132 EULOGY ON THOMAS YOUNG. 



Kepler, Borelli, Hooke, and Wren appeared in tlie history of universal 

 gTavitation. 



Note. — We liave here put before onr readers the literal version of 

 Arago's statement respecting- the claims of Young in regard to the dis- 

 covery of the principle of interpreting the Egyi)tian hieroglyphics. 

 Arago's representations have been, as is well known, greatly called in 

 question. And thougli he throughout speaks in a tone of marke<l 

 courtesy and candor toward Young, yet it is clear that he espouses the 

 cause of Champollion with an ardor which many, in this country, believe 

 has, in some degree, blinded him to the truth of the case. At any rate, 

 in the vivid and highly-colored sketch here presented by M. Arago, the 

 reader may need some caution in discriminating the fair share of merit 

 which may be claimed by the respective parties engfaged in the inquiry. 

 The author's national partialities may very naturally have had some influ- 

 ence in biasing his judgment. It is impossible here to enter on details 

 of controversy. But both as to the actual amount and accuracy of Dr. 

 Young's investigations and the relative claims of M. Champollion, the 

 reader may find it desirable to refer to the extended discussion of the 

 subject given in Dr. Peacock's Life of Young. Without the pretension, 

 or indeed the possibility, of adequately going into this question within 

 the limits of such a commentary as can be here given, we shall content 

 ourselves with pointing out to the notice of our readers a few of those 

 passages in that work in which Dr. Young's claims are powerfully vin- 

 dicated. The conclusions turn out such a variety of points of details 

 that it would be wholly impracticable to attempt any analysis of them 

 in this place. But the result tends to assign a considerably larger share 

 of credit in the discovery to Dr. Young than Arago seems disposed to 

 allow him. Dr. Peacock's able and elaborate work is doubtless in the 

 hands of all those who take any interest in a question so important to 

 the a<lvauce of philological and ethnological science as well as to gen- 

 eral literature. Yet a slight sketch of the chief points referred to may 

 not be useless. 



We may first mention that Dr. Yonng's article " Egypt," in the Sup- 

 plement to the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1819, contains the 

 most comprehensive survey of his labors and conclusions on the subject 

 of hierogl^^phic literature up to that date. It does not i)rofess to go into 

 those minutiae of critical detail, for which reference must be made to 

 his numerous other writings on the subject ; but as a general and popu- 

 lar view it will always be consulted with advantage. Nevertheless, the 

 reader must always bear in mind that in the statements just given much 

 had to be revised, or even reversed, from the improved disclosures of 

 his later researches. 



Dr. Peacock has alluded but briefly to the views of Arago, and toward 

 the conclusion of the chapter sums up the representation of the case as 

 given in the elogc, remarking only that the whole of his j)revious state- 

 ments constitute the refutation of it. 



The following extract will show the main claims of Young, insisted on 

 by his biographer : 



"It was Dr. Young who first determined, and by no easy process, that 

 the rings* on the Ilosetta stone contained the name of Ptolemy. It 

 ■was Dr. Young who determined that the semicircle and oval, found at 

 the end of the second ring, in connection with the former, was expressive 

 of the feminine gender 5 and it was Dr. Y^oung who had not only first 



* Certain portions of the hieroglypliical characters are found surrounded by a ring 

 •or inclosurc called by the French cartouches. 



