[301] Year VIII (1803), v. 438. De Sacy’s essay is accompanied by a plate giving the text, transliteration and translation of the B and G inscriptions of Niebuhr.
[302] Vols. iv. and v.
[303] Historische Werke, xi. 325. We have used the edition of 1824 as the more accessible. On comparing it with the earlier edition of 1815, we have not found any difference of importance. Both editions contain the same two plates. No. 1 is taken from De Sacy, as above, and edited by Tychsen. It gives Grotefend’s alphabet exactly as it subsequently appeared, but without the later emendations of the sr and k, together with the long list of defective signs. At the bottom is a transliteration of the Xerxes inscription (G). No. 2 is by Grotefend. It gives the cuneiform text in the three species of writing of the inscriptions of Xerxes and Cyrus, and that on the Caylus Vase, with the translation. The three columns are divided so as to show the words of each species that correspond to one another. Kaulen says Grotefend’s essay appeared in the second edition of 1805 (Assyrien und Babylonien, 1899, p. 126). Weisbach says its first appearance was in 1815 (Achämenideninschriften Zweiter Art, 1890, p. 3). We have not found the second edition in the British Museum.
[304] De Sacy, Mémoires sur diverses Antiquités, Paris, 1793. It is given by Heeren (Eng. ed.), vol. ii. App. 2, p. 332.
[305] 𐎲 was assumed to be the same as the 𐎼 r in ‘Darius.’
[306] The true Zend spelling is ‘khchayo’; the ‘h’ before ‘y’ expressed in cuneiform is understood in Zend. Burnouf (Eugène), Mémoire sur deux Inscriptions (1836), p. 76.
[307] Millin, Year VIII, v. 461.
[308] Ib. p. 462.
[309] Cf. Grotefend’s own account of how he heard of bun. Heeren (Eng. ed.), ii. 337.
[310] It seems to have been completed by the time he wrote the tract on the Zend alphabet, which is reviewed in Millin, Year VIII, vi. 96 (1803).