamontelukastechinacea