EULOGY 0\ THOMAS YOUNG. 133 



suggested that the characters in the ring of Ptolemy were phonetic, but 

 had determined, with one very unimportant inaccuracy, the vahies ot 

 four of those which were common to the name of Cleopatra, which were 

 required to be analyzed. All the principles involved in the discovery 

 of an jili»hahet of i)honetic hieroglyphics were uot only distinctly laid 

 down but fully exemplified by him ; and it only required the further 

 identification of one or two royal names with the rings, which expressed 

 them in hieroglyphics, to extend the alphabet already known sufficiently 

 to bring eveu uames which were uot already identified under its opera- 

 tion." 



Dr. Peacock states that Champollion and Young, while engaged sim- 

 ultaneously in the prosecutiou of the researches connected with these 

 points, in some instauces had opportunities of personal communication 

 with each other. But Champollion enjoyed especial advantages from 

 circumstances which placed some of the papyri in his i)ossession, and 

 thus enabled him to take i»recedence, in the publication of results ; 

 while his competitor, if he had enjoyed the same facilities, would, no 

 doubt, have been equally competent to perceive tlie force of the new 

 evidence thus adduced, and equally ready to make use of it, even if set- 

 ting aside some of his earlier inferences and conjectures. 



Dr. Peacock, after reflecting with much severity on Champollion, ex- 

 presses his regret to find so eminent a writer as Chevalier Bunseu^ 

 whose remarks are quoted before, (p. 311,) " supporting, by the weight 

 of his authoritv, some of the grossest of these misrepresentations," (p. 

 337.) 



Dr. Young displayed singular modesty and forbearance in his contro- 

 versy with Champollion, treating him throughout with all the respect 

 due to his acknowledged eminence, and while mildly reproaching him 

 with omitting to give him the due credit for his own share in the re- 

 search, yet in no way insinuating that any discreditable motive led to 

 the omission. Dr. Peacock, however, thinks a far more stringent tone 

 of criticism might have fairly applied ; he takes up tlie cause of Young 

 with a less scrupulous zeal, and, though with perfect good temper, yet 

 with deeply damaging force of argument and statement of facts, ex- 

 l)oses the ver^" unjustifiable nature of Champollion's assumptions, and 

 vindicates the claims of Young to his fair and important share in these 

 discoveries. He dwells on the tone of assumption in which Champollion 

 presents himself to his readers as in exclusive possession of a province 

 of which he had long since been the sole conqueror, and regards every 

 question raised as to his exclusive rights as an unjustifiable attack to be 

 resented and repelled, while he studiously suppresses the dates of the 

 successive stages of the discovery, and thus attacks Young on the as- 

 sertions made on imperfect knowledge in the earlier stages of his in- 

 vestigations with the aid of all his own accumulated information ac- 

 quired subsequently', a proceeding the iniquity of which needs only 

 stating to stand exposed. As instances of this, it is mentioned that 

 Young, in 1816, on the strength of comparatively imperfect information 

 then acquired, made some representations respecting the enchorial char 

 acters in the Eosetta inscription, and their relation to those employed 

 in the funeral rolls. These Champollion criticises and exposes without 

 reserve from the more full knowledge he had obtained in 1824, entirely 

 passing over Young's own later statement on the same subject, correct- 

 ing his former views, and from which even Dr. Peacock considers Cham- 

 pollion himself probably derived a large portion of his own knowledge ol 

 the subject. Dr. Peacock has collected in one point of view ChamiJol- 

 lion's main assertions as representing the state of the case. But he has 



