Rawlinson, whom they accused of deliberately with- holding his copies for personal and selfish motives. It would be difficult, however, to mention anyone who was at that time at all likely to profit l)y their posses- sion. The special qualificatioiis of a decnpherer are by no means common, and M. de Saulcy at least gave decisive proof that he did not possess them. M. Oppert, on the other hand, was still absorbed in the Persian and Median versions. Hut these gentlemen, and those who then shared their feelhigs, write as though Major Eaw- linson had appropriated the rock of Behistun as well as the copy of the inscription that covered it.* They seem to forget that if they were prepared to undergo the same sacrifice and overcome the same difficulties, they could in a few weeks procure copies for themselves. What would have been more natural than to give the connnission to M. Flandin, whose enterprise in such nuitters had alreadv Ijeen so cons])icu()Uslv illustrated? Notlung, however, could be farther from their inten- tions. They had no iiotion of forewin^ the luxury of feelinir at>i>rieved with theEni>lish soldier whose ener<rv% like his genius, so far out-soared their own. Ilawlinson was, we submit, fully justified in the course he adopted. He had obtained liis co^a' at great personal sacrifice ; no one in Europe was so qualified to accomplisli the task of deciplierment as himself, and the eighteen months he devoted to the task was not excessive. The sub- sequent delay in pul)lication was incident to the nature of the work itself, for which he was not responsible.
lie, however, lost no time in placing the general results at which he had arrived before the public. On
^ Thus LiAvenstern, writing in 1847, before the third column was taken, says : * Kawlinson a, durant nombre d'annees, interdit au public savant la vue des tresors dont il s etait reserve de faire un usage si utile i\ sa gloire.' — EdpnSi'j p. 10.
