Saulcy, for the reason that his transliteration of the Behistun inscription was accomplished before he left Ba<rcla(l in October 1849,^ and therefore before it was possible for liini to receive even the earliest of De Sanlcy's pamphlets. Menant afterwards concedes that Rawlinson's work on the Obelisk proves preliminarv labours which lie graciously admits may justly claim to be independent.- Xor is it true, as Menant says, that 'it was l)y following I)e Saulcy's steps that all later progress has been accomplished.' •^ The precise opjx)- site approaches more nearly to the truth. It was by abandoning the alphabetical system, to which De Saulcy cluiiLi' with stranu't* jXM-tinacitv to the last, that all later ])rogress was in reality accomplished; and two months after these pamplilets wei'e wi'itten this was precisely wh;it was done by Ilincks with unmistnkable perspi- cuity in the A})pendix to his Khorsabad Essay.
The two tracts of De Saulcy, written in 1849, gave the transliteration according to his peculiar system of the whole of the Achaemenian inscriptions accessible to him. The t(^xt of the Behistun inscrij)tion had not, of course, escaped as yet from the jealous hands of the English Major. The translation of these inscriptions was comi)arativelv easv, for it was onlv necessary to follow the Persian version, which was already known. De Saulcv may therefore claim to be the first who ac- complished this task, which neither Ilincks nor Eawlin- son thouii'ht necessary to attempt. But De Saulcy did not rest satisfied with this achievement. On February 3, 18-")(), he published a transliteration of ninety-six lines • of the inscription engraved upon the bulls at the entrance to Khorsabad ; and he accompanied it by a
^ Memoir by Canon Uawlinson, p. ir>!>. - Mt'nant, p. 151.
^ lb. p. 14t5. Fi>r an even more enthusiastic appreciation of his services si'C p. 148.
D D
